Shannon,

Well even if you have cheated it out of res, the camera lines move into the 800 for 24f. So that's awesome either way.


I have received three emails from people telling me I cheated the XL-H1 out of a good score because we had the camera much too far back from the chart. They say it should have been closer to the chart and it would have gotten an even better score then it did: http://www.cinemahill.com/hidef/xlh1&f900/pages/IMG_0115.htm (and this is in 24f mode)
-
- ShannonRawls.com

Ok folks, here are frame grabs of all five different shots that were kindly provided by Kaku:
http://home.arcor.de/martin.doppelbauer/ResCharts/
I'm afraid you're not going to like what you see.
Both vertical and horizontal resolution is around 600 lph.

If this is really all there is, then the camera is nowhere near 1080p. In fact it's not even 720p. And the "CCD war", as somebody called it, is over with a big laugh. After seeing those chart my guess is Panasonic re-used the same 720x576 PAL CCDs chips which were already in the HVX100E.

You mean DVX100E? I don't believe it. Still, does anyone know the resolution on DVX?

Steve,
I wish you were there when we were doing the test. I can do other test when we can and please supervise us at that time.

Come to India while I'm here and we can really give the camera a work-out. :)

The reason to try a color chart is three-fold:

1) to see the REAL difference Green-shift makes for ALL camcorders. I'm still not sure if Canon is claiming it's total pixel count based upon Green-shift.

2) to level the playing field. Since the advantages of Green-shift go away when there is motion--using standard resolution charts allows the marketing department to get away with saying "go measure the camera yourself." Obviously your test will show a bigger number than will actually be achieved in the real world! Thus, the REAL rez. advantages of the HD100 will be cleverly obscured.

3) It will clearly expose those camcorders that use under-sampling CCDs!

You mean DVX100E? I don't believe it. Still, does anyone know the resolution on DVX?
Sure, should have been DVX100E. AFAIK it has 720x576 CCDs.
But that was only joking, of course. The HVX200 certainly has higher resolving CCDs.

So to sum it all up:

Both JVC and Pana have about the same picture resolution in the region of 0.66 Megapixels.
Sony's FX1/Z1 are about one third better (0.90 Megapixels) and the Canon XLH1 is one more quarter better than the two Sonys (1.14 Megapixels).

Both Pana and JVC record progressive pictures, but the frame modes of Sony's and Canon's camcorders can do pretty much the same (at least for 25p). They will loose a bit of their resolution but not below the level of the JVC or the Panasonic.

Pricewise the Sony camcorders are by far the cheapest (especially the FX1 - if you can live without xlr audio plugs), JVC is in the middle region, Canon is second and Panasonic is by far the most expensive of the five cameras (if you include all the unavoidable extra costs for P2 cards and harddisk storage).

Of course, picture resolution is just one piece of the puzzle. Lattitude, noise level, color reproduction etc. are other very important factors for overall camera performance. Those issues still have to be compared. But probably not in this thread ;-).

So to sum it all up:

Both JVC and Pana have about the same picture resolution in the region of 0.66 Megapixels.
Sony's FX1/Z1 are about one third better (0.90 Megapixels) and the Canon XLH1 is one more quarter better than the two Sonys (1.14 Megapixels).

Both Pana and JVC record progressive pictures, but the frame modes of Sony's and Canon's camcorders can do pretty much the same (at least for 25p). They will loose a bit of their resolution but not below the level of the JVC or the Panasonic.

Martin, when the German magazine talked about the Canon having 800Hx800V resolution, was it the interlaced or the progressive mode? Do these two resolutions, according to the magazine, differer?

You can purchase an HVX with two 4gb P2 cards for around $7,000.

Uh-huh, but the camera is all you need. The cost of DV tapes compared to other archive methods? No comparison for the forseeable future.

I don't think that the small price difference between any of these puppies should be the deciding factor. It's all in the image, and sadly, the HVX is falling short. I was really rooting for it – the promise of DVCPROHD was glorious – but the pic the imager feeds the codec just ain't up to snuff. No wonder Panny hid the CCD specs. Right now it seems the only reason I'd consider this camera is the variable frame rate.

All I'm seeing right now is a very un-filmic image from the H1, sure it's pretty, but pretty in a discovery channel hd kinda way. The HVX, as was the DVX vs the XL just has that "look" to put it simply. Sure cost shouldn't matter I mean, if you're gonna spend 7gs what would 2 more hurt? Not much, but for an overall filmic look, it still seems that the HVX is the winner. I also am wondering why so many canon owners refrain from posting 24F footage?

It's all in the image, and sadly, the HVX is falling short. I was really rooting for it – the promise of DVCPROHD was glorious – but the pic the imager feeds the codec just ain't up to snuff. No wonder Panny hid the CCD specs. Right now it seems the only reason I'd consider this camera is the variable frame rate.

Cool. So does that mean you're deciding against it, off to purchasing something else, and off to somewhere else? ;)

It is extremely confusing...

I see a better resolution from the H1 (from the charts i've seen so far), but i really prefer the overall image rendition of the HVX...

Time to take a coffee break i guess...

yep...

It is misleading to say the HVX looks bad...
It is misleading to say the H1 looks bad...

They both look really good.

But from what i've seen, the HVX has an image i prefer, it looks @#@# full, rich.

But it subjective.

All those numbers, rez...color sampling....etc...

So my final judgment will be made with my eyes !


and i dont understand why posted rez charts from the HVX have a 1882X1040 dimention ???
and another one at 1911X1040 ????

ALL the other charts i can compare to are, or 1920X1080 or 1280X720.

I will really wait for a side by side comparison.

I am seriouly beginning to think that rez is a small (though important) part of the equation.

I'd more or less agree, but given the amount of control that it offers over the image, and the ease of sharing settings, I wouldn't surprised to see that change.

Personally, I plan to shoot as flat as possible (regardless of what camera I settle on) and grade in post, so the most lattitude wins.

Steev,
No it's still in the running. The variable frame rates alone make it a viable contender. I'm just staying open minded until enough real testing has been done on all of them. The only one dead out of the running is the Sony.

There will be no clear overall winner for ALL shooting conditions, because every camera has to do concessions in specific areas to perform better in other areas.

...that's the nature of things.