Propeller Distortion Explained: CCD vs CMOS Cameras 

I wish that was true. Many videocamera's, even the semi-professional ones, still feature the rolling shutter problem (unfortunately).

CMOSes are inferior.

@@blenderbachcgi ok dude, your religion is better than my religion 🤣

​@@techydude It's not religion. It's based on #1, personal experience, and #2, I have seen numerous videos online from CMOS and CCD Cameras. All of the CMOS cameras fall short. The CMOSes smudge very small details, crush the dynamic range to the point that shadows have no details anymore and overexposed bright spots have no details either, and to top it all off, they have terrible rolling shutter that makes the world turn into jelly, and the "Global Shutter" in CMOS sensors is very expensive and it's still not as good as a CCD due to a variety of other distortions, including sensor artifacting...

@@blenderbachcgi …and would one of those videos be this 10+ year old video? lol. CMOS ‘won’ in virtually all mainstream/consumer categories, and not just because they’re cheaper, but in the last 5 years, actually better.

Nonsense. On the right plane the propeller is broken. That's all.

Ernst Stavro Blofeld What can i say? ... maybe you are right!

Because companies want it cheap. That's why today's products are unreliable and cheap.

that solves the problem by only 60%

@@zohans8435 Make that 40% I can see the warp still...

nyquist

They will not. CMOS sensors are much better for camera. As they can provide cleaner signal.

+Dani Rico Both those are nothing to do with the sensor - everything else being equal you won't be able to see any difference if I showed you a shot from both sensor types

CMOS is better at being satisfiying than CCD. as CCD is better at recording reailty and field than CMOS

That’s to do with the camera, not the sensor type.

Sorry to be so off topic but does anyone know of a method to get back into an instagram account..? I stupidly forgot my account password. I love any tricks you can offer me!

@Roman Mark instablaster :)

@Emory Uriel thanks for your reply. I got to the site on google and Im trying it out atm. Takes quite some time so I will reply here later when my account password hopefully is recovered.

@Emory Uriel it worked and I finally got access to my account again. Im so happy:D Thanks so much, you really help me out :D

@Roman Mark you are welcome =)

It get slower. More light less exposition time. What happens is the blur gets more intensive and distributes more the color of the wipes to a point that you can't even see it.

jinxy150m Hello, I would appreciate your input on this forum thread where camera artifacts are being discussed concerning flying rods. www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread1201226/pg12#lastPost

Nope, the effect will remain, but as you go up in framerate, the shutterspeed increases as well, which means the sensor is read-out faster, thus making the effect more minimalistic. It however (sadly) won't disappear and an ND filter sure won't do a thing against it.

lol

I don't know GoPro's and such camera's well enough to know for sure, but the only thing I can think of is AE: Auto-Exposure. This automatically adjusts the shutter-speed to avoid the image being over-or underexposed (smartphones can tend to lower the framerate as well as they like when things get to dark in their opinion). Now when taking video at 30 fps with a shutterspeed of 1/60 (like it should be), the effect can be visible but maybe not all that bad. Here's where sampling starts to become a thing. Picture this: you set up a camera perpendicular to a road and your angle of view is chosen so you can basically only capture the car in total and nothing else. If you want to capture that car exactly in frame by taking just 4 pictures per second (your 'samplerate') chances are you'll never even capture it at all. Now you start taking 60 pictures per second: chances are you now stand a far batter chance of actually capturing it. Take even more pictures per second and you'll get close to the point you'll have a picture of the car totally in frame. But that's also the problem: you start to freeze an ever smaller moment in time and that's the same thing happening to the CMOS-sensor and a propeller: at a shutterspeed of 1/60th of a second, quite a large part of the propeller-blade will be caught by the line-by-line readout of the sensor. When you up the shutterspeed, the effect becomes more evident as a smaller part of the propeller is actually caught as the sensor is now read out much faster. Together with the rotational speed of the propeller itself, this can cause quite interesting interference patterns.

agree

Shaun Dobbie why not 60 fps i think its much smoother

Because we use the correct PAL standard.

Ah

Get a camera with real shutter.

The second of the listed denotations is used: ar·ti·fact noun 1. an object made by a human being, typically an item of cultural or historical interest. "gold and silver artifacts" 2. something observed in a scientific investigation or experiment that is not naturally present but occurs as a result of the preparative or investigative procedure. "widespread tissue infection may be a technical artifact"

Because that's what it is. Shall we just call them discrepancies?

WTF?

Combing artefacts are probably something you know from interlaced video that has been scaled down without resampling, slowed down ór has been stabilised. Line-by-line readout of a CMOS sensor is something totally different.

@@laszu7137 LOLZ

Bad sensitivity is a trait of CCD. This video compares only electronic shutter types. Not directly linked to type of sensor.

Same

Same I love my Fujifilm Finepix z35 And My Kodak m863 xd

Lol. Comparing quantum efficiency of both types. CCD literally suck. 4 times worse than CMOS.

Global shutter. Done. CCD is old tech.

@@autonomy5649 CMOS is every bit as old as CCD, it's '70s tech as is CCD, but it is inferior. CID sensors would be superior to both, IMHO.

@@autonomy5649 Yeah well, if the camera has a setting for global shutter, that would be nice. But unfortunately many videocameras don't... Back to CCD's it is for me.

Cost Cutting so they put more bells and whistles features on cameras while the stuff that matters got cheapen out. I feel the pain of owning a CMOS Handycam that only last 2 years and it starts develop sensor problem while my 15 year old CCD Handycam didn't have any problem! If I have more tapes I'd rather use that "old" camcorder than my temperamental CMOS.

Not really... The electronic shutter on photocameras features the same problem. But fortunately, technology is evolving, with Sony being the leader in this with their stacked CMOS sensors (which improves the readout speed and thus reduces the rolling-shutter effect significantly)

@@weeardguy Even with that it still looks like doggy doo. Even global shutter on a cmos sensor pales in comparison to ccd. CCD is just more believable. More true to actual film.

@@380stroker Wow, you've got the eye for it then. I've got both a JVC GY-HM750 and the successor, the 850. Where te 750 still has CCD's, the 850 uses CMOS's(es?) that (unfortunately) aren't compensated or just use a global shutter. But if I take shots from the same stationary or slow moving subjects, I won't be able to tell the difference.

@@weeardguy There's not enough hours in a day. More testing must be done.

You're mixing things up here. CCD's can capture progressive video as well, the processing power, besides demand for progressive video, was most likely not there yet. My JVC GY-HM100 however, does a fine job capturing FHD1080 25p... It just can't do 50, but it's camera that's about a decade old if I remember it right. Comb motion artifacts have never bothered me so much: that's just the way interlaced works.

I have a video camera that has a CCD sensor and shoots interlaced. It looks like crap. However, i have another CCD camera that shoots in progressive and encodes in H.264 and looks amazing.

@@380stroker well those ccd sensors wich shoots everything interlaced should be banned once for all and forever till never, i really HATE those ugly combing artifacts, now if theres only footage recorded interlaced ,then motion adaptive deinterlacer and multi diogonal reconstruction filters MUST be added to remove those combing artifacts during post processing, Also if companies feel like to use interlaced ccd sensors instead in their cameras, they muat imply a motion adaptive deinterlacer and multi diagonal filter to remove those combing artifacts on the fly to make up for it.

cliffjumpingisfun uui