Lets assume for a moment that the MTF of the lens is what limits the resolution and further assume that one views at the optimum distance where 1 horizonatal scan line subtends 1/60 degree. If one puts the camera on a tripod, frames a shot and records a few seconds in both 4:3 and 16:9 the image impinging on the CCD block will be exactly the same but the 16:9 horizontal data has to be compressed by 720/960 to fit into the 720 pixels DV allows so that a picture sample which covers 1 unit of width on your fovea in 4:3 covers 1.33 units in 16:9. The 16:9 picture is, thus, 33% blurrier in the horizontal direction but equally sharp in the vertical.

Hi Rob. As I mentioned, I am not comparing stretched and native 16:9, I am trying to compare native 16:9 and native 4:3. The vertical resolution is therefore fixed at 480 (for NTSC) so is not a variable in this case.

Even if there is no downsampling loss going from 960 to 720 samples (which I think is not feasible in real life) my point is that 960 samples for a 16:9 horizontal line is the same resolution as 720 samples for a 4:3 horizontal line, so I don't see how native 16:9 can be described as higher resolution than native 4:3.

Regarding the VX2000 and XL2 images, I am comparing 4:3 video from both cameras, not native 16:9 with stretched 16:9. I believe the resolution of both in 4:3 mode is 720x576 (I am using PAL) and the sensors are using exactly the same number of pixels. As far as I can see, the differences are not related to resolution at all. When you say that the sensors on the XL2 use more pixels, does this apply in 4:3 mode?

Richard

<< I don't see how native 16:9 can be described as higher resolution than native 4:3. >>

Well, strictly speaking, no it is not. But the main point here is that there's no loss of resolution in 16:9 mode, as there always had been in the past prior to the availability of native 16:9 camcorders such as the XL2.

<< When you say that the sensors on the XL2 use more pixels, does this apply in 4:3 mode? >>

Yes, see the comparison chart at www.dvinfo.net/canonxl2/articles/article06.php

It may be getting down to semantics but if resolution means the ability to resolve then there is a loss of horizontal resolution in the XL2 in 16:9 mode relative to 4:3 because the same number of pixels are being used to cover 33% more world in the horizontal direction. If you hang a resolution chart on the wall, frame and focus and capture some video in 4:3 then change to 16:9 without changing anything else then upsample the captured images so they have the same number of pixels vertically (resulting in more samples in the horizontal direction for 16:9) and compare you will get something like this:

http://www.pbase.com/image/37816574

These images are crops from the centers of the captured images and have been upsampled to be 400 x 400 pixels each. The 16:9 sample is on the left; the 4:3 on the right. That the horizontal resolution is better with 4:3 is quite clear from examination of the Group 1 vertical bars. What you get in return for this lost resolution is more picture. Now it is true that we are appreciably better off than in the XL1 where 16:9 was obtained by tossing out lines at the top and bottom of the picture.

I'm not sure I follow what you're demonstrating here. Are you saying that you digitally resized (up or down) the 16:9 image? To what purpose -- just to maintain the same visual aspect ratio? Because the resizing process may account for some of the difference here...

A fundamental difference between 16:9 and 4:3 is that they use the same # of pixels, but the shape of the pixels is what changes. To be a fair test of what is actually being resolved by the camera, I'd think you shouldn't do any resizing of the image, just let one be fat and the other be skinny and let's see what the actual pixels look like.

(btw, I do think your original premise is correct, and that there should be an overall slight loss in resolution in 16:9 as vs. 4:3, due to the 960->720 pixel conversion. I'm just not sure I understand quite what you've done here and whether that reflects it properly).

<<<-- Originally posted by Chris Hurd : << I don't see how native 16:9 can be described as higher resolution than native 4:3. >>

Well, strictly speaking, no it is not. But the main point here is that there's no loss of resolution in 16:9 mode, as there always had been in the past prior to the availability of native 16:9 camcorders such as the XL2.

<< When you say that the sensors on the XL2 use more pixels, does this apply in 4:3 mode? >>

Yes, see the comparison chart at www.dvinfo.net/canonxl2/articles/article06.php -->>>

Hi Chris. I think you are comparing native and stretched 16:9 again, which is not what I was questioning.

For the sensors pixel count in 4:3 mode, your comparison table shows just under 2% fewer pixels for the VX2100. All other things being equal (which I totally accept is not the case when comparing the XL2 and VX2000) I would not expect this difference in resolution to be very perceptible. If I am wrong, then the resampling from 960 to 720 horizontal pixels for 16:9 mode would give a huge reduction in perceived resolution, (notwithstanding the argument already put forward that we can still see more clarity from a high quality source image that has been downsampled to DV resolution). There just has to be a quality hit when going low rez, otherwise the solution to delivering high definition video at low bit rates would be very easy - just downsample it.

Richard

sorry if this was already asked before - in this case, please send me just simple link to corresponding issue (subject).

who is producer/provider of canon's xl2 ccd?

i read (heard?) before it was panasonic (for XL1), but cannot confirm it. anyone knows?

when i tested both cameras dvx100A and brand new canon xl2 on ibc in amsterdam last september, the look and feel was almost identical - very similar color interpretation, especially when difficult colors are presented (i had special carton wiht bluish green which is my "ultimate" color tester), and the result was very similar if not identical.

so, my question is - is canon's ccd panasonic's one?

thanks,

filip

What deLanghe compares by these transformed images is in fact the angular screen resolution as seen from a fixed distance at fixed picture hight. And indeed the number of cycles/degree is in favor of the (smaller) 4:3 picture if the basic number of pixels/lines is fixed in the images.

Barry,

Fair enough. The original frame grabs are at http://homepage.mac.com/ajdel/FileSharing7.html. A couple of things folks need to think about when viewing these. They are both 720 x 480 which is 3:2. To see them as they would be seen on a TV screen they need to be re-sampled to, respectively 16:9 and 4:3. That's what I did in Photoshop using bicubic interpolation with the final picture heights being the same in each case. Also, when you look at them on a computer monitor you have to be cognizant of the fact that resampling is taking place and that both the algorithm used by the viewing application and the interpolation (if any) done by your graphics card come into play. Photoshop is a good tool for viewing these frames because there is an "actual pixels" mode in which one pixel in the file goes to 1 pixel on your monitor and when scrutinized using the magnifier tools individual pixels are blown up to "tiles" so that the individual pixels in the original can be clearly discerned.

Happy Holidays to all!

Okay, I am officially in the A.J. deLange fan club now... I understand exactly what you're saying, I agree, and I can demonstrate it as well.

Here's an extraction from the XL2. This was an Accu-Chart, which is a high-definition test chart. We shot this exact same chart on the XL2 from a locked-down tripod shot, the only thing that changed at all was the switch on the XL2 from 4:3 to 16:9.

I took the horizontal resolution section and extracted a patch and compared them side-by-side, no resizing or anything.
http://www.icexpo.com/XL2-16x9-vs-4x3.JPG

The XL2 is quite clearly capable of resolving horizontal detail much more clearly in 4x3 mode than it is in 16x9 mode. In 4x3 mode the lines marked 500 are crisp, sharp, and cleanly resolved, and 600 looks pretty good as well. It even did a fair job at separating out the lines marked 700. In 16x9, 600 is not resolved well at all, and 700 turns to complete mush on the right side. I would tend to think the 960->720 downsampling has something to do with it; it would be interesting to see how the FX1 performs on the same chart, seeing as it has 16x9-shaped CCD's with wide skinny pixels (but also 960 of them).

I think I have that shot here somewhere, I'll have to look for it...
(edit: I don't have that shot. I do have an in-camera down-rez of shooting the Accu-Chart as HDV, and recording the firewire output as DV. In that mode, the FX1's horizontal resolution looks basically the same as the XL2's 16x9 mode).

(for reference, the Accu-Chart lists different horizontal resolution numbers depending on whether you're shooting 16x9 or 4x3, to take into account the effect of "TV Lines" of resolution. According to the accu-chart, the XL2 is showing about 450 lines in both 4x3 and 16x9 mode.)

Thought there would be some replies to this by now. Anyway, I'd just like to say thanks to Barry and A.J. deLange for carrying out these tests and posting the results. This is the best way to get closer to the truth.

Richard

Great article in this months DV magazine by Adam Wilt on widescreen and CCD sizes. His comment regarding the XL2's use of 4:3 chips, is that the results are "Just as good" as if the company had used 16:9 chips.

AJ and Barry,

Although I don't understand all of the technical things you are discussing, I do understand what you're saying about the resolution chart results.

I was momentarily taken aback by this apparently proven reduced resolution of 16:9, until I realized that though the result may be technically correct, it is sort of comparing "apples to 1.33 apples" and is inherent to the fact that 4:3 and 16:9 are -- obviously! -- different aspect ratios.

Just so folks don't misunderstand and start saying, "Aha, the XL2's 16:9 sucks after all" please allow me to expand on what I know you already know and, I'm sure, would agree with:

The same subtended arc sees less percentage of the widescreen image in the XL2 than it does of the 4:3 image. Your results compare the horizontal resolution of the full width of a 720x480, 4:3 image against 75% of the width of a 720x480, 16:9 image. So it isn't at all surprising that the 16:9 image looks 25% smaller and resolved fewer lines in your test jpg...less of its width and fewer of its pixels were used in the test.

Without having done any such tests myself, I'm quite confident that if we compare images of equal horizontal or areal percentage, the 16:9 will resolve just as much detail as 4:3, if not MORE...again, since the image aspect ratios and PARs are different, one really needs to compare the whole images, or at least equal percentages of the images, to do a practical comparison.

Please don't get me wrong. We all greatly appreciate the work you are doing and sharing with us. I just didn't want that point to be confused...it briefly surprised me, but I was willing to stop and think it through. However, not everyone might be so inclined. Didn't want anyone going on to misinterpret your interesting findings.

Pete,

See if you agree with this. You have a perfect camera i.e. one in which all that engineering stuff you referred to works at its theoretical limit. It's got lots and lots of pixels in both the horizontal and vertical directions and all its resampling algortithms work really, really well. The camera puts out DV. It's scheme for doing 16:9 is the same as the XL2's. It just takes samples from a wider area in 16:9 than it does in 4:3 and the height from which it takes samples is the same.

You frame a picture of a picket fence in 4:3 such that the vertical extent of the frame just fits the vertical length of the pickets. The pickets are spaced an amount equal to their width and there are 360 of them in the frame. When this image is converted to DV there will be 360 vertical rows of white pixels, one for each picket and 360 vertical rows of dark pixels, one row for each space between pickets.

Now you switch to 16:9 mode. The image captured by the camera now covers 480 pickets and 480 spaces. The picket height is still the same number of pixels. The camera resoves these new pickets as well as it did before because all that has changed is that you are switching more pixels on. But, and here's the heart of the matter, the camera has to down sample in the horizontal direction to the same total of 720 in order to put out DV format. You no longer have just 1 picket or space per column of pixels but rather 1 picket and 1/3 space. Thus the pickets are not as well resolved. In return for having to look at aliased pickets you get to see more of them. To get rid of the aliasing you would have to move in closer so that you only have 360 pickets in the view finder again. This would no longer permit you to capture the tops and bottoms of the pickets.

No, the message is not that the XL2 sucks in 16:9 mode. It is just that it's ability to resolve in the horizontal direction is a little less than in 4:3 for the same level of vertical resolution.

AJ, that's an outstanding "thought experiment!" As before, what you've said is entirely logical and I don't disagree with a word of the experiment. I would just phrase the conclusion a little differently. Let me try again, taking a slightly different approach. See if you guys agree with this, then:

It isn't the XL2's "limitation" per se. What I think you guys are driving towards is that DV 16:9 images are inherently different than DV 4:3 images. They're different geometric shapes composed of differently shaped pixels and you can't really make a generalized comparison of them in one dimension only...16:9 has a 1.2 PAR and 4:3 has a 0.9 PAR. You could conversely say that for a given width, the vertical resolution of 4:3 is only 75% the resolution of 16:9...hence the 360 pixels of "squeeze mode" wide screen in the previous generation of cameras. Thus, one could do your awesome picket fence experiment in the vertical and say the same thing about the XL2's 4:3 that Barry's horizontal experiment causes you to say about 16:9.

Since what we really look at onscreen is a two dimensional image, let's compare 16:9 and 4:3 images of equal area: a 144 square cm screen. The 16:9 image is, simply enough, 16cm wide by 9cm high; the 4:3 image is 13.8564cm wide by 10.3923cm high. Both of them will have (at theoretical limit) 720x480 pixels; the pixels are just shaped differently and thus collectively occupy a differently shaped area. But viewed from the same distance, the images will overall, on average appear equally as sharp because they contain the same amount of image information. The two different geometries will have slightly different strengths and weaknesses, and lead to artifacts under somewhat different circumstances, though...such as horizontal and vertical picket fence tests!

Again, I am not at all saying Barry's experiment is faulty. It is showing specific (valid) results that I think speak to the geometric limits of DV rather than the quality of this or any other particular camera. But, once we can compare 1 apple to 1 apple, then the quality of the CCD block, etc, etc becomes fair game. I wonder...has anyone devised a whole-image "resolved pixels" test? If not, maybe it is time?

Hi Pete. I would agree that shrinking down the 16:9 image will make it a bit sharper, but the main point is that for the same vertical image size and resolution the 4:3 image will be sharper than 16:9 since the 720 pixels represent a smaller width.

I'm not so sure of your point about the artifacts, however. The 16:9 will have downsampling artifacts such as those in the picket fence example. The 4:3 has not been downsampled at all, so it will not. Are you saying that the 4:3 image will suffer from some other form of artifacts that the 16:9 image will not?

Richard

<<<-- Originally posted by Richard Hunter : Hi Rob. As I mentioned, I am not comparing stretched and native 16:9, I am trying to compare native 16:9 and native 4:3. The vertical resolution is therefore fixed at 480 (for NTSC) so is not a variable in this case.

16:9 can be described as higher resolution than native 4:3. -->>>

I don't think that has ever been said. What everyone was saying
was that native 16:9 has a resolution increase over fake 16:9.

You either want 4:3 or you want 16:9. If you want 4:3 then shoot
in 4:3 since it will indeed have more resolution (but not more
sampling) than 16:9 mode.

If you need 16:9 then it is better to shoot in a true 16:9 form than
it is to do a stretch or letterbox since you increase (vertical)
resolution and you loose some horizontal resolution, but you gain
a wider field of view and a higher horizontal sampling.

So yes, you are correct in that the horizonatal "overal" resolution
will be lower in true 16:9 compared to 4:3 on the same camera.
However you get an increased sampling (which might appear as
a higher resolution) and a wider view in return, ofcourse.

Richard,

My point is that both images end up as 720x480. Both will theoretically show up to 360 pickets horizontally. That's it; no more. If you turn the camera 90 degrees, both will show 240 pickets. That's it; no more. It has nothing to do with downsampling, CCD blocks, or glass; it is simply the limit of DV.

So Barry's test was entirely predictable: it compared the full 720 pixel width of a 4:3 image with 75% (540 pixels worth) of the width of a 16:9 image. So the 16:9 image looked smaller and less sharp in that test. If you turned the camera 90 degrees, you could show the same result against 4:3. You could oversample by a billion pixels and use a Cray computer for downsampling...and still not get better results because that's all that DV can give you.

It doesn't matter that it is 16:9 or 4:3. They just happen to be different shapes derived from a grid of 720x480 pixels that are shaped differently...0.9PAR vs 1.2PAR. For anti-aliasing algorithms, maybe DCT (don't know about that), and such, the edges of pixels may be located differently and that may make a small difference in the final image.

Now, if we look at the full width (or height) of an image and our camera is giving us less than 360 (or 240 for height) pickets, then we are starting to talk about the capabilities of our cameras.

I hope that helps clarify.

I agree with what Pete is saying, completely.

It is important to keep in mind that the 4:3 picture is showing more detail in the picture, but is showing less overall picture. The 16:9 shot was showing more, overall.

There's nothing wrong with the XL2's 16:9 mode, I hope people aren't drawing the conclusion that there is! It's a different shape, and as such it's... well, things are going to be different when you're shooting 16:9 vs. 4:3!

About the only thing that could be conclusively drawn is that you shouldn't shoot 16:9 with the idea that you could pan 'n' scan crop down to get a 4:3 extraction, unless you're prepared to have a lower-res 4:3 version. If you want a fullscreen 4:3 image you'll get better results by shooting in 4:3, than you would by extracting a 4:3-shaped patch out of the 16:9 image. (Not that anyone was discussing doing so, but it's really the only conclusive decision I can draw from the test results!)

Yup. Pan-n-scan would suffer, just as "stretch mode" 16:9 suffers. Is it possible we have reached consensus on a topic at DVinfo? How often does THAT happen! Mark your calendars! ;-)

Barry, thanks again for doing testing on real rez charts. If I've missed some links along the way, point me to them, but I haven't noticed too much objective testing posted, like the test you placed in this thread.

Are those who have actually done resolution testing on the XL2 satisfied that in either mode it shoots fairly near theoretical limit? It SEEMS to based on the beautiful videos, but it would be interesting to see more rez chart results like Barry's.

<<<-- Originally posted by Rob Lohman
2. true 16:9 (whatever method)
- resolution and FoV increase in 16:9 compared to 4:3
- 4:3 is lower resolution than 16:9 (that is the whole idea)

-->>>

Hi Rob. Don't want to belabour the point, but what I was questioning was the statement above that has nothing to do with fake 16:9. If this is not what you were saying, then we (probably) don't disagree after all.

Pete, I agree with what you say. I just don't agree that 720x480 16:9 can be higher resolution than 720x480 4:3, which is what I interpreted the quote from the post above as saying.

I also agree that the reduction in horizontal resolution is not any limitation of the XL2 in 16:9 mode. It is a direct result of the DV spec that only allocates 720 pixels even when the width has increased by 1/3.

And by the way, I am very happy with my XL2. :)

Happy New Year?

Richard