Yepp - the are.
Now - if something I wrote indicated that - then I was not clear enough. 3 CCD cameras are videly used for video - so they cannot be inferior in general.
The reason for the better quality when having 3 sensors for video is that you can have higher resolution. Higher resolution does not equal better color.
Thats very good for scientific pictures - but for photography you need non steep filters, because you need to emulate how the eye works.
Not really - it is the same amount of memory as Foveon. You get about three times the amount of data with about 3 times the area resolution.
That doesn't makes sense, as TV cameras don't even record in RGB (unlike still cameras).
Most professional and some consumer cams are 3CCD, but single chip Bayer solutions are looking better every day.
Not to mention the nasty optical block artifacts (watch Colleteral on the big screen and see!).
The Panavision camera is designed with existing 35mm lenses in mind, a 3CCD solution would have been optically complex and consequently expensive or poor.
But it IS - look for yourself at Sony's smaller camcorder designs.
They're starting to hit this. DV resolution is about 500 lines, so the 2MP sensor models are hitting the bottom of this range, and the 3MP sensor models are in the middle.
You are wrong, but that's not worst you're doing here. You think you don't even need to read reviews. That's what sometimes called willful ignorance. To make matters worse, you are stating these ignorant things with an entirely unwarranted tone of certainty that could confuse people who don't know better.
See my comments above on this.
Color for 3CCD videocameras is at least as good as the lower end single CCD models. For example, people upgrading from single CCD models to the TRV-900 commented on the improved color fidelity. I've never heard anybody who has actually used the cameras or seen the images claim that the 3CCD models have worse color.
Shame on you for this dishonest represntation of the discussion!
Now - name calling is not becoming.
You have taken that answer out of the context. No matter how many times I have told you exactly what I meant - you still go on and on and on at try to prove that I meant something else than I did. Don't you think that I myself knows best what I meant?
Sorry - I do not understand what you are trying to say.
Whoa ... you write much ... and compact
I'm not calling you names; I'm describing a behavior which I have found quite irritating.
I don't think the context changes anything. I was making the point that in practice 3CCD solutions work quite well for lower resolution devices. (Note that mentioned the alignment issue myself earlier on, so I'm not arguing about the alignment difficulties.)
This is about a single dichroic filter. Not about a beam splitter. With a dichroic filter, it is very easy to pass and block light selectively. But when you require two, three, or more outputs, they cannot overlap.
True. But it is impossible to allow overlap. Regardless of how steep cutoff is, no overlap can occur. It is natural in dye filters, such as in Bayer colour masks, where a green pixel allows some of the light blue and red pixels let in, a blue pixel admits only blue light and some of green, but the red pixel not only lets in red light, but also has some overlap in the blue range to detect violet (red is captured by R pixels alone, orange with R and some G, yellow with R ang G, green with G, cyan with G and B, blue with B and R, and violet with B only). This is what allows very good colour accuracy. With dichroic filters you work with single bands, and there is no overlap possible for boundaries and they are very susceptible to metamerism.
Yeah, yeah, desired slopes overlap, and with a dichroic filter you are unable to avoid that.
