Kaku of Japan provided HVX-200 clips of shooting a resolution chart, that was printed professionally in a print shop, at 3000 dpi. From that 4 frame grabs were extracted, that were shot with various sharpness setting. The consensus was that the resolution at 1080p was 600Hx600V. The camera shoots in DVCPRO HD format that is compressed 6.7:1.

The consencus is that the NTSC XL2, which is 480p, resolves 540Hx540V. The PAL version, which is 576p, has 20% more vertical lines, so it should resolve about 540Hx650V, or about the same as HVX. XL2 shoots in DV format, which is compressed 5:1.

Vertical resolution is always more important. Picture that is sharper vertically looks better than picture that is sharper horizontally. Higher vertical resolution DEFINITELY IS more important.

HVX shoots up to 30p in 1080p. XL2 shoots up to 30p in SD. The resolution is similar.

HVX shoots 4:2:2. XL2 shoots 4:2:0 or 4:1:1. Considering that DVCPRO HD is 34% more compressed than DV, the advantage of 4:2:2 fully disappears, as luma is a lot more important to the eye than chroma.

Now, there are many other differences between these cameras. HVX offers 720/60p at 100 Mbps and 720/24p at 40 Mbps, plus it has a super fast transfer rate from the P2 system, which has a great advantage for sending news fast to the network station over satellite, etc. It has wider lens. For XL2 you need to buy the 3x W/A.

The new Canon XL H1 resolves 800Hx800V in interlaced, and per my interpretation 800Hx650V in progressive, although there were reports that it resolves in progressive more. Both of these figures are significantly higher than Sony Z1 resolution in 1080i and CF25/30.

The Panasonic resolves overall about the same in 1080p as JVC HD-100 in 720p, which drops resolution significantly with iris closing.

Good info Petr. Minor clarification. The XL2 shoots 4:1:1 only. The Sony HDV cameras are 4:2:0. I got some footage awhile back of a wedding shot in Italy with a PAL XL2 uprezzed to HD. It was awesome looking IMHO.

regards,

-gb-

Greg, PAL XL2 is 4:2:0.

Greg, PAL XL2 is 4:2:0.

My bad, you're absolutely right Petr. I keep getting stuck in NTSC mode.

-gb-

Am i right that the hvx has about the same resolution than the xl2 ?????

if you upscale XL2 PAL to 720 it looks nearly the same as HVX 720 and you got this cinelook, too.
I guess using photozoom for uprez (formaly s-spline) you can get resolution equal to other affordale "HD" - cams from the canon, but without all the troble with editing long GOP´s (HDV) or buying overpriced P2 cards.

Imagine when (or if) Real-Stream gets around to doing an XL2 Andromeda... That would be a real killer!

i'm not in love with the hvx but is this thread serious?

dv 25 4:1:1 vs dvcpro 50 4:2:2

if your needs are sd then dvcpro 50 spanks dv in everyway...if you have a P2 issue like me then thats another thread altogther...i have edited both dv and dvcpro 50, its no contest, i can only imagine what dvcprohd looks like

i'm not in love with the hvx but is this thread serious?

dv 25 4:1:1 vs dvcpro 50 4:2:2

if your needs are sd then dvcpro 50 spanks dv in everyway...if you have a P2 issue like me then thats another thread altogther...i have edited both dv and dvcpro 50, its no contest, i can only imagine what dvcprohd looks like


I don't think it was meant to be an all out comparison, obviously that could only end up one way. I think it's just a little techy FYI which I enjoyed. I found it interesting, especially since I own an XL2.
Funny comment, though.
Just to show how the general public is still not really clear on the image quality differences of DV vs HD, I played back 24p footage I shot with my XL2 on my JVC field monitor for at least a couple dozen people already. All of them were shocked at the picture quality and several asked if, A: Wow, you shot on film? or B: is this that new "high-def" video that looks like film? .
I found this very funny as they have no idea that HD, of course, would yield a much higher resolution picture. What it does tell me , though, is that the general public will be impressed once picture quality reaches a certain level. Anything beyond that is gravy.
Of course, once HD is completely mainstream and the quality level is burned into everyone's mind that's when the distinction becomes apparent.
Good grief, I wonder what they would have done if I had shown them some footage from an XL-H1?