is going from a 700tvl camera to 1000 tvl a noticeable upgrade?

[Zentg]

my falcon has a 700tvl camera, it seems ok but i'd like it to be a bit better. would 1000 tvl be a noticeable increase in picture quality?

could i get something like this?

http://www.banggood.com/Eachine-100...SC-PAL-Switchable-p-1053340.html?rmmds=search

or would i need something with a hole in the camera part to screw onto my camera mount?

any recommendations?

thanks

also what mm should i get? my camera is 2.6mm, and i notice most 1000 tvl cameras come with either 2.8 or 3.6... is the bigger the number = wider the view?

 

[GJH105775]

It would be if your downlink could handle the quality, however I'd guess that the video downlink will be your bottleneck if you don't have good signal. When you have good signal you would probably notice it.

As for a wider or narrower view, that will be affected by the camera lens angle more than anything. If you are referring to the Aperture, it affects what is called the Depth of Field. You can think of it as the distance from nearest to the furthest object within your shot that the camera can be focused on.



For our cameras they need to be small so we don't get any of the larger apatures that you see on DSLRs, however here is a more exergerated comparison of the affect you would see.

This image could help with picturing it:

The Depth of Field is the size of the box, but you can change the position of the box by focusing the lens.



Here is another image on that:

And a little image of that in action:

 

[Zentg]

by downlink do you mean the VTX or the reciver in my goggles? i got the rc 832 receiver, i think it should be good enough. In general is CCD better than my CMOS camera?

 

[GJH105775]

by downlink do you mean the VTX or the reciver in my goggles? i got the rc 832 receiver, i think it should be good enough. In general is CCD better than my CMOS camera?

In general yes, CCD does not experience jello as bad. Downlink in the link down from the vehicle to the ground receiver, n this case the video link.

Check out my previous reply, I edited it to include a lot more info and some pictures.

 

[Jeff Neese]

I've been researching my own first FPV setup, and from what I understand the limitation is in the 5.8gh signal, not the camera. There's a limit to what that frequency can handle and still provide low latency for FPV flying, and I get the impression it's in that 600-800TVL range. That's why even the cheap cameras included with toy drones can be HD 1080p - you're not transmitting that video in real time and trying to fly by it. You're just recording it to a card to watch later - big difference. To have low latency you need to keep the resolution and/or frame rate within the limits of the 5.8ghz transmitter and receiver.

Somebody will correct me if I'm wrong, in general. I'm sure they're always working on improvements in real-time video data compression/decompression to overcome the limitations of the bandwidth.

 

[Zentg]

Think I'll get a 1000tvl ccd camera and put a 6mm lens on it I want the picture to be as crisp, nice, and detailed as possible. Especially if/when I upgrade my goggles to some fatshark.

 

[rosco11]

Depends on what you want to do. But no, in general, not worth the upgrade until they develop HD video transmission with low enough latency to be useful for a racing quad and goggles capable of displaying it. Keep in mind too, it is not the goggles per say but the receiver on them that determines what you see mostly. Bigger numbers do not make it better in function.

Your eye will not be able to tell the difference.

As well, super sharp video is not as important as super fast accurate REAL TIME imagery. Go with the 600tvl camera. Easier on your wallet when you fly it into a tree (ask me how i know) and counting leaves on a tree is sooo far from your mind when you are screaming around a corner and notice the tree in general.

You want video afterwards, get a mobious or runcam. better picture quality and more durable, cheaper, lighter than a go pro.