The hottest low-cost DV machine should not become

Low price DV machines should not become "easy to shoot"

first of all, we need to say that the price reduction of high-end household appliances, from "Wang Xietang Qianyan in the old days" to "flying into the homes of ordinary people", is a normal phenomenon for any product with reduced clamping force of household appliances. From the past, only wealthy tycoons can make it up to now, plasma TVs and LCD TVs are all in this situation, and DV is no exception

nevertheless, we are still surprised by the changes in the DV market. A large number of low-cost DV machines have poured into the market, and I will appear after you sing. Even Sony, which has always stood high and refused to condescend, could not withstand the impact and repeatedly launched low-cost machines. Panasonic and JVC, which have been fighting the market with medium and low price machines, are not willing to be outdone and are rubbing their hands. South Korea's Samsung is also ambitious, with a great momentum for latecomers. Canon also made a bold statement to be the leader in the DV machine market. The low-cost DV market has been full of flames. All heroes who can appear in this market have appeared one after another. It seems that we can see a good play

but wait a minute. How your manufacturers compete is your business. Whether our consumers can get their own satisfactory machines without spending wasted money is my own vital interest

first of all, we should say that the price reduction of high-end household appliances, from "Wang Xietang Qianyan in the old days" to "flying into the homes of ordinary people", is a normal phenomenon for any household appliances. From the past, only wealthy tycoons can make it up to now, plasma TVs and LCD TVs are all in this situation, and DV is no exception

nevertheless, we are still surprised by the changes in the DV market. A large number of low-cost DV machines have poured into the market, and I will appear after you sing. Even Sony, which has always stood high and refused to condescend, could not withstand the impact and repeatedly launched low-cost machines. Panasonic and JVC, which have been fighting the market with medium and low price machines, are not willing to be outdone and are rubbing their hands. South Korea's Samsung is also ambitious, with a great momentum for latecomers. Canon also made a bold statement to be the leader in the DV machine market. The low-cost DV market has been full of flames. All heroes who can appear in this market have appeared one after another. It seems that we can see a good play

but wait a minute. How your manufacturers compete is your business. Whether our consumers can get their own satisfactory machines without spending wasted money is my own vital interest

where is the low price machine

how about the low-cost DV machine and whether it can be recognized by consumers? We can analyze it:

first of all, where is it low? Many measures can reduce the production cost and selling price of small video cameras. For example: use small-size CCD; Small size LCD screen; Black and white image finder; Remove some functions and special effects; Reduce the number of interfaces; Greatly reduce the self operated adjustment buttons, and carry out a more "fool" design; Purchase and use cheap parts and reduce its grade and parameters; Strengthen the management of production links and minimize production costs; Seeking low-cost OEM manufacturers to carry out OEM production to reduce costs, etc. These measures can reduce the price of small video cameras, including manufacturers' active transfer of profits and the implementation of small profits but quick turnover

among many low-cost strategies, some are indifferent to consumers, especially the fact that manufacturers are willing to sell at a small profit is still very popular. But some are not indifferent, but indifferent. I'm afraid the author doesn't need to spend much time. Readers should be able to see which of the above measures will harm your interests

what I want to talk about next is very annoying. Who do you say is bad and who doesn't hurry with you? However, if writing an article does not involve specific issues, consumers will be in a fog. Therefore, although it may cause some blindness, we still need to point out the problem

first of all, the size of CCD used in some low-cost machines is too small. As we know, CCD is a very important part of small video camera. Many important technical parameters in small video cameras depend on the quality of CCD. Including the lens specification and size used by it, they are also subject to the size of CCD. The concept of pixel in CCD is completely different from that in TV, computer display, pictures and other objects. Each pixel of it is an independent image sensor, which ensures that the wire is on the zigzag center line to complete the conversion from optical signal to electrical signal

please remember the following key factors that affect the image quality of CCD: the number of pieces of CCD, the size of CCD, the number of pixels, the size of unit pixel, transmission mode, readout mode, and the filter color of CCD

when the size of CCD remains unchanged, the more the number of pixels, the smaller the size area of unit pixel, which is not a good thing at all, unless its number is obtained by interpolation algorithm, and the specific size manufacturer of each pixel will not be listed directly in the performance table, but we can calculate the experimental machine with the control characteristics of constant loading rate, constant strain rate and constant displacement rate. When making publicity, manufacturers will only focus on the number of pixels, take it as an important selling point, and hype how to use high-quality lenses from foreign famous manufacturers, etc., while understating the key issue of pixel size, which is misleading consumers to a certain extent. A camcorder with too small CCD can't turn the light menu setting into reverse display. It depends on the use of high-quality lenses to improve its quality

we know that the smaller the unit pixel area, the lower the photosensitivity, the lower the signal-to-noise ratio, and the narrower the dynamic range. These manufacturers will never adopt the method in the professional field, but in the field of civilian products: that is, do not increase the size of CCD, but reduce the unit pixel area and increase the pixel density, which will only cause the deterioration of image quality. In other words, small-size CCD camera is synonymous with low-end machine or low-cost machine. Anyone with a little common sense in this regard will understand this

this is also the reason why camcorders produced by all manufacturers, as long as they use large-size CCD machines, must be more expensive than small-size machines. For example, Canon XL-1 with 1/3 inch 3CCD is more expensive than XM-1 with 1/4 inch 3CCD, and Panasonic ag-dvc180 with 1/3 inch 3CCD is more expensive than ag-dvc33 with 1/4 inch 3CCD. Sony is the same. The DSR-PD150 or 190 with 1/3 inch 3CCD is definitely more expensive than the dsr-pd100 with 1/4 inch. Generally speaking, the price of 1/3 inch 3CCD machine is more than 20000 yuan, while the price of 1/4 inch 3CCD machine is only between 10000 and 20000 yuan. Why? The image quality is different. The machine with large-size CCD is not only expensive, but also has good image quality

of course, the small size of CCD does not mean that the image quality is poor. Many measures can be taken to improve the photosensitive effect of CCD. For example, the method of adding a microlens to the CCD can greatly improve its photosensitive effect without increasing the size of the CCD. Or arrange the CCD at a 45 ° angle into a honeycomb pattern, making it very close to the circle of the microlens, which can also absorb light more effectively. And back thinning technology. The question is: can these technologies used in professional machines be used in low-cost DV machines

the value of the standard focal length and the diameter of the lens used for shooting depend on the size of the CCD of the camera. And the different size will affect the image clarity. This is just a common sense problem in the field of Photography: that is, the influence of the size of the dispersion circle on the clarity. Therefore, the machine with three large-size CCD also means that it is a high-end machine. In fact, in the professional field, many people regard the 1/3 INCH CCD machine as a household machine, and explicitly prohibit its use in professional program production. The CCD size of professional machines is at least 1/2 inch. In fact, most of them are 2/3 inch machines

we are not saying that machines with small sizes, such as 1/6 INCH CCD, must have poor results. Under the sunny outdoor conditions, the image it takes is still satisfactory, which is determined by the working nature of CCD. However, in the case of poor indoor light, the difference between the image taken by it and that taken by a slightly larger machine is obvious. Therefore, I often remind consumers who buy small-size CCD machines to pay special attention to lighting up when the indoor light is poor. Fortunately, many small camcorders now have led lighting, which is very power-saving, so don't be stingy with its use anymore, but the lighting of a large area certainly can't rely on the built-in lights on the machine, so you still need to fill in the light. In addition, it is also hoped that manufacturers will consider more for consumers and increase the luminous aperture of CCD machine lens of large and small sizes as much as possible, so as to improve the image quality under low illumination conditions. For example, if the lens of f1.8 is changed to f1.6, or even larger, it can make up for its shortcomings

of course, there are many factors that affect the imaging quality of small cameras, not just CCD. We just take this example to analyze the impact of small-size CCD on the imaging quality

I often see or hear some consumers complain about "easy shooting" on the Internet, denouncing its poor quality. Of course, this quality refers to its image quality and some functions, not its durability. But I think it's fair to say for "Yipai": it's not that its quality is too poor, but that your expectations are too high. Is it too greedy for you to spend only a thousand yuan to provide the image quality of a real DV machine worth thousands of yuan? The camera is the camera. Its main task is to provide excellent moving images and realistic on-site simultaneous sound. Apart from this, everything is to ignore the essentials. Don't want it to be proficient in all 18 kinds of martial arts. The result of doing everything is that everything is sparse, and the result is nothing. Our requirements for low-cost small camera are very simple. We don't need it to have too many functions, as long as it can provide real DV quality images. To say that it should not become easy to shoot, it is only in terms of its image quality. In addition to image quality, there is also a whole machine quality problem. Low price machine, please don't be low quality