The 3-CCD consumer JVCs that came out a year ago had mediocre image quality and terrible low-light performance. Those cameras were blown away by single CMOS Canons and Sonys (to name a few -- just look at the in-depth reviews on camcorder websites if you don't already know this). But JVC realized if they put "3-CCD" on the label that people would assume it's gotta be a great camcorder (and you guys proved my point). Sure, the best pro cameras in the world have 3 (big) chips, but just because a camera has 3-CCDs (which were tiny on the previous generation of JVCs), it doesn't automatically mean a good quality image. One big CMOS chip seems to do better than 3 tiny CCDs.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
So the y replavced a 3-ccd system with a cheaper 1chip cmos tech. Genius! I cant wait to see how lousy it looks.
I totally agree -- I don't understand why HD seems to have taken priority over 3CCD technology....
If I had to choose I'd muchj rather be appreciating realistic, subtle skin tones than every pimple on someones face
The 3-CCD consumer JVCs that came out a year ago had mediocre image quality and terrible low-light performance. Those cameras were blown away by single CMOS Canons and Sonys (to name a few -- just look at the in-depth reviews on camcorder websites if you don't already know this). But JVC realized if they put "3-CCD" on the label that people would assume it's gotta be a great camcorder (and you guys proved my point). Sure, the best pro cameras in the world have 3 (big) chips, but just because a camera has 3-CCDs (which were tiny on the previous generation of JVCs), it doesn't automatically mean a good quality image. One big CMOS chip seems to do better than 3 tiny CCDs.