2011 Camera Predictions by Thom Hogan

2011 Predictions by Thom Hogan.

Having just returned from the 2011 CES, I find myself in general agreement with his predictions. I also see he has a Spokane, Wa connection; didn’t realize that.

Worth reading what Thom has to say – whether you agree or disagree. My sense from CES is that Sony and Panasonic are mostly heading in the right direction in the future, except for Panasonic closing off the hacking door on the GH-1. Very, very dumb move. I wish the camera makers would have their DSLR staff talk more with their video staff. They make great new DSLRs but leave out things like on screen zebras, audio level controls, or auto focus lenses – or if they have them, the focusing mechanism is noisy, which doesn’t work in audio/video!

And no one seems to have a DSLR with video that also includes a simple headphone audio output – monitoring your audio is usually pretty critical!

Canon, Nikon and the traditional camera makers seem bent on ever more pixel resolutions – although most camera makers are now acknowledging the need for better low light performance. Low light and super high resolution imagers are generally at odds with one another.

Canon introduces new “low light” camcorders

Canon today introduced a new high end consumer camcorder line that features 1/3 sq in CMOS sensors – but having only 1920×1080 resolution. Rather than the typical gigapixel sensors being put into many consumer camcorders or still cameras, they have opted to go with a larger sensor having fewer pixels. This means each pixel’s surface area is larger and can capture more light. That in turn means the new cameras will work much better in low light and have greater dynamic range.

Looks like the new cameras also shoot 24p, in addition to 30p (wrapped inside a 60i stream) and 60i.

More information here – watch the Canon video explanation.

CMOS versus CCD video imaging and the “Rolling Shutter” problem

Older video cameras used CCD-based image sensors. For various reasons, that I will explain in a moment, camera makers have largely switched to using CMOS-based image sensors on low end and even some low end semi-pro video cameras (like the Panasonic HMC-40). All of the new digital SLRs (DSLR) still cameras that also shoot video using high resolution CMOS sensors too.

But there’s a nasty problem with CMOS-based sensors that can cause the video image to resemble a shaky bowl of jello, as illustrated in this video comparison between the Canon HV20 (CMOS-based) and the Panasonic SD5 (CCD-based):

The problem is that the CMOS image sensor is read “line by line” from top to bottom.  If the image changes during the read out, then one line may be slightly offset or shifted from the previous line.  This is known as a “rolling shutter” and creates the peculiar “jello effect” since not all lines (or rows) in the image are lined up with all the others.

Old movie film cameras used a physical shutter that open and shut exposing an entire frame all at once. (Although, there are some issues with that too which we can ignore for now.)

CMOS reads the image row by row while CCDs read the entire image all at once and do not use a “rolling shutter” – hence, no jello on CCD cameras.

So why use CMOS instead of CCD? The basic reason is that CMOS uses less power and produces less heat and is less expensive. As image resolutions have increased, the size (and cost and power) of the CCD imager has gone up.

Camera makers, especially in the consumer market, are in an arms race to each have cameras featuring ever more pixels. This means most have switched to CMOS because, apparently, most consumers do not care about the jello or do not encounter it often enough.

In the DSLR world, most any camera with 10 or more megapixel resolution is CMOS. CMOS works great for most still photography. But when these DSLRs are used for video, they too suffer from awful “jello”.

There are other things to consider too – CCDs may show vertical streaks in photos when there are very bright lights (sun reflected on water, stage lights, etc) in the image.  For higher resolutions, CCDs need to be physically larger – and more expensive.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Guide to 3D and Drones

Coldstreams 3D and Drones