Which begs the suspicious question I have always had, why would an ecosystem be formed around using CMOS for video capturing when the rolling shutter issue and the high noise was known from the start. This coincides with PRO CMOS sensors not having this issue while the consumer side is opposite of that. Seems like someone wanted to remove the old DV cameres with CCD's out of the market so we would get stuck with inferior technology. We lost DV cameras back in the early 2000's because some cameras had the ability to record S-video and CBS into the camera and recorded as DV, which would then be transferred to your computer with firewire. Hollywood hated these features in DV cameras, so much so that they forced all companies to remove the inputs on DV cameras. I still have my old JCV GRD 8 series DV camera that had no noise at night using only it's built in light. We lost CCD technology which did not have the pathetic noise problems of CMOS because the PRO market want to eliminate the entrance of "Amateurs" intro the pro level world. This is why DVCPRO was never marketed to the consumer level even though we were already using the DV codec!!!.
Wow, slow down. There have been quite a lot of quite pro-level cameras able to shoot FHD that were doing fine with CCD's (JVC GY-HM100, GY-HM150, JVC GY-HM750). I own two of the mentioned cameras. I do understand your complain though: CMOS is fine for basic interview and documentary work, but it sure as hell is not the right choice for fast moving objects and especially (for a weather-enthusiast like me) lightning. CCD's survived well into the zeroes. For the rest I think you're trying to find conspiracies that aren't there.
@@weeardguy Well there is no conspiracy it was based on facts with the “screeners” that were showing up on the net from Asian cineplexes using these DV cameras. Dvcpro is still being used by the news crews, it’s not like this tech died it was pulled out of the consumer side. Don’t you remember the P2 card fiasco once someone opened one and was shocked by what they found inside notice it was abandoned right away as copy cat P2 cards would be released lol.
@@danfuerthgillis4483 miniDV, DV and DVCAM (DVCPRO has never really made it here in the Netherlands (maybe even Europe) as far as I know and it sure as hell is not used anymore here if it was) just all had it's own share of users, with DV and DVCAM just being for the professional market and miniDV for consumers. No, I don't know the P2 card fiasco.
Cost to produce, probably. CMOS is also the technology used to produce integrated circuits, so there's a large amount of capital investment in them - both in terms of knowledge base and in terms of available manufacturing equipment. They also use less power than CCD's, which makes them attractive for applications like smartphone cameras.
Still thinking about getting a medium format ccd camera for night scapes and Astro. There's a quite a few that can be had used for a decent price that will out perform almost anything modern in certain fields
Failed to add that CMOS records each line of the image in succession, which is what causes the rolling shutter effect. Also, CCD / global shutter takes a complete snapshot of the image across the entire sensor.
@@merlynbluhm220 Yeah, but unfortunately, hardly any manufacturer still uses them in their cameras. If I could buy a JVC GY-HM200 with a CMOS-sensor and I could buy the same machine with a CCD but it would cost me 500-1000 more, I'd still buy the CCD-version. CMOS just sucks.
Is there a way to collect the individual photon detection events paired up with timestamps using CCD or CMOS sensors? It seems like regular video formats fail to capture all the raw data detectable with those chips because it only represents totals grouped by frame. For example, a conventional video file would indicate the total counted red photons for a 1/60 of a second time interval at pixel 0, 0. A continuous stream of precisely timestamped photons, their coordinates, and colour would be much more flexible. It would be easier to choose a frame rate later, for example.
But you need a framerate to at least know WHEN to read-out the sensor. Besides that, you can't just pick a framerate later, because you will need to pick a shutterspeed.
@@weeardguy opening and closing mechanical shutters isn't necessary for digital cameras already. That's for film that needs to move from 1 frame to the next and could get a smearing or motion blur trail if it kept getting exposed as it moved. Since the CCD doesn't physically move from one frame to another unlike film that physically moves, there is no need to ever stop collecting the light. If you want the flexibility to choose a frame rate later, you could always capture at the highest possible frame rate and blend frames or interlace them later but it wouldn't produce as much quality as the continuously timed photon detection event set I was asking about before. A continuous set of points would take far more space than conventional image frames or video but might be suitable as a master copy to process heavily and compress later.
@@IARRCSim Well, if it isn't necessary, I don't think Panasonic would have bothered putting a mechanical shutter in their GH5 (and probably other cameras from the GH-line as well). But it's there, and fortunately, it is there, because I otherwise have to put up with CMOS-skewing in pictures as well. It's bad enough for video already (which by the way, don't feature mechanical shutters for years already anymore... everythings an electronic shutter by now)
@@weeardguy you think mechanical shutter is needed to take pictures while also pointing out that video is recorded without one. Web cameras mostly don't have mechanical shutters and they work well enough too. Your GH5 is a pretty expensive camera and wouldn't be worth its price if it had nothing more than the minimum features to take an image or video. I don't have a GH5 but eng-ca.faq.panasonic.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/49532/p/7/c/71114/related/1 documents a feature on GH5S where you choose either an electronic or mechanical shutter. If you have a choice to go with an electronic shutter, it is funny to imagine the GH5 just setting you up for failure. If the electronic shutter always destroys the image, why would the GH5 let you choose that?
Usually, they do. My JVC GY-HM100 has 3 CCDs of 1/2.3 inch. My JVC GY-HM200 has only 1 1/2.3 CMOS, but as the resolution has increased 4 times, I get the feeling it's not as sharp as the 100...
can't believe I compare the photo quality of my xz premium and my 10 years ago canon s95 ccd camera. the quality of s95 is way better and the photo has much more detail.
dude theyve stopped using ccd chips in general manufacturing because cmos are cheaper to make, if companies were making full frame ccd chips today at the level and intensity that they manufacture cmos ones, we'd see cmos as complete crap, but companies figured this out decades ago when cmos sensors first came around.
@@RareDay No, they stopped using CCD because most likely demand more or less is higher (read: they can make more money) AND for most users, the advantages of CMOS weigh up to the disadvantages. But if you are taking lightning videos or like to take videos of fast moving trains/other fast moving objects like me, CMOS just sucks. CCD's have been produced in 1/3, 1/2 and 2/3 inch in masses, as those were (are) the standards in videotechnology. Professional cameras used 3 of them (one for each color) so the numbers quickly go up. CMOS most likely only became such a thing because of digital photography and all those idiots that started filming with their photography equipment. CCD's have been thé sensor in videocameras for decades.
So CCD is superior, my old camera used CCD, i have upgraded to DSLR (wich is "superior") so Canon and Nikon DSLR , who every pro photographers use and Sony, have CMOS sensor..so wait!!! I'm amzed .. the best Cameras in the world Nikon D850 and Canon 5D mk3 uses CMOS ... wtf :)):)):)): isn't this contradictory?? omg :))
No, don't forget that for photography, things are totally different. CCD's are (in my opinion) the better choice for any VIDEOcamera as they don't feature the rolling shutter problem, where CMOS is fine for (usually) capturing still images. Though rolling shutter is also a problem in photography, it's not only easier to counter-act by processors in the camera (by either stacked CMOS technology or just correcting the data by AI or so) but usually also less of an issue. Photocameras usually have a mechanic shutter, which eliminates the rolling shutter. It's not until you start using the electronic shutter it becomes a problem. For videocameras, I consider the CCD to be superior.
Simple and well explained. Thanks so much!
this actually taught me something, thank you
Which begs the suspicious question I have always had, why would an ecosystem be formed around using CMOS for video capturing when the rolling shutter issue and the high noise was known from the start. This coincides with PRO CMOS sensors not having this issue while the consumer side is opposite of that. Seems like someone wanted to remove the old DV cameres with CCD's out of the market so we would get stuck with inferior technology. We lost DV cameras back in the early 2000's because some cameras had the ability to record S-video and CBS into the camera and recorded as DV, which would then be transferred to your computer with firewire. Hollywood hated these features in DV cameras, so much so that they forced all companies to remove the inputs on DV cameras. I still have my old JCV GRD 8 series DV camera that had no noise at night using only it's built in light. We lost CCD technology which did not have the pathetic noise problems of CMOS because the PRO market want to eliminate the entrance of "Amateurs" intro the pro level world. This is why DVCPRO was never marketed to the consumer level even though we were already using the DV codec!!!.
Wow, slow down. There have been quite a lot of quite pro-level cameras able to shoot FHD that were doing fine with CCD's (JVC GY-HM100, GY-HM150, JVC GY-HM750). I own two of the mentioned cameras. I do understand your complain though: CMOS is fine for basic interview and documentary work, but it sure as hell is not the right choice for fast moving objects and especially (for a weather-enthusiast like me) lightning.
CCD's survived well into the zeroes.
For the rest I think you're trying to find conspiracies that aren't there.
@@weeardguy Well there is no conspiracy it was based on facts with the “screeners” that were showing up on the net from Asian cineplexes using these DV cameras. Dvcpro is still being used by the news crews, it’s not like this tech died it was pulled out of the consumer side. Don’t you remember the P2 card fiasco once someone opened one and was shocked by what they found inside notice it was abandoned right away as copy cat P2 cards would be released lol.
@@danfuerthgillis4483 miniDV, DV and DVCAM (DVCPRO has never really made it here in the Netherlands (maybe even Europe) as far as I know and it sure as hell is not used anymore here if it was) just all had it's own share of users, with DV and DVCAM just being for the professional market and miniDV for consumers.
No, I don't know the P2 card fiasco.
Cost to produce, probably. CMOS is also the technology used to produce integrated circuits, so there's a large amount of capital investment in them - both in terms of knowledge base and in terms of available manufacturing equipment. They also use less power than CCD's, which makes them attractive for applications like smartphone cameras.
real useful thanks for this
Still thinking about getting a medium format ccd camera for night scapes and Astro. There's a quite a few that can be had used for a decent price that will out perform almost anything modern in certain fields
Failed to add that CMOS records each line of the image in succession, which is what causes the rolling shutter effect. Also, CCD / global shutter takes a complete snapshot of the image across the entire sensor.
There are global shutter CMOS sensors... onsemi xgs for example
Isnt it the other way around? CMOS per pixel, CCD per line?
@@chazefez9625 Nope, it wasnt explained quite accurate in the video.
yes
@@merlynbluhm220 Yeah, but unfortunately, hardly any manufacturer still uses them in their cameras. If I could buy a JVC GY-HM200 with a CMOS-sensor and I could buy the same machine with a CCD but it would cost me 500-1000 more, I'd still buy the CCD-version. CMOS just sucks.
Hello
Can we find out the image movent distance though ccd
thank you .
Hi useful information
Thanks!
Hi, CAn yuo let us know what program you used to create this video? image is very good!!!
A little bit, but did you get an answer?
Is there a way to collect the individual photon detection events paired up with timestamps using CCD or CMOS sensors? It seems like regular video formats fail to capture all the raw data detectable with those chips because it only represents totals grouped by frame. For example, a conventional video file would indicate the total counted red photons for a 1/60 of a second time interval at pixel 0, 0. A continuous stream of precisely timestamped photons, their coordinates, and colour would be much more flexible. It would be easier to choose a frame rate later, for example.
But you need a framerate to at least know WHEN to read-out the sensor. Besides that, you can't just pick a framerate later, because you will need to pick a shutterspeed.
@@weeardguy opening and closing mechanical shutters isn't necessary for digital cameras already. That's for film that needs to move from 1 frame to the next and could get a smearing or motion blur trail if it kept getting exposed as it moved. Since the CCD doesn't physically move from one frame to another unlike film that physically moves, there is no need to ever stop collecting the light.
If you want the flexibility to choose a frame rate later, you could always capture at the highest possible frame rate and blend frames or interlace them later but it wouldn't produce as much quality as the continuously timed photon detection event set I was asking about before. A continuous set of points would take far more space than conventional image frames or video but might be suitable as a master copy to process heavily and compress later.
@@IARRCSim Well, if it isn't necessary, I don't think Panasonic would have bothered putting a mechanical shutter in their GH5 (and probably other cameras from the GH-line as well). But it's there, and fortunately, it is there, because I otherwise have to put up with CMOS-skewing in pictures as well. It's bad enough for video already (which by the way, don't feature mechanical shutters for years already anymore... everythings an electronic shutter by now)
@@weeardguy you think mechanical shutter is needed to take pictures while also pointing out that video is recorded without one. Web cameras mostly don't have mechanical shutters and they work well enough too.
Your GH5 is a pretty expensive camera and wouldn't be worth its price if it had nothing more than the minimum features to take an image or video.
I don't have a GH5 but eng-ca.faq.panasonic.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/49532/p/7/c/71114/related/1 documents a feature on GH5S where you choose either an electronic or mechanical shutter. If you have a choice to go with an electronic shutter, it is funny to imagine the GH5 just setting you up for failure. If the electronic shutter always destroys the image, why would the GH5 let you choose that?
Hi, do 3 smaller sensors like 1/2.8 look better than 1 larger 1 inch?
Usually, they do. My JVC GY-HM100 has 3 CCDs of 1/2.3 inch. My JVC GY-HM200 has only 1 1/2.3 CMOS, but as the resolution has increased 4 times, I get the feeling it's not as sharp as the 100...
can't believe I compare the photo quality of my xz premium and my 10 years ago canon s95 ccd camera. the quality of s95 is way better and the photo has much more detail.
Long live CCD.
CCD use to be better
Wideo!
You have
All DSLR Cameras Use CMOS
Love Kush no older ones use ccd
You should be from india 😂😂😂
CMOS is cheap garbage. For good image quality you need more sensitive CCD.
Gediminas Jesinas thanks for explaining the entire video into a short sentence 😂😂
dude theyve stopped using ccd chips in general manufacturing because cmos are cheaper to make, if companies were making full frame ccd chips today at the level and intensity that they manufacture cmos ones, we'd see cmos as complete crap, but companies figured this out decades ago when cmos sensors first came around.
How?
@@RareDay No, they stopped using CCD because most likely demand more or less is higher (read: they can make more money) AND for most users, the advantages of CMOS weigh up to the disadvantages. But if you are taking lightning videos or like to take videos of fast moving trains/other fast moving objects like me, CMOS just sucks.
CCD's have been produced in 1/3, 1/2 and 2/3 inch in masses, as those were (are) the standards in videotechnology. Professional cameras used 3 of them (one for each color) so the numbers quickly go up.
CMOS most likely only became such a thing because of digital photography and all those idiots that started filming with their photography equipment.
CCD's have been thé sensor in videocameras for decades.
So CCD is superior, my old camera used CCD, i have upgraded to DSLR (wich is "superior") so Canon and Nikon DSLR , who every pro photographers use and Sony, have CMOS sensor..so wait!!! I'm amzed .. the best Cameras in the world Nikon D850 and Canon 5D mk3 uses CMOS ... wtf :)):)):)): isn't this contradictory?? omg :))
No, don't forget that for photography, things are totally different. CCD's are (in my opinion) the better choice for any VIDEOcamera as they don't feature the rolling shutter problem, where CMOS is fine for (usually) capturing still images. Though rolling shutter is also a problem in photography, it's not only easier to counter-act by processors in the camera (by either stacked CMOS technology or just correcting the data by AI or so) but usually also less of an issue.
Photocameras usually have a mechanic shutter, which eliminates the rolling shutter. It's not until you start using the electronic shutter it becomes a problem. For videocameras, I consider the CCD to be superior.