[Eee-Tee]

If a cam is stated to have a CCD of 2 MP lets say, does this mean that the quality of video would be better than a cam that has a resolution of, for example 600,000 pixels.
Does this mean that the latter CCD is 0.6?
I often see these 2 kinda things mentioned but am confused as to the effect of video quality they actually have ?

[MarkE19]

The resolution of a CCD has nothing to do with the quality of the video it can record. Video is a set resolution, so no matter how much you increase the number of pixels on the CCD it will still be the same quality for video. The extra resolution is only of benefit for stills capture.

Mark.

[Eee-Tee]

Cheers Mark- That's what i thought was the case- so in terms of basic quality, a cam which is a mega pixel, such as the canon MVX2i is is equal to a cheeper one, such as the MV450, which is what I own?
The difference is more to do with the superior features then?
So is it only if a cam has 2 or 3 CCD's that the quality is one better?

cheap cams don't tend to have much in the way of exposure or audio control, 3 ccds improve the colour quality (with a single chip cam the ccd does a wee bit more guesswork).

I maintain that a single chip cam used with care can give broadcastable results, and can often better a 3ccd cam used carelessly.

3 ccd is better, no doubt, to get broadcast quality results you want at least 350'000 EFFECTIVE PIXELS accross each ccd.

[MarkE19]

Well better features on a more expensive cam are one part, but also you will tend to get better quality components used as well. In general a more expensive cam should have a better lens that will make a large improvement to the video it captures. As Roy has said you will also get more manual control over a cam that costs a bit more. Cheap cams are normally more point & shoot.

Mark.