I keep reading bits and bites about how this camera is not capturing true 720p. I have searched for past threads to find out what the facts are but have come up blank.
Could someone post a link to a past thread where this is clarified, or explain it here.
Thanx
Ken

Ken,

Please describe, why is it not true?

Maybe they mean the (temporal rez) 30p frame rate instead of 60p. Yea, it's not really a HD standard (unless it's brand new since the cam came out), thats why the cam has the option to convert up/down when viewing w/ cables. Component or Composite whatever, I always confuse the two.

The resolution lies somewhere near the midpoint between 480p and 720p. Steve Mullen had an article in Video Systems and he described there why the horizontal resolution is, what I remember, about 25% lower. The chip also does not produce full vertical resolution. 720p Varicam has full resolution, plus true high quality HD lenses that do not degrade this resolution, or picture. In addition to that the transfer rate on this camera is mere 19 Mbps. From what I have seen, and what Steven Mullen mentioned, even the #900 Panasonic, 4:2:2 color, 50 Mbps, has a significantly better picture. I personally liked better also the DVX, 25 Mbps, picture in progressive. These comparisons were made after material of all 3 cameras was transfered to 1080i, standard HD broadcast speed. I can't believe that some people here stated that the picture on this camera is anywhere close to CineAlta quality or that it is better than #900 Panasonic, which uses real pro lenses. Let's get real here.

The chip is not 25% less than true 720p. True 720p is equal to 921600 pixels (1280X720), the active pixel zone of the CCD is 840000, or 0,91:1, not much lower. Remember that we are in HD and a lower (78000 pixel lower) count is not as bad as in the case of SD, for example the XL1s has a 250000 active pixels set of CCDs, lower than the resolution of SD witch is 345600 pixels (720X480), a mere 0,72:1 pixel ratio, much worse because of the lower definition, still it does a very good image (not as sharp as a 420000 pixels set of CCDs of course).

You worry on very subtle details. if you can tell the resolution difference between the HD10 and a 1:1 aspect HD 720 like the varicam, you have much better eyes than me (and the rest of the team whom I worked with), we tested both cameras head to head and resolution is absolutely equivalent.

Resolution is deterrmined by visual line count -- not pixel count.

I used the measured -- Japan -- numbers for the camcorder.

But this is true of all camcorders -- only I haven't seen measurements on a CineAlta.

But the fact is that it looks like HDCAM rez because very few monitors can reproduce more than JVC rez.

I really don't see much point to the debate.

<<<-- Originally posted by S. L. Minor : Maybe they mean the (temporal rez) 30p frame rate instead of 60p. Yea, it's not really a HD standard -->>>



"SMPTE 296M: 1280 × 720 Scanning, Analog and Digital Representation and Analog Interface
This standard defines a family of raster scanning systems for the representation of stationary or moving two-dimensional images sampled temporally at a constant frame rate and having an image format of 1280 × 720 and an aspect ratio of 16:9."
Source: http://www.atsc.org/document_map/interfaces.htm#1280%20×%20720

So it is ATSC standard.

Alex, rez is NOT measured by CCD specs or the format specs.

NTSC, for example, has 480-lines and CCDs have 480-rows. Measured rez can NOT be greater than 360-lines.

Actually I commented only on whether or not 1280x720 is in fact a HD standard.

My post quoted the ATSC to confirm that the answer is positive.

Thanks for the clarification guys. It's what I thought, not a big deal. Flame related posts seem to always bring it up, "even Steve Mullen says so!"
Ken