I wonder what the likely resolution of the CCD will be? I am currently co-editing a feature shot in HDCAM 24P and converted to offline in DVCPRO HD 24P (23.98) through a Blackmagic Decklink HD card. Internally, FCP sees the material as 1280x1080 resolution, but it plays in QT player as a full 1920x1080 image. To my eyes, the format is astonishingly good for the bitrate, (11.4MB/s) and it easily plays off a single Firewire drive. There are some minor compression artifacts (noise in shadow areas mainly) but it's simply amazing considering it's a second pass of compression on HD material.

My curiosity is just what resoution the CCD will likely need to be to accomodate full 1080 images in the HVX-200? It seems to me that the minimum res would be just what I'm working with right now--1280x1080. That's something like 1.3 million pixels, which is somewhere in the neighborhood of half a million more pixels than full 1280x720 images, ala JVC HD100. Just enough horizontal sampling to stretch out properly to the full 1920 spec...it would seem.

I don't fully understand how 1280 squeezed horizontal pixels UNSQUEEZES to a full 1920 when played back in apps such as QT7, and looks great!

Is it likely that the CCD will be 1280x1080 in order to maximize sensitivity, or does the camera need to oversample more pixels than the format accomodates in 1080 recording, (like an F900 does--2.2 MP sensor I think) in order to increase image quality?

Just curious...

Even though my thread was a dud, (isn't anyone interested in what the likely res of the CCD will be?) I wanted to add a prediction--Because the new HDX400 1080i camera only records 720 60p and upconverts and writes to tape as 1080i, I think that answers the question of whether the HVX200 will actually record a full, native 1080 lines. Why would Panasonic let the 200 trump the 400, or the Varicam, for that matter, in actual resolution?

I don't fully understand how 1280 squeezed horizontal pixels UNSQUEEZES to a full 1920 when played back in apps such as QT7, and looks great!

It doesn't "unsqueeze". The information is gone and no miracle of math can bring it back. 1280->1920 is the simple option of digital upsampling for LCD/digital display, or in the case of a CRT, multiplying the analog signal by a constant. It doesn't look nearly as great as when the image is a native resolution, square pixel image with suitable bandwidth.

-Steve

Barlow,

I'm not sure anyone knows the answer to that question at this point. We'll see as soon as the specs 'officially' come out. I'm interested in the native CCD size as well.

take care hombre...

Barlow,

I'm not sure anyone knows the answer to that question at this point. We'll see as soon as the specs 'officially' come out. I'm interested in the native CCD size as well.

take care hombre...

Thanks for the response, but I wasn't looking for total answers, just mildly fun speculation. So far, no one seems to be refuting the likelihood that the HVX200 won't actually have any more true resolution than the higher end Panny HD cameras. (I really hope I'm wrong) It seems to me that a true 1080i/p acquisition (at least vertically) in such a diminutive little camera could really ruffle some feathers and upset the pecking order.

Well, just for the sake of fun speculation, we can work backwards from some assumptions and see where that leads. From what I've read, the minimum practical pixel pitch (center of one sensor site to the next) is about 4um (microns). Below that, manufacturing costs rise rapidly and light sensitivity gets unacceptably low. For a 1/3" camera with 16:9 chips, the image area is 2.94mm x 5.12mm. With 4um pitch, the maximum pixel count is then 735 x 1307 (which strongly suggests the final HVX chips will be 720 x 1280). To get a vertical count of 1080 pixels in a 2.94mm chip height, the pitch would be only 2.7um, which, if even do-able, would have awful light sensitivity. From all the whining that goes on about low-light performance of cameras, I can't imagine that they (Panasonic, or any manufacturer) would sacrifice sensitivity for that resolution.
Of course they can always claim "pixel shift" and artificially exaggerate the numbers so that buyers can believe they are getting more resolution anyhow.
But I'm betting the actual pixel count will be 720 x 1280.

I do enjoy the numbers and speculation. Can someone tell me how much the pixel shift would bump the resoluton up to in theory. Does pixel shift allow for 1080p? I'm not very clear on this whole concept. I know Barry Green broke this down once.

According to the BBC, the maximum gain in resolution one can expect from a 1/2-pixel spatial offset/pixel shift design is about the square root of 2, so 1.414 times as much res. The Sony Z1 uses spatial offset to try to get a 50% resolution boost from its CCDs, and it does come pretty darn close. The BBC said that a more likely real-world scenario would be to get a 33% increase in resolution over the native pixel count.

Dan's droppin' some serious science, yo! Cool. I will definitely be shocked if Panasonic pulls off a *true* 1080i/p that isn't an upconvert. It seems like there are both scientific and corporate reasons why it just won't do it.

To get a vertical count of 1080 pixels in a 2.94mm chip height, the pitch would be only 2.7um, which, if even do-able, would have awful light sensitivity. From all the whining that goes on about low-light performance of cameras, I can't imagine that they (Panasonic, or any manufacturer) would sacrifice sensitivity for that resolution.

Well, the Sony HDR-HC1 is equipped with a 1/3" type, 1920x1440 (4:3 square pixel) CMOS sensor, and is already on the market for significantly less than the Panasonic HVX200 will cost. It doesn't have great low-light, but the sacrafice as was made.

-Steve

For a camera aimed at the film market why would low light need to be a huge concern. Any "Serious" film maker would usually use some kind of lights for a shoot except for very rare situations.

I personally think a possible resolution for the camera could be 1280 x720 just like the other Panasonic HD cams. Even their 1080i camera uses a 1280x720 set of chips and somehow up converts the 720 to 1080i to get DVCPro HD 1280x1080i. I e-mailed Panasonic to find out how they do this but naturally I didn't hear back from them.

What this means is that we know Panasonic knows how to get at least to 1080i from the same chips that give them 720p with very good results. What this doesn't tell us is if and what their method will be to be able to get 1080p.

Since Panasonic does pixel shift very well I am sure we will see it on the HVX200. 1280x720 times 1.5 gives exactly 1920x1080. For 1080 30p it would only need to take every other frame from the 60p chips. Then the DVCPro HD codec will end up with 1280x1080. Upscaling to 1920 and going back down to 1280 would give a slight illusion to having more detail just as with the DVX100A using pixel shift but still recording 720x840. Since the DVX100A already has enough pixels for SD video it wouldn't really need pixel shift but it does help to give a little bit more detail.

Juan's Real Stream product has shown us how good 480p chips can look when upscaled to close to 1080p because of pixel shift. Imagine how much better starting with 720p would look.

I really do hope Pansonic does go with this method because then it would mean that for uncompressed capture from the component outputs we could end up with a very nice pixel shifted 1920x1080 raster.

Whilst I'm not doubting the HVX will have a 1280x720 sensor (seems very likely it will, although of course we'd all love a true 1080 vertical resolution), the assumption that it's not practical to have a pixel size small enough to allow 1080 on a 1/3" chip simply cannot be correct - the FX-1/Z1, after all, are 1080 ona 1/3" chip...

Thomas - are we assuming that the HVX will have pixel shift oriented CCD's in *both* axes?? I'll happily and readily admit to being *way* behind yourself and many others in the low-down-n-dirty tech of all this, but surely that would have some negative ramifications on the 720p mode of the camera, which seems to be the mode Panny are selling it on?

I'd love to get a better understanding of this, but please explain in laymans terms, or I'll get lost!!!

The FX1 / Z1 uses 960x1080 chips, and due to it being interlaced, will get better noise performance due to line averaging (is that where the better noise comes from?) which is needed to avoid interlace twitter, and gives you about 70% of the 1080 vertical resolution. It uses pixel shift to achieve 1440x1080, but doesn't look that high resolution. It tends to look a little better than 960, but not too much, on real footage, to my eyes.

The issue with making the photosites on the sensor small, is that you get poorer dynamic range, poorer noise levels (and noise is the enemy of compression) and you don't necessarily get higher resolution, because smaller photsites means you need a sharper lens, and that is going to get expensive, although physically smaller, which is cheaper, but I don't think that much cheaper to get you the higher resolution you need, if you know what I mean.

Basically it's all one big compromise. Panasonic stated that they're going to optimise for resolution, noise, and dynamic range, and given that the constraint is that of a 1/3" sensor, I think that's going to mean a 1280x720 chip size, with horizontal & vertical pixel shift. A 1280x720 sensor without shift is "enough" to get practicaly perfect 1080i due to it's necessary interlace factor, and with the pixel shift, it should be good enough to produce as good a 1080p as the lens is capable of, and indeed, I'd guess the lens would be the limiting factor in this, rather than the chip itself.

But it shouldn't be long now before we get to see for ourselves.

Graeme

I personally think a possible resolution for the camera could be 1280 x720 just like the other Panasonic HD cams. Even their 1080i camera uses a 1280x720 set of chips and somehow up converts the 720 to 1080i to get DVCPro HD 1280x1080i. I e-mailed Panasonic to find out how they do this but naturally I didn't hear back from them.

What this means is that we know Panasonic knows how to get at least to 1080i from the same chips that give them 720p with very good results. What this doesn't tell us is if and what their method will be to be able to get 1080p.

Since Panasonic does pixel shift very well I am sure we will see it on the HVX200. 1280x720 times 1.5 gives exactly 1920x1080. For 1080 30p it would only need to take every other frame from the 60p chips. Then the DVCPro HD codec will end up with 1280x1080. Upscaling to 1920 and going back down to 1280 would give a slight illusion to having more detail just as with the DVX100A using pixel shift but still recording 720x840. Since the DVX100A already has enough pixels for SD video it wouldn't really need pixel shift but it does help to give a little bit more detail.

Anyone looked very carefully at the DVCPROHD demo DVD that came with FCP 4.5? The 1080i stuff is razor sharp in QT7. (You do need a hi-res monitor-1600x1200 minimum- and a fast Mac to play out smoothly) It's shockingly good if it's an upconvert. Some of the scenic mountain shots are unbelievably crisp. The Varicam 720p stuff is nice, but somewhat soft by comparison. I would be very interested to see some good uprezzing to 1080p done with that footage. Did Panasonic have a true 1080i camera when the DVD was made? That stuff seems like it was a true 1280x1080 acquisition.

If Panasonic can deliver 1080i/p acquisition with the HVX200 at 90-95% of the sharpness and quality of that demo DVD, it will absolutely smoke the competition. It might even make the obscene cost of P2 taste like cherry flavored Kool-Aid, if you know what I mean. DVCPRO HD is a very robust format--the workflow is tried and true, not kludgey like HDV. Kudos to Panasonic for taking the high road and doing entry level, professional HD their own way.

I sure hope there's a FireStore alternative right off the bat though. And I hope you can do thumbnail previews off of a HD setup just like you can with P2.

Here's hoping they don't drop the ball.

Barlow,

as one of many whom are contemplating the move to HD (HDV or otherwise), I swear, it depends on the day of the week as to which camera I am going to buy.... either Sony, JVC, or wait for the Panny.

Can you explain what you mean by robust format for the DVC ProHD? And can you enlighten on the current post production options for it and P2 hardware?

can you enlighten on the current post production options for it and P2 hardware?Hi Marty,

Start with my P2 FAQ page, the section about post-production located at:

http://www.p2info.net/p2faq.php#p2post

Editing solutions which support P2 and DVCPRO HD include Apple Final Cut Pro 5, Canopus Edius HD and Avid's Xpress Pro HD, Newscutter, and Media Composer applications.

Thanks Chris.... you're everywhere!

Barlow,

as one of many whom are contemplating the move to HD (HDV or otherwise), I swear, it depends on the day of the week as to which camera I am going to buy.... either Sony, JVC, or wait for the Panny.

Can you explain what you mean by robust format for the DVC ProHD? And can you enlighten on the current post production options for it and P2 hardware?

Without a doubt, wait for the Panny. Even with the cost of P2, the format alone is worth the premium. I've edited HDV and DVCPRO HD, and there's just no comparison. DVCPRO HD is very fluid on my Dual 2.7 G5. It works great on other G5's, and even higher clocked G4's too.(don't know about the PC side) HDV works, but feels clunky by comparison. You can tell the computer has to work harder to decode and edit it. DVCPRO HD, even at full 100mbs, feels like a natural and logical extension of the tried-and-true DV format. In other words, it just works.

The director of the film I'm working on is very happy with the format. It's absolutely astonishing that we were able to capture all 30+ hrs of HDCAM footage into such an amazingly good codec. All on one RAID.

I think alot of people are going to be selling their Z1's in the future.

Barlow,

You have me convinced to wait. My only hesitation with the Panny is ergonomics. I'm so used to shooting on the shoulder for so many situations, but small trade-off for the P2 concept. I am curious about the CCDs. I have had a checkered history with Matsushita chips. I presume that is what is going into the HVX.

Two quickies:

1 - As I explore post-production solutions, which is no doubt going to become more crowded as the new year approaches, am I simply looking for something that can import and work with MXF format?

2 - Has anyone run the math on SD DV capacity for the 8gb card? My numbers come out to about to about 30 minutes... is that right? Seems optimistic to me.

Thanks Barlow...... you have contributed to a much better sleep-pattern from here to November.

Marty

Hi Marty,

1. Yes, it all pretty much boils down to MXF file support.

2. I can tell you haven't fully explored my site at p2info.net just yet. You'll find the answer to this and many other similar questions simply by browsing the FAQ and the Articles and Resources sections there. In particular to what you're looking for, see this page:

Recording Capacities of P2 Cards (http://www.p2info.net/articles/misc/p2cardcaps.php)

Hope this helps,

Excellent resource Chris... thank you.

My goal is to eventually stop asking all these questions that have answers in plain sight thanks to the tremendous amount of information you and others on the board have put together here.

Thanks again,
Marty

Hi Marty,

Trust me, I'm interested in all of your questions, but I'm most especially interested in the questions you may have which are not covered by the material that's already on the p2info.net site -- that's what I would really like to hear about, because those questions will help me greatly to determine what sort of information needs to be added to the site. Thanks,

Can you explain what you mean by robust format for the DVC ProHD? And can you enlighten on the current post production options for it and P2 hardware?

DVCProHD uses an extension of DV compression and recording scheme that reduces the data rate to 100 mb/s. It's much more stable and less prone to artifacts than MPEG2-TS based HDV. His reference to the DVCProHD format being *robust*, probably is also referring the DVCProHD's 4:2:2 (technically 22:11:11 for HD) ratio between luminance and chrominance sampling - basically 2 sets of color samples for every 4 luma samples. A 4:2:2 sampled format will stand up to multiple passes of graphics and effects in post, whereas a 4:1:1 (DV) or 4:2:0 (HDV) sampled format won't be nearly as *robust* - IE stable and durable - in post.

Current post production options in NLE include: FCP5, Avid Express Pro HD, Media Composer HD, Newscutter, and Canopus Edius HD. P2 hardware options include the new mobile AJPCS060 P2 Store (60 gig = 15 4gig P2 cards) for field use, and the P2 Drive (4 P2 cards) for an edit bay. With a software update, the P2 cards can also be used with a laptop in the field. BTW, the P2 store has a suggested retail of around $1,800.

Hope this helps!

Any chroma sampling scheme that reduces the resolution of the chroma with respect to the luma will suffer from bleeding of colour on the addition of effects and graphics, if the NLE or compositing package upsamples the chroma reduction back up to full resolution, ie 4:4:4 (for HD, using a base number of 22 went very much out of style due to the complexity verboseness of such nomenclature, so saying 4:4:4 for HD is not wrong, and is indeed, I think, currently the preferred way of describing things) before compositing. It this this repeated upsample and downsample process that causes the chroma sampling to be less robust.

The Apple DV codecs are famous for not upsampling the chroma upon conversion to 4:4:4, which lends them a blocky appearance, but gives them superior generational performance in native editing compared to, say, the Avid codec, which smooths the chroma upon decompression. This also makes it harder to key off the Apple DV codec, but easier on the Avid, unless some form of chroma upsampling is applied to the DV codec before use. I'm guessing the DVCproHD codec is going to be treated similarly, but I'm not certain.

Another thing to be aware with codecs like DVCproHD that squeezes the image as part of the compression, it's important that any graphics and compositing are done at the native resolution of the codec to stop the degredation that can occur from repeatedly upscaling and downscaling the video.

Graeme

Excellent summary Graeme. My summary was meant to be concise, but I'm glad you expanded the summary. So graphics and compositing done to DVCProHD footage in FCP should be applied before scaling the video? In using the HVX then, since there's so many resolution options, it would be wise to decide before shooting on what the end-use resolution will be, and shoot in that resolution, rather than shoot, let's say in 720p and then decide to upres to 1080i, or 1080p...correct?

Thanks Steve. I think the scaling I'm referring to is the, say, 960x720 to 1280x720 scaling. FCP works on the footage only at it's native 960x720, so you're ok there. It doesn't scale up the footage, add the effect and scale down. It only scales up for "viewing" purposes. Any graphics done big, will get scaled down to fit as appropriate through settings in the motion tab, and now with FCP5, that downscaling is decent at least.

I think that it's fine to shoot 720 and later decide to upscale if necessary. That's a different kettle of fish altogether.

Graeme