|WikiProject Film||(Rated Start-class)|
- It's typical to use full names, not the most common abbreviations. Dicklyon (talk) 05:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree, Three-CCD seems rather clumsy. As long as 3CCD redirects to the right place I don't mind so much.
3ccd vs. ccd
- advantages over ccd ?
CYGM More Sensitive?
A 23 July 2007 edit by Kosin123 claims "A single-chip image sensor using CYGM filter is more sensitive than a three-CCD sensor though." Are there any references that support this? It seems very counterintuitive. Kime1R (talk) 02:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- It's certainly not correct in general; it's possible some particular pair of devices compared that way. Let's take it out. Dicklyon (talk) 16:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
3 ccds / HD
3CCD, 3MOS, 3whatever
With CCD technology giving way to CMOS in consumer and prosumer market (as well as in high-end Pro market) I suggest renaming the article to something like "3-sensor arrangement", because the point is not in the sensors being CCDs, but rather in having three separate sensors for each color component. Sometime in the future a new sensor technology may appear, and it will be called 3SuperDuper. Thus this article should not be limited to specific sensor technology, but rather to an approach of splitting the light into three primary colors with a prizm. Mikus (talk) 15:57, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
- It sounds eminently sensible. Be bold and have a go. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 16:39, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
We generally like to title articles according to what things are called in reliable sources. From such terms, we are free select a title that's compatible with our style at WP:MOS and our other title guidelines at WP:AT. The phrase "three-CCD camera" is not as common as "3CCD camera", but is more like normal English, and does appear in thousands of books. The phase "three-sensor arrangement" is in very few books, and none of them, as far as I can see, are using it in the sense of color sensing. For better or worse, "CCD" is a term often applied to image sensors in general, so that's where we've ended up. Dicklyon (talk) 07:58, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- The only problem being that as Mikus points out, 3MOS sensors are becomming more common place (and all the reliable sources call them precisely that. For example Panasonic). The article title at present doesn't consider that, yet the actual text of the article applies as much to 3MOS sensors as it does to 3CCD sensors since it refers solely to the optical assembly used to split the light. The actual sensor is completely irrelevant. The article title rather implies that this set up only applies to CCD sensors. In fact: in the interests of pedantry, the article could equally apply to a 3vidicon set up. A more generic article title is called for.
- I also note that a linked paper on the subject (by one Richard F. Lyon (you perchance Mr. Lyon?)) repeatedly refers to 'three sensors' (or slight variations) throughout. Or is the author of that paper not a reliable source? DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 13:12, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, that's my paper, and we were particularly trying to distinguish our sensors from CCDs. But I don't think we created much enduring change in the terminology there; I wish we had. And I wish we had trademarked 3MOS before Panasonic did; but as it stands, that's a uniquely Panasonic term. Dicklyon (talk) 15:31, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- In case anyone hadn't noticed, this article has a duplicate at Dichroic prism. Since both articles describe essentially the same thing, it would make sense to merge the two articles under the 'dichroic prism' heading. Appropriate redirects can be made for '3CCD', 'three-CCD', '3 sensor' etc. etc. etc. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 11:47, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
I have now proposed that given the similarity of the subject; the fact that almost all the info in the destination article appears in this one, that the articles be merged. Since this article is about the dichroic prism assembly and not actually about any type od sensor, that the target article be the "Dichroic prism" article. Further discussion should therefore be in the Dichroic prism talk page. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 16:57, 5 December 2011 (UTC)