Відео

Well certainly the two examples that you show wouldn't get you anywhere near that look. There are some that would get you a lot closer but there's no way in hell I'm going to say which ones those are or what settings it would take to get close to that look.

One good thing about CCD sensor is their global shutter

I have a couple of CCD DSLRs that I bought when they were current-ish models. I took a lot of fairly good pics with them, but can't honestly say there's anything that stands out from them with regards to colour, tonality, and certainly not filmic look. In short, it's a load of cobblers. Otoh, they're both now worth so little that I have no hesitation in using them in rough conditions, rather than risk my newer stuff.

The Kodak C530 is fantastic on a sunny day. Colours are beautiful. Just ride the +- exposure and use the forced flash occasionally. BTW exposure isn't buried in the menu, you just press the directional buttons. Fixed focus, so everything 1m or further is in acceptable sharpness (Great for through glass windows on the bus, train etc.) Pocketable & has low storage requirements. I bought 4, all less than £10 each. Just bided my time on Ebay. 2 quirks. The settings reset when it's turned off. I turn the display off instead of the camera (to save battery power & settings). The date/time only goes up to 2025: guess they didn't expect the camera to last! I take photos all the time with it because it is very small & people seem to accept me taking street photos with it without getting annoyed. No post-processing required for my taste. Noise doesn't bother me & I rarely pixel-peep. Night photography requires the self-timer. It is powered by 2 AA batteries and accepts SD cards up to 2GB. It's a relaxing camera to use...just frame & shoot. I usually leave exposure comp on -1.0 on sunny days for the effect that I like. Photography should be fun!

CCD....until you discuss the Canon 5D

I agree that there's nothing magical about the CCD; it all comes down to the color profiles imbedded. However, I'm absolutely crazy about all of the form factors of early digicams. My most recent acquisition is ghe Olympus C-21. I love the sliding door; in fact I'm a sucker for those types of cameras. The Fujifilm 4700z is a funky camera that's fun to whip out once in a while. Lastly, the Olympus MJU mini is tiny and packs a punch.

Your mistake. Should've bought old sony digicam. Preferably mavica. The vibes with these are awesome. 5mp is WAY too much lol. We are talking 2 or below. One that looks like paused vhs. IMO even the example pictures you show from olympus look great. I don't want controls or features. Not everyone likes changing settings. I like pics sooc because it's a challange to shoot with what I can get

Maybe compare Nikon's D70 to Canon's 10D is more fair IMO. In RAW pls.

So I just want to say that not all CCD digicams are created equal (look up photo samples before you buy a specific digicam), and that there are better cameras that make use of CCD, such as Sony DSC-P2. We are talking about a time where technology was super experimental and no where near it's peak. The reason why CMOS was introduced was because CCD is more expensive to make, and there isn't a lot of integral reasons to the change besides that. There were obvious pros and cons to either at the time of the switch (imo CCD was the winner) , but the fact of the matter is that CMOS has about 2 decades worth of development to get where it is right now (not to mention the increase in quality of components in newer cameras in general) . If CCD had the same commitment from camera companies, it would be in the same conversation, probably much better. I think most people will agree that having something great and organic straight out of camera with character is a much more immersive experience than having to edit every other photo. I also think most people will agree that they would rather pay 25 bucks for a camera that produces great pictures than 900 for a camera like the G7x Mkii or newer Fujifilms which are CMOS sensor cameras known for shooting "film like photos", which if anything are much more gimmicky and grifty.

is hypershell a scam i preordered and they say july-aug it will ship

I always thought it was largely down to camera manufacturers trying to emulate the colours of films stocks that were popular with the professionals (e.g. Kodachrome), to persuade them to make the switch to digital. Using CCD possibly made this goal easier to achieve but as I understand, it was also doable with CMOS (e.g. Nikon D700, discussed by ohers in the comments). As digital became the mainstream technology, I suppose that the colour interpretation of modern camera processors shifted towards a more neutral look. On a purely subjective level, I enjoy the look of images from the 2010 Sony A390 more than those of the 2022 Sony A7RV when comparing files in Lightroom SOOC but on most other parameters (for example dynamic range, noise performance and resolution), the latter obviously wins by quite a margin. Also, any look can be achieved by post-processing RAW files, of course. Fun fact: the 3.1 gigapixel Legacy Survey of Space and Time (LSST) camera’s image surface is an array made up of 189 individual sensors, each of which is a 41 x 40mm 16.4MP CCD 😊

Geeks and art are two mutually exclusive things.

My personal reason to use a Canon Powershot G10 while travelling is that it's built like a tank, it has optical zoom that no smartphone can compete with and it produces perfectly fine looking images while being super cheap so even if I were to break it or get it stolen it wouldn't be a big deal (the only downside is that the low light capabilities are non existent). On top of that I just enjoy using an actual camera instead of my phone

Cual me recomendarias para escanear objetos pequeños, estoy entre el 3dmakerpro seal y el recopint mini 2 o alguna otra marca que recomiendes por favor

1 month ago was like "hold my beer" while Jnco's steadily make a comeback. I agree they are too expensive but this feels like a deeply youtube-centric discourse. I don't know any digicam users, and I know some serious ones, calling them anything other than CCD-like. I also have the Kodak c530 and because it's so bare bones I actually think it might be a great exercise to really try, actually try hard, to take some good photos with it. Maybe not "good" by standards of like sharpness or technical capability but I mean at least interesting. (channel daido moriyama) You can actually adjust the EV +/- 2 with the right and left buttons on the d pad. If you underexpose on a sunny day you can get some pretty dramatic shots and pull up the shadows some in post if you want (eeeeek editing Jpegs oh, my!) Which maybe is a little bit like film. Is any of this 'pro' ? not really, but it feels a lot like other ways of making art to me.

I hope sales of current pocketable point and shoots gets some benefit from this too. It does seem some people forgot how good dedicated pocketable cameras are. That being said I wouldn't want to use one older than 2010 and I prefer it to have manual control but I do know how to trick some auto modes into different shutter speeds/ exposure. Cellphone makers are trying so hard to take all the glory and its been a worry to me that production of good point and shoots may throw in the towel. To me the Sony Hx and Rx series were amazing quality, capability and accessible prices and I hope we don't lose that.

Thanks for this! You stopped me from ordering one from eBay! I guess it makes more sense to get a Powkiddy RGB30 instead...

Compare apples to apples. If you want to compare things correctly. Compare same size sensors. Also, many don't want to spend time in PP to get that look.

I can say from experience, that while I have taken many photos I like with a CCD sensor, the photos from my old D200 have not an ounce more character than those from my D750, unless by "character" you just mean "noise." (And if you do, then I don't care much for what you have to say about photographs) If anything, more like the other way round. :)

Film cameras from the American Civil War (1860s) produced FAR higher resolution images than most digital cameras could well into the 21st century. It is only after the photographs are “colourised” that you realise how sharp and deep the originals are. By modern standards at least 8K resolution in 160 year old photos.

It's laughable you didn't cover the major differences between the two sensors. CCDs in general are less noisy and have better image quality than CMOS sensors. The only reason CMOS became the dominant sensor in cameras is because it uses like a million times less power than CCD. That's it--that's the only reason CMOS is used now.

That image of the goat looks like a William Eggleston. Would you have gotten that image on the not quite modern not quite vintage GH5? Nope 😉

I think the only thing you're missing is what you mentioned earlier in the video: If you're editing your photographs afterward, it's a different experience, a different _thing._ Some people like all-in-one solutions, some people like to adjust manually at every step, including the post work; some people want something that does one thing (takes pictures, for instance) and does it well. The more you go back to "simple" technology, the more you can, potentially, connect directly with your equipment and the act of taking pictures, with nothing else to distract. I think that this is a fad, but it's not a fad about authentic photographs: it's about authentic _photography._ The more you're switching lenses, comparing equipment, adjusting settings and editing pictures, the less you're out there taking pictures and developing your skills in _that_ regard. Of course, of _course_ there's nothing wrong with, and in fact many benefits and virtues of, control, options and every process of photography. The one who takes a thousand snaps, sifts through to find the diamonds in the rough, and then edits the ever-living out of them is _just as "authentic"_ as the guy who sets up his waiting station, snipes the perfect photograph, and does only minimal editing to account for camera imperfections. But the guys doing the latter are looking for something that the guys who do the former might not be. Ergo, simpler technology.

just simply search for Pentax K10D images to understand why his opinion may not be your opinion

I think your test was flawed in that you compared the worst possible CCD camera against much more full-featured CMOS cameras. I've had a 1999 and 2000 Olympus, a 2003 Canon, and a 2007 Fuji with CCD that could all run circles around the Kodak you were using. But at the same time I agree that if adding a certain "look" to a photo is what you want, there are plenty of ways to do that in post-processing.

Comparing old point and shoots with a recent "professional" grade camera is weird. The only valid CCD camera to compare would be the Leica M9. I haven't been around the photography scene for several years, but are people claiming any old CCD camera will replace a workhorse DSLR/mirrorless? CCD sensors can theoretically capture more realistic looking images than CMOS, one reason why it was the preference for all older digital cameras. It just took better looking pictures at that time. But CMOS was easier to engineer, and eventually allowed more megapixels and way better noise performance, which is why it won out. So of course you're going to get better image quality and a lot of latitude for post-processing. But people forget why point and shoots even exist. They were supposed to be an affordable way to take pictures of everyday things, where you don't care that much about image quality. That Kodak is good for two things, bright daylight photos with well lit subjects(for low contrast), and close up (more intimate) photos with the flash on. That flash is on by default for a good reason. It's the only way it can take decent photos outside of bright daylight. Even in bright daylight, it offers some fill flash. Use it that way and you'll have a lot more fun with it. And I bet you'll be able to get some decent looking photos out of it. You're not supposed to run it through lightroom, you snap photos and either share it online or make some 4x6 prints. Are people's old photo albums full of "good" photos? Most are probably filled with Kodak Gold, Fuji X-tra 200 or cheaper film like drugstore 110 or disposable 35mm most with crappy lighting. But I bet you and even strangers can appreciate them. That was the beauty of a point and shoot. But also paying more than $10 for a cheap CCD camera is insanity, your phone camera is going to be way better and it comes for free with something you're already carrying everywhere. That LX1 on the other hand is a nice camera. It was meant to be the camera "professionals" used when they want a tiny personal camera. Back then it was nice, but even a few years after it was released, it didn't perform as well as most CMOS camera's meant for that same market. But should still be plenty of fun to use. It was built with photographers in mind. Landscapes, portraits and macro would probably be some strengths. Old digital cameras have tons of drawbacks, the only point of using them nowadays is to have fun, not to compare them to newer cameras.

I should never have given up my old 6mp Nikon D40. The photos I could take with it always had outstanding color saturation and low noise (within reasonable ISO settings). Alas, I thought I needed the latest 24mp camera with dozens of auto focus points, and I traded it away. There was just something extra nice about photos from the D40, not to mention the satisfaction of getting great results from an entry-level camera and the kit zoom.

I remember when I bought my Canon 10D that the conventional thinking is that CCD was better and that CMOS was a bit of a risk. But, having used it for many years, it did a great job for what was available at the time and the next camera I bought wasn't for many years after that because I mostly didn't need a new one. This whole thing smacks of the folks that insist that vinyl is superior to CDs because of reasons.

I'm part of the Xennials micro-generation ...... grew up in the '90's shooting film, early '00's was in college and had the new 2MP digital cameras and now have the money to spend on good photo equipment. One thing that I have always found interesting is how much I didn't know in the early days of digital cameras. Buying my first real camera (Nikon D3000) in about '10 forced me to learn more about white balance, exposure comp, noise, etc. Now, the old, "digicams" intrigue me.....I didn't know what I didn't know back then and the pictures sucked because the operator was inept. Now, by understanding the old cameras' limits...and abilities....I am better educated and can produce decent pictures on a 20 year old camera. In a society driven by planned obsolescence and the constant pressure to upgrade, it's nice to take a step back to simpler technology and still produce amazing results.

this guy has clearly never been a teenager on tumblr

Did you at least charge the battery before trying the hike? NO lithium batteries are charged prior to shipping.

From what I have understood. CCD was a more expensive sensor to manufacture and take enormous amounts of power to work for video. Therefore CMOS won out. CmOS is very good for low power and low light less noise. CcD did have noise levels that film users are familiar with. Not necessarily a good thing!! CcD is useful if the body has been converted to infrared. I've not been impressed with CMOS infrared conversions.

Using oldie ccd cameras is for the experience, and you don't need good quality image to make a good photo.

Nitpick: I find it a bit funny that we call active pixel sensor sensor “CMOS sensor”. Instead of focusing on how the sensor works / does we focus on that it is built on a standard digital process? It makes a tiny bit of sense, a bit more than calling the mobo battery “CMOS battery”. CCD is a better name since it describes how the CCD sensor works. Maybe having accurate non-nonsense names for the sensor technologies would help people understand what the sensor does, there is very little magical “film like” properties to either sensor design :)

I had respect and i was agreeing to the claims but i just couldnt burst out a MASSIVE LAUGH when i heard u say "I made a video on how great the Zune was" big ups for having the balls to say that. Tho i seriously disagree. Maybe for modern day, anything that spews out music is good for most but for the time? Anything but zune dude.

I think its alright that people enjoy them, even the ultra kruddy ones. My desire for that 2000's inspired me to purchase my first camera 1.5 years ago, a Nikon Coolpix L6. Without that, I would have never gotten into photography and been interested enough to purchase the much better camera's I own now, and to have the camera knowledge to really understand the difference between an old and new camera. But I purchased that Nikon for only $25. Its now being sold on ebay for $80-$130. The recent vintage digicam trend shooting up the prices takes all the joy out of it. My experience was taking a chance with an old cheap junk piece of electronic that was in the glass case of a dusty thrift store, and managing to have tons of fun with it despite how outdated it was. It couldn't imagine many people now finding their purchase actually worth the price they paid for these old digicams. Where as my camera was finding unexpected joy in a chance purchase, people buying these now must be convincing themselves to enjoy it simply for the sake of the price.

Though mine was Motorola, I Loved my Windows Phone! I use Launcher 10 to simulate the feel and some of the functionality. Best OS for one year, beforec everyone pulled support for it. As for cameras, the most modern stuff is better overall, but there are a few niche applications where older cameras are superior, including the Lytrto! For instance, the Sony DSC-F828 has a magnetically retractable UV/IR filter and can be used to photograph in those wavelengths. I also find that detail isn't lost as quickly while cropping (zooming) in in post-pro. While it's still .jpg, it must have something to do with the compression algorithm.

CCD is INDEED more film like - The only reasons why CMOS sensors are more common these days is because it's more expensive to manufacture CCD. And CCD eats batteries for breakfast, lunch, and dinner.

Thanks for your take on the CCD craze. I've been photographing since before digital cameras were even an idea and I would sometimes use cheap, plastic film cameras because it would give photos a kitschy, lo-fi look that provided a nice break from the constant demand for perfection. I view the current CCD/digicam fad functioning in the same way as the plastic cameras that I and others would sometimes use. It lets you loosen up, simplify the process and often the flawed nature of the equipment would provide interesting results. Eventually I got over that phase and went back to quality gear and so will this current crop of young photographers using CCD digicams. The question is, what will be the next fad? Perhaps fliphone cameras?

Saying 'CCD is film-like' is not saying it's 'film-like', it's saying it is lower resolution, which it is. The real advantage of CCD is not it looking like film, but rather sensors being much smaller and therefore having a far deeper DoF. The latter of course is vital for lazy street shooters (like myself) who can't be bothered to figure out what 8-feet distance away is with the lens set to manual! Lower resolution also looks like 'cardboard' or 'old photocopier', whereas +16mp CMOS, more APS-C rather than m43, looks more like 'glass' or 'colour laser printer'. Take it from me. I own both CCD and CMOS and I love them both- for different reasons. But CCD because of the lower resolution, and sometimes poorer AF, can really look like film, but only after post. That all said, I wouldn't lose sleep over it. An artist will use many brushes to get different effects. Some photographers, again, like myself, work like this too.

As a CCD enjoyer, I will say you addressed a few fair points. Where I think this review lacks any substance is your skills in photography. You said you aren't' a "particularly good photographer", so why would I expect any expressive, creative or cool images anyways. Why would you do an objective test on ancient tech, when what they got going for them is their images' subjective appeal. I've seen some amazing images be taken with really crappy CCD cameras, you just need to know which settings and under what circumstances these cameras excel in. You may not like using flash for example, but the flash photography taken with these cameras can sometimes yield relatively sharp and cool images. I agree though, if you want "film like" pay up and shoot film. CCD has a character of its own that should be appreciated. I see no reason why a CCD vs CMOS debate should even exist, seems like something for the gear elites to discus.

You are entirely correct about these mostly being about nostalgia. I definitely don't think they produce anything that looks 'film-like', but in my opinion they have their own unique niche. For many people who grew up using film cameras, they wanna replicate the film look because it is nostalgic to them. Film grain is an imperfection, it makes the photo look 'worse', losing detail and adding something to the photo which isn't actually there, but sometimes people still want it because it reminds them of a time they grew up in or makes the photo charming in its own way. Digicams offer something similar, their photos look 'worse', but it is a unique kind of worse, one that reminds many people who grew up in the 2000s, such as myself, of their childhood. It gives photos a 'in the moment' feel in a way, makes every photo feel like a family trip in 2007, and just being able to take a bunch of these pictures without mass editing them is a nice ability to have. On a different note, they are also great for liminal space photography. Liminal spaces are typically empty spaces which give off an eerie unsettling feeling, like an empty hallway or waiting room. Some popular images of these tend to be taken with old digicams, the backrooms photo being a prime example. The terrible low light performance of these cameras makes it seem like you are in the middle of a black void with some of these images, which triggers the fear of the unknown in the viewer. In others, liminal space images evoke the feeling of nostalgia for a place they were never in, another thing you touched upon in the video, and contrary to how some people find these images eerie or unsettling, they can often be comforting to others, and the digicam look is part of what makes some of these images stand out to the viewer. Thanks for coming to my TED talk

I would go with the shittiest model I can find. 20 bucks on ebay won't hurt anybody. the further away from recent cellphone boredom, the better.

CCD vibe: ua-cam.com/users/shortsn6ut7RuMfYw

ccds are just the staple look of the early 2000s thats it nothing more nothing less, people born close to that time are more likely to find it nostalgic

To each their own. They aren’t better than cmos just different. I have 3 ccd cameras, canon G10 and G12 and a Nikon D200. They all take very nice photos. And they do have a different look.

gatekeeping art is crazy. great video tho, i will subscribe

if you want "the experience, man", get a Pentax Q, it's CMOS, it's tiny, auto-mode works well, and you can get adapters for old Super-8 Lenses to get that "vintage" look

I'm old enough to remember when those cameras were new and back then nobody thought they look like film. I did notice the difference in the look when I switched from CCD Nikon D80 to then brand new CMOS Canon 60D, but calling it film like is a huge stretch. I did tests using the same lens, ISO settings and exposure on a CMOS and CCD DSLR. What was strange to me at the time is that older CCD did look better than newer CMOS, smoother, warmer, less noisy, but only on base ISO. As soon as you went over it, cmos started showing it's strengths. That's why every manufacturer switched (and they were cheaper to make). Difference in tonality probably has to do more with color science than technology itself, but the smoothness of the base ISO image was definitely a strength of CCD.

Sell it to me since your not going to use it