I viewed the uploaded clips from the JVC, and they look very good to me. Honestly, they look like pictures from a $100 one megapixel still camera, but they are in 30fps motion !
I am still holding off my purchase, because I don't think I've seen a similar clip from a VX2000, or other 3 chip DV in the same ballpark price range. So far, in comparison to the HD stuff, the DV stuff looks like a $10 web cam in quality.
Where can I see a few seconds of outdoor footage from a good DV?

The night shot footage by the JVC looks good enough for me, and the chroma noise on the guys facial hair is a non issue as well. I mean, at least I can *see* the hairs !

Can anyone point me to some 3 chip DV online material?

Thanks!
-Les

We will be doing a side by side on the DVD. Visit the links below

DBK

Here are two clips, showing the DVX100 and the JVC HD1.

Both cameras were pointing at the same subject in the same lighting at the same time, so the frames are nearly identical, differing only in relative position of the cameras (which were side-by-side).

The DVX shot in progressive, thin line detail, anamorphic adapter. The JVC was of course in HD 720/30p mode.

Now, it's a little tough to compare them directly, since one is HD and one is SD, so I made two clips: one with the JVC downsampled to SD resolution, and the other where the DVX was upsampled to HD resolution.

Each clip shows about three seconds of footage: first the DVX, then the JVC. The three seconds are of the same footage from each camera.

The footage is direct from the camera, untouched, no color correction or anything else was done to it -- just firewire'd in, found a few seconds that match, and then rendered out.

The resizing was done in Vegas 4.0. All I did was import the two clips, then export as NTSC Widescreen DV (for the DV clip) and as MainConcept MPG2 (using HD 720P/30 preset). I don't know how adequate Vegas' resizing is; I've used it for stretching letterbox footage to anamorphic and been very pleased with the results, but I don't know if stretching between hi-def and standard-def is asking too much of it...

Anyway, here are the files. Save them on your hard disk, then download them through the firewire so you can watch them on a television, as that's the only way to see what they really look like.

Standard-def DV .AVI:
http://66.78.26.9/~fiercely/DVXvsJVC/DVXvsJVC.avi

HD-res MPG2:
http://66.78.26.9/~fiercely/DVXvsJVC/DVXvsJVC.mpg

Thanks !!!
That sure tells me a lot. The DV footage looks *so* bad when cut together with the JVC.
I'm done with my lores days, it's the JVC ( or similar ) for me.
The difference is stunning.
People nitpicking about chroma-noise are high.

So this footage was the non-'pro' model, the HD1, with the increased edge enhancing? It dosn't look too over done, really.

-Thanks Again
-Les

The motion of the DV shot seems gimped up.
Can someone else post a similar clip combo?
It's an excellent way to compare.
Ken

After downloading and watching the clips I have to say I prefered the look of the DVX. Sure there was a definate difference between the DVX and the JVC but I really prefered the DVX, it had a more pleasing look. The JVC looked a little harsh, better res, but it had that harsh HD look. Upconverted to HD the JVC won hands down but it's not really a fair competition as if you were shooting for HD why would you use DV. For the average shooter here who is shooting for SD TV, cable, web, etc then I would say go with the DVX.

In the end it all depends on the look you are after. Those clips were good examples of how different cameras produce different looks.

After downloading and watching the clips I have to say I prefered the look of the DVX. Sure there was a definate difference between the DVX and the JVC but I really prefered the DVX, it had a more pleasing look. The JVC looked a little harsh, better res, but it had that harsh HD look. Upconverted to HD the JVC won hands down but it's not really a fair competition as if you were shooting for HD why would you use DV. For the average shooter here who is shooting for SD TV, cable, web, etc then I would say go with the DVX.

It seems to me that you're not the cutting edge type of person, but someone that's more at home with fuzzy lo-res video. I'm not sure what your definition of harsh is, but those clips looked far from harsh to my eyes. The resolution difference is astonishing to say the least and with the way the clips were presented, it amazes me that someone could actually prefer the standard DV to HDV! Maybe you're just not used to viewing HD footage or ready for the jump in resolution.

I'm not sure what the posters intentions on use are, but as evident in the downconversion to standard DV, HDV still beats DV because you're capturing much more resolution from the start. I'd say go with HDV (the JVC).

Also as was pointed out by Barry, both shots were not setup and if you've been following posts here, you'd know that with a little time and preparation, you can get an even better quality of shot with the JVC. No matter how good you set up a standard DV camcorder, it won't do justice against a pre-prepped shot from the JVC except for maybe chroma noise.

We are eagerly awaiting the comparison between the JVC and the Varicam, which I feel is a better measure of how the JVC stacks up. Standard DV....what's that? :)

My $.02 worth.

Troy

<<<-- Originally posted by Troy LaMont : We are eagerly awaiting the comparison between the JVC and the Varicam, which I feel is a better measure of how the JVC stacks up. Standard DV....what's that? :)

My $.02 worth.

Troy -->>>

I'm going to email Jon and ask him to break out his DVX100, too, so I can get at least a couple of shots with the HD10, the DVX100 and the Varicam.

heath

Adrian- the HDV clips were done on a JVC HD1 which uses edge ehancement. The HD10 would be a little softer. You could also use any number of filters on the cam or in post.

"For the average shooter here who is shooting for SD TV, cable, web, etc then I would say go with the DVX."

Are you looking at the same clip? Anyone who's goal is SD resolution can clearly see the benefits. It's like putting on glasses for the first time!
Ken

Wasn't the A/B footage a DVX100 for the DV side?
Barry, who did the test, said "DVX".
I guess you mean more different types of shots, that makes sense.

For the other comment, the guy that liked the blurry footage, sure, it looks ok if you are shooting for a web page. So your ceiling on sharpness would be web cam quality, or just a bit higher.
If you want the DV cam look, you can apply a big fat gausian blur on the HD footage in your edit! That will remove all that unneeded high frequency detail the HD recorded.

I would like to see how different the extra edge enhancement looks on the HD1, Is it a big difference? I did not really see any ringing artifacts on the HD sample, but it did look 'sharpened'.

Something to note about the fuss about the glass on these video cameras: This demo shows that it really does not make that much difference on DV cams. Sure , it's fashionable to sport expensive pro looking glass on your DV cam, but it's not the glass that's the bottle neck to image quality.
A cheap lens can resolve 1000 lines, just look at a good disposible still camera, that lens gets over 1000 lines, and costs a buck.
I like the way this JVC HD! has upset the apple cart on the DV weenies:)


-Les



<<<-- Originally posted by Heath McKnight : <<<-- Originally
Troy -->>>

I'm going to email Jon and ask him to break out his DVX100, too, so I can get at least a couple of shots with the HD10, the DVX100 and the Varicam.

heath -->>>

Thanks for taking the time to make this interesting comparison available to us.

I can say, however, that I don't like the look of the HD. The edge enhancement was way over the top, the colour looked washed out, and the blacks looked crushed. It certainly looks to be of higher resolution

The DVX provided a more natural looking image, which seemed to suffer badly from the up-rez. On the DVX as DV, every 6th frame looked interlaced - what frame rate did you shoot it at?

Comparing both on the DV sample, again the DVX looked superior, with better colour and the resolution of the HD was marred by the excessive ringing and sharpness enhancement.

There's some definate mpeggyness on the HD footage on both HD and DV. Is this as it is in the source footage?

Thanks again for providing the footage.

I looked at the clip several more times, and do not agree with the comment that it is way over enhanced. Maybe just a bit over sharpened, but not by much.
But I don't come from a DV world, I come from a 35mm film world.
I think if you look at DV day in and day out, you get so used to the low spacial resolution, that anything with more detail looks strange and odd.
Comparing the HD footage with, say a still of the Kodak Marci girl head, it looks about right.
Part of my business is motion picture film scanning, at 2048 res, Cineon images. I'm used to looking at those images, not the closer to web cam images the DV format makes.

I'm trying to find a sample of the less edge enhanced JVC footage, I would still prefer to do my own post process sharpening.

Just for kicks, I loaded a still from both DV and HD into Photoshop.
A Gaussian blur of 1.9 pixels made the image look very close to the DV, as in blurry. A little Saturation started making it look candy coated, like the DV stuff.
-Les

For who asked about the cameras, yes it was the Panasonic AG-DVX100 and the JVC HD1.

As far as the "out of focus" comment, when we were conducting the shot we were using the same monitor and an a/b switch, and every time we switched back to the DVX I would grab for the focus ring to try to make sure the DVX was as sharp as possible. Yes, as I said in my original post about this footage months ago, the HDV makes the DVX look like it's out of focus.

As for sharpening, keep in mind that this was the HD1 (known for excessive edge enhancement) versus the DVX with edge enhancement completely turned down. If we jacked up the sharpening on the DVX it might change the perception somewhat. (might make for an interesting test...)

As for the shot not being "set up", it most definitely was. We spent quite a bit of time getting it to look as good as possible before shooting. The lighting was aimed mainly at making the JVC look as good as possible. I think that if we conducted a separate test trying to show off the range of the DVX, the JVC would not look as strong in comparison.

As for the motion and the interlaced frame, the DVX was probably on 24P Advanced mode, which puts out four pure frames followed by one blended frame. We shot in so many different ways that I probably have a 30P vs. 30P shot somewhere, but I don't necessarily want to wade through all that footage again...

As far as the poster who said he preferred the "look" of the DVX, well, so did I. I thought the JVC looked "plasticky", like the lady was a mannequin or something. The DVX was warmer and richer. But, much softer. And it's not a DVX problem: we conducted a similar side-by-side and included a DVW700 Digital Betacam in the mix -- the DigiBeta looked just as out of focus. I am very much looking forward to the future HDV offerings -- if they offer a camera with the image quality and controls of the DVX, but the resolution of the JVC, then I am sold!

As for exterior shots: we also recently shot a commercial with all exterior shots, an Old West-style "The Good, The Bad and The Ugly" type of spot, and we double-shot the DVX and JVC. Again the DVX was shooting 24PA and anamorphic. I'll try to get ahold of some of the JVC footage and post similar clips.

That's a pretty amazing comparison of the two cameras, I'm amazed how even at SD resolutions, side by side, the DVX100 really does look out of focus compared to the JVC. But I'm finding this myself now, as I have to edit SD quite a lot, that after looking at the JVC footage I start looking for details in the SD footage that just isn't there! I guess we all just got used to that low resolution and thought it was as good as it gets.

Saw.. the footages.. the JVC looks sharper in both vids(to be expected). However the DVX captured the color much better than the JVC (to be expected). The resolution advantage of the JVC when downsized to SD is just not worth it for me at the cost of flater color range. Besides, the difference between the two cameras at SD resolution is unnoticable if you don't intercut between these two cameras in the same project.

I color correct pretty much everthing I do anyway, so the color is a non-issue to me, in fact I prefer the JVC color as it is more "real-world" color to me, and not as artificially (electronically) saturated as most DV cam footage tends to be, which gives me a better base to work from, so long as it was lit and shot well that is.

I think if you look at DV day in and day out, you get so used to the low spacial resolution, that anything with more detail looks strange and odd.

I think that about sums it up....

Barry,

My comments weren't posted towards you in any way, except to say thanks which I forgot to do. I read into the setup of the shots and apologize for mistating that the shots weren't set up properly.

I'd still like to state that some of the 'plasticky' feel of the camera can be controlled once a greater understanding of what the camera can offer and what type of look you'd like to obtain from it.

Yang,

I don't think the colors are that much more undersaturated than a good 3 CCD camera. If you read through some of these posts in the forum and a couple of the online or print reviews, you'd see that the general concensus is that the color is great for a 1 CCD beast. Also, with a little touch up on post like Paul does, the difference in resolution is much better and sooo much more worth it. Check out Jeff's review of the color here (http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=&threadid=11062)

But I think that for most, the benefit of the camera would be for HD and utilizing that going forward. Downsizing HD to SD is just a plus, and a damn good one at that based on Barry's examples.

Just for kicks, I loaded a still from both DV and HD into Photoshop. A Gaussian blur of 1.9 pixels made the image look very close to the DV, as in blurry. A little Saturation started making it look candy coated, like the DV stuff.

Funny stuff!!!!!!

Troy

are you the pixel harvest guy?

<<<-- Originally posted by Chaim Bianco : are you the pixel harvest guy? -->>>
Indeed I am!
-Les

<<<-- Originally posted by Troy LaMont : It seems to me that you're not the cutting edge type of person, but someone that's more at home with fuzzy lo-res video. I'm not sure what your definition of harsh is, but those clips looked far from harsh to my eyes. The resolution difference is astonishing to say the least and with the way the clips were presented, it amazes me that someone could actually prefer the standard DV to HDV! Maybe you're just not used to viewing HD footage or ready for the jump in resolution. -->>>

Well I guess I'm not "cutting edge" as you put it. Hell, I'm still using an EOS1n and a 4 year old XL1. However, I don't feel the need to jump on the bandwagon of every little 'new gadget' that comes along. Sure the JVC cams are a step towards something better but they still have a long way to go. For low budget docos they seem like they could be useful but still not in a professional league by a long shot.

As for not being used to HD footage, here in Japan a lot of broadcast content is shot on HD and it looks clear and sharp but it lacks any warmth and character, the colours are great but it looks so real that it almost distracting. For dramatic work I like the softness of DV. If I was shooting a commercial training doco or the something technicial then HD would be the go, but not these JVCs. I guess I'll stay on the blunt side until we get cams with better functions, controls and lenses, not to mention native editing solutions that don't require all sorts of plug-ins etc. Where would we be if it wasn't for guys like Steve Mullen and his 4HDV package.

Like I said in my previous post 'it all depends on the look you want to achieve', for some it's HDV, for others it's DV.

I've been wanting direct view comparison and a calm objective discussion of these camera's footage/qualities for a while. I thought the 'Which is better, Pan or JVC' thread would go in this direction, but c'est la vie.

Thanks to all involved for providing the goods...

Good to see the discussion going. I think it is pretty evident that the JVC's definition is a very noticeable leap over SD. Edge enhancement is indeed very evident on the HD1 compared to what I am used with the HD10. You can see this out of focus situation created by the lack of definition as I noticed in my own tests involving the HD10 and the DVX. I personnaly de-saturate when I work in DV so the difference in saturation does not bother me at all, I would even say, to me, it is a good point for the JVC. Edge enhancement in the case of the HD10 was pretty similar (even lower in some cases) than the DVX's edge enhancement (oh yes, there is edge enhancement on the DVX, but, as other 3CCD's, it is apparent mostly in very sharp bright/dark edge borders, like light reflection on chrome tubing for example). Of course, I did the tests with ND filters on the JVC.

See also http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=&threadid=17040. Hope this helps,

I am showing this on the JumpStart DVD as well as comparisons to the Cinealta camera.

The JVC cameras compare well to the 3 chip DV cameras such as the PD150 and the PDX100. These are the ones we are showing.

I'm not finished the section on this yet (just got the Cinealta footage on Friday) but I might sell my PD150 pased on the image quality.

DBK

I don't like the color from the HD1, but I sure like the higher resolution!!

For what it's worth, I like the JVC footage better. But I guess this stuff is very subjective.

Moviemaking is somewhat pretty subjective too... so choosing your language has to be equally private... Don't worry guys, both your impressions are good. Diversity is what makes indie filmmaking so rich... HDV is just another penball pen for us to use on plain paper, some people will spill the ink, some other will make a mess but there will be some that will sign their name with grace using it ;)

Can someone shoot a colorchart with a DVX and the JVC side by side and both at 30p? I would like to see one frame from each camera.

<<<-- Originally posted by Eric Bilodeau : Moviemaking is somewhat pretty subjective too... so choosing your language has to be equally private... Don't worry guys, both your impressions are good. Diversity is what makes indie filmmaking so rich... HDV is just another penball pen for us to use on plain paper, some people will spill the ink, some other will make a mess but there will be some that will sign their name with grace using it ;) -->>>

Good analogy, Eric.

hwm

Okay, this old footage is now outdated -- turns out Vegas doesn't do a very sharp up-rez to HD from SD footage, so the DVX wasn't showing as well as it could.

I've re-done the footage, using DVX100 footage up-rezzed using S-SPline Pro. Ignore the old high-rez clip, and use this one as your basis for comparison instead:

http://66.78.26.9/~fiercely/DVXvsJVC/NewDVXvsJVC.mpg

Wow thats a world of differance.
The questions that remain are wether the DVX is showing its lower resolution limits in the background or is it an effect of DOF?

With all of these head to head shots the subject is always very close. I would like to see a comparison where talent is shot 20-25 feet away with DOF not a issue. eg. person against a wall shot from 25 feet out. Then we will be able to judge if the resolution is a factor.
As it stands now we don't know if the JVC is showing higher definition due to the clarity of the background or it is simply a lack of DOF!
Ken

<<<-- Originally posted by Barry Green : Okay, this old footage is now outdated -- turns out Vegas doesn't do a very sharp up-rez to HD from SD footage, so the DVX wasn't showing as well as it could.

I've re-done the footage, using DVX100 footage up-rezzed using S-SPline Pro. Ignore the old high-rez clip, and use this one as your basis for comparison instead:

http://66.78.26.9/~fiercely/DVXvsJVC/NewDVXvsJVC.mpg -->>>

before your new clip i would say, wow the hd1 is worth to own.
now i say, is there a point to own?

Barry,
You didn't hit that DVX footage with the unsharp mask option on S-spline-pro, now did you? :)
I just tried it myself, and it sure looks like it was sharpened.
You don't sell used cars do you? :) -joke


Too keep it Apples to Apples, perhaps you should S-spline the JVC footage as well.
Did you break out the video to stills, process them, and then re-import them as a sequence, or does S-spline work with an editor?
I've only used it on Photoshop stills, and it does a very nice job!
-Les

Yeah, I found the "make the DVX blurry" option and checked it OFF.

Seriously, S-Spline Pro does a wonderful job of up-rezzing. The problem I had was that the Vegas codec I was using, to export the stills, does no chroma filtering or smoothing (so you get very sharp and rough 4:1:1 edges, as opposed to something like the Avid codec, which does a nice smoothing on those edges).

So I found a way to use my old Matrox codec and enable smoothing/filtering. Then I exported the footage as a series of stills, brought them into S-Spline Pro and batch-processed them, resizing to 1280 x 720 and using the "graphics" preset. Then I imported the stills sequence into Vegas, and imported the JVC footage, and then rendered out a 720/30P MainConcept MPG.

I was kinda blown away by the results. I mean, sure, the JVC is still a bit sharper, but I'd say the DVX is now at 80% to 90%, and all the other aspects of the image are so much more pleasing, and using the DVX is a significantly more pleasant experience than using the HD1... so now I think I'll call the camera the HDVx100... ;)

I just tried S-spline pro on the JVC footage. Yikes, I mean I just don't want to see any more detail on that Las Vegas 'lady'!

It's amazing, like magic.
My point is that you can always sharpen something a bit, but it always helps it you have more *real* detail there to begin with.
It would be nice if S-spline worked directly with Vegas.
-Les

are you supposed to get a better quality if you upsample the SD to hd then convert it to dvd or vcd or whatever the other lower resolution format than just converting the SD?

No, for DVD's or other SD output just use what you've got already. For grins I tried up-rezzing to HD and then down-rezzing to SD, and it's kind of a pointless exercise...

... whereas the JVC, when downrezzed to SD, retains its super-sharpness.

how do you export the video to stills in vegas?

Oh my God I am so confused now :>(
OK so without S-Spline Pro the JVC holds a huge resolution advantage.
But with S-Spline Pro the DVX100 virtually erasers this advantage.
Now this is where I am confussed. Even though they look very similar in sharpness when the DVX footage is S-Spline Pro'ed, when down sampled the JVC will hold its detail and the S-Spline Pro footage won't? How is that?

Does S-Spline Pro'ed footage have any sort of motion difficulties, or any knowen shortcummings as far a video goes?
Ken

<<<-- Originally posted by Ken Hodson : Oh my God I am so confused now :>(

But with S-Spline Pro the DVX100 virtually erasers this advantage.
Ken -->>>

No, because you can do the s-spline ( sharpen, really ) to the JVC footage as well.
There are no miracles here. Just tools.

-Les

Yes, but say your delivery format is 720p. You couldn't go anywhere with the JVC, but the dvx100 would look pretty good.
Can I ask what the time frame is to render each frame with S-Spline Pro? PC or MAC.
Ken

s-spline isn't a sharpener - it's a spline based image upsampler that uses some mightly clever algorithms to make a picture enlargement look a lot better than bicubic.

Also, we're still not comparing the same things - the JVC footage is sharpended to death in camera - nothing can save that in post, whereas the DVX is not over-sharpened.

I'm guessing the JVC has the sharpness always on because the picture can't stand the scrutiny without it. To get colour and luminance of a single chip you can't use all the pixels for resolution - something's got to give. Sharpness gives fake resolution, and is a bit of a band aid for lack of real detail. Before any serious comparisons between the JVC and anything else can be made, we need to see what the JVC looks like without sharpening.

Graeme

" I'm guessing the JVC has the sharpness always on because the picture can't stand the scrutiny without it."

I was under the impression that the HD10 does not suffer from over sharpening like the HD1 used in the comparison. And its image holds up. I think 720p is going to give you a sharp looking image even with no sharpness enhancement from the cam.
Ken

Actually, if you can tear your eyes away from the model's face and look at the LED numbers on the slate and the deck in the background you'll see quite a difference in the readability of the numbers between the DVX and the HD1.

I beg to differ on the poo pooing of the single chip. With enough pixels, a single chip does just fine.
See example stills from any digital still camera.
-Les



<<<-- Originally posted by Graeme Nattress : s-spline isn't a sharpener - it's a spline based image upsampler that uses some mightly clever algorithms to make a picture enlargement look a lot better than bicubic.

Also, we're still not comparing the same things - the JVC footage is sharpended to death in camera - nothing can save that in post, whereas the DVX is not over-sharpened.

I'm guessing the JVC has the sharpness always on because the picture can't stand the scrutiny without it. To get colour and luminance of a single chip you can't use all the pixels for resolution - something's got to give. Sharpness gives fake resolution, and is a bit of a band aid for lack of real detail. Before any serious comparisons between the JVC and anything else can be made, we need to see what the JVC looks like without sharpening.

Graeme -->>>

S-spline PRO does have unsharp mask sharpening.
The 'graphic' preset that was used did indeed do sharpening.
The old s-spline did not have USM, maybe you are confusing the two?
-Les



<<<-- Originally posted by Graeme Nattress : s-spline isn't a sharpener - it's a spline based image upsampler that uses some mightly clever algorithms to make a picture enlargement look a lot better than bicubic.

Also, we're still not comparing the same things - the JVC footage is sharpended to death in camera - nothing can save that in post, whereas the DVX is not over-sharpened.

I'm guessing the JVC has the sharpness always on because the picture can't stand the scrutiny without it. To get colour and luminance of a single chip you can't use all the pixels for resolution - something's got to give. Sharpness gives fake resolution, and is a bit of a band aid for lack of real detail. Before any serious comparisons between the JVC and anything else can be made, we need to see what the JVC looks like without sharpening.

Graeme -->>>

Les, you said "No, because you can do the s-spline ( sharpen, really ) to the JVC footage as well."

which makes it sound like S-spline is a sharpening tool, which although it may have some sharpening abilities as part of it's feature set, that's not it's main purpose or ability. It is a very clever upsampler.

As for one-chipedness, yes - if the resolution is high enough you can get away with one chip, but if you want full colour from a single chip of x,y resolution you're only going to get a certain percentage of that resolution as some of the total resolution must be traded in to get colour support.

Graeme

<<<-- Originally posted by Ken Hodson :
Can I ask what the time frame is to render each frame with S-Spline Pro? PC or MAC.
Ken -->>>

On my 2.66GHz P4 WinXP single-processor system, it's about six seconds per frame. Obviously a hyper-threaded or dual-processor system may be able to do better.

<<<-- Originally posted by Dustin Cross : Can someone shoot a colorchart with a DVX and the JVC side by side and both at 30p? I would like to see one frame from each camera. -->>>

Perhaps we will see some comparisons by Scott Billups in the near future
http://www.pixelmonger.com/hg_cam.html

- don

The original premise of the comparision was that the footage was straight out of the two cameras with no intermediate processing other than scaling. S-Spline Pro does sharpening as part of its scaling process, so it's incorrect to say that the DVX footage is straight out of the camera. Apparently that was always the case. It's irrelevant to argue that the JVC is sharpened in camera. What matters is what the footage looks like out of the camera and what you can do with it. We have a mixed comparison here (though probably as good as can be done). I don't mean to criticize the test but it's important to understand the limitations. What we have here is an honest attempt to improve the DVX footage to HD standards compared to JVC out of the camera. Not all the credit for the DVX footage can be attributed to the camera. If this is a cooked comparision we should edit the JVC footage as well.

Any reduction in full color bandwidth caused by the single chip architecture (read the JVC white paper carefully) doesn't mattter when the format substantially reduces color bandwidth anyway. The whole color bandwidth argument is a red herring for formats that subsample chroma. 3CCD designs have advantages other than that.

I seem to have had a post here lost so I'll repeat part of it. I personally believe the DVX color rendition is hypersaturated and exhibits blooming and color fringing. It's white balance is also different than the JVC. While the JVC could use more saturation, I vastly prefer it to the DVX which I consider awful. S-Spline Pro does a nice job faking the extra resolution on the subject, though. The blue wall detail and the chair give away the resolution differences.

<<<-- Originally posted by Graeme Nattress : Les, you said "No, because you can do the s-spline ( sharpen, really ) to the JVC footage as well."

which makes it sound like S-spline is a sharpening tool, which although it may have some sharpening abilities as part of it's feature set, that's not it's main purpose or ability. It is a very clever upsampler.

As for one-chipedness, yes - if the resolution is high enough you can get away with one chip, but if you want full colour from a single chip of x,y resolution you're only going to get a certain percentage of that resolution as some of the total resolution must be traded in to get colour support.

Graeme -->>>