Since this is a hot topic and a major concern among many of us that wanted a true promised 1080P mode on the HVX, where does Panasonic stand on this now.

I for one love the HVX and it's image, and are part of a very few who saw the film out which was very gorgeous directed by Ben Rich. However the 1080P was promoted for film out if you need the highest level of res.

With the advent of 1080P TV's coming in all over the place; these viewing systems will want that extra punch. I'll tell ya, 720P is no match for true 1080P on my 24' dell.

Michael Pappas
Arrfilms@hotmail.com
PappasArts & Arrfilms Main site
CONTACT VIA AOL INSTANT MESSENGER
AT { PAPPASARTS2 }
XLH1 and HVX200 frame grabs and news here:
http://www.pbase.com/Arrfilms
http://www.PappasArts.com
http://www.Myspace.com/PappasArts

1) My model predicts these data from three 960x576 CCDs with H. Green-shift.

2) However, there have been reports from the USA and Japan that the CCD uses both H. and V. Green-shift. If this is true -- then my model estimates the V. rez.should be about 590 TVL. But, it was only 540 TVL.

3) I'm concerned by the test being run with Sharpness turned down.

"The HVX200's corresponding control had a subtler effect; the machine holds its fundamental sharpness better with detail turned down ... . Sharpness on the ... HVX ... used -3 or -4, ... to give the same apparent sharpness (as judged from edging artifacts) as the Canon did on its minimum setting."

If the Sharpness affects V. rez, more than H. rez. -- then that could account for the lower measure.

We really need several more measures of HVX200 resolution! Barry?


4) Adam is correct that a 960x1080p CCD that discarded every other line would also yield 540 TVL. Why would Panasonic -- if it had a 1080-row CCD -- toss away half the lines? Perhaps their current DSP can't handle more than 540-lines at 60Hz. Which could mean an enhanced model could come later. Or, perhaps a firmware enhancement?


5) Yes -- the HVX200 offers less resolution than does the HD100, but it also offers real 720p60 which is very important for those who are NOT into film.

For those shooting "video for film" the HD100 is, to me, the obvious correct choice. Some, of course, will prefer the HVX200 at 24p because they need 4:2:2 and/or believe that DVCPRO HD is "less compressed" than 720p HDV -- which is untrue.

But, for the much larger market of those shooting video -- these folks have a choice of under-sampled 1080i or under-sampled 720p or 720p30 with a Motion Filter. Right now there is no PERFECT camcorder at under $10K.

You'll have to make choices!

Putting all this into perspective. At the NAB 2004 after JVC announced HDV, Panasonic announced they too would release an MPEG-2 camcorder. They even passed around a model that used SD cards. I suspect they were in a bit of a panic about JVC's decision to team with NTT to embed an NTT MPEG-2 chip into a DV camcorder.

By NAB 2005 -- the said they had "switched priorities" and decided to go with DVCPRO HD because "the editing technology was ready." In reality, they didn't have a 60fps MPEG-2 encorder. Nor does anybody.

By NAB 2007 we should see an HVX*** that has "real" HD CCDs and a 60fps MPEG-2 encoder. By then P2 will be large and cheap and we'll have an hour of HD per P2 card.

For a better understanding of how Panasonic views HDV as compared to DVCPRO HD, or more generally MPEG-2 formats versus their DVCPRO codec, you should read the 3 published books that Panasonic began releasing in 1998. It is clear from these publications that Panasonic has been very consciously avoiding MPEG-2 due to several drawbacks they consider critical to the future of video as it relates to the IT infrastructure.

These books can be found at http://panasonic-broadcast.com in pdf form and are an enlightening read – a must for anyone wanting to make informed statements about Panasonic’s official opinion of their DVCPRO codec.

The 3 books in chronological order are:
THE VIDEO COMPRESSION BOOK
THE VIDEO CONNECTION BOOK
TV BY IT

These short volumes are great technical resources for those who are not extremely technical as they have been written not for engineers, but producers, directors, etc.

As for the subject of 1080p, the HVX-200 is meant to be a supporting camera for the VariCam, as well as open the DVCPRO HD format to a larger market. Panasonic definitely has emphasized the indie film market with this camera, and it has some unique features that you only find available on this unit. The 1080p feature was added to the HVX-200 because it was possible with the P2 format, and the 1080p split frame version of the DVCPRO HD codec was already available in editors like Final Cut using cards like the Kona 2. At the time that format was introduced to the edit system, there was no camera that could shoot that format natively. It was used primarily for editing HDCAM to avoid the inconvenience of going uncompressed since Sony’s codec was not available natively on any edit systems but their own.

Allan Barnwell
Omega Broadcast Group
Panasonic/Canon/Apple Dealer
Austin, Texas

It is clear from these publications that Panasonic has been very consciously avoiding MPEG-2 due to several drawbacks they consider critical to the future of video as it relates to the IT infrastructure.

The books are marketing tools against Sony's IMX. The reality is that at NAB Pansonic has had multiple year's of exhibts showing the work they are doing with MPEG-2. They are very big into MPEG-2!

P2 was clearly invented for MPEG-2, but at bit rates of 35Mbps, 50Mbps and 70Mbps (422) where it equals HDCAM and DVCPRO HD.

Panasonic, Sony, and JVC are moving toward MPEG-2 -- with Sony and JVC showing non-HDV products at NAB 2006. Pansonic will milk DVCPRO HD for a few more years.

Panasonic is certainly not opposed to MPEG-2 for application where best suited, they've got several consumer camcorders using it, but there are many times it requires too much overhead with inferior results to their DVCPRO codec.

You currently see the hoops Apple had to jump through to get HDV working in Final Cut. The long-gop nature of MPEG-2 makes HDV very difficult to process. By its nature, the HDV tapes can't even be cloned to HDV. Many drawbacks, but certainly not a good fit for certain applications.

Likewise, what DVCPRO HD lacks in resolution, it makes up for in color.

But this has strayed from the original topic... 1080p

Allan

I don't see why people are making a big issue of this.

Having an "upsample" mode to 1080p is no different than the DVX100 having a "squeeze" mode that upsamples the middle 16:9 portion of the frame to make 720x480 PA 1.2 DV "widescreen" video. There is room for improvement in all the HD cameras out there, and the HVX200 is no exception.

People seem to think that this first release of sub $10k HD camcorders is for whatever reason going to be the first-and-only. Sorry folks - nope. I mean, how many generations of DV cameras did we have before we got to the "pinnacle" of the technology?

That said, it is quite unlikely that the 1080p mode is "useless". Simply by merit of the 80 Mbps or 100 Mpbs available to the 1080p video, and the additional 1280x1080 resolution for storage, there should be superior chroma and luma information available in the 1080p footage to any 720p rendering. Furthermore, since the vertical resolution is really not any higher than 720p can store, 1080p offers an excellent shooting solution to produce true 1280x720p in your final master copy.

-Steve

People seem to think that this first release of sub $10k HD camcorders is for whatever reason going to be the first-and-only. Sorry folks - nope. I mean, how many generations of DV cameras did we have before we got to the "pinnacle" of the technology?e

Excellent point -- and I've gone back and edited my post to more accurately convey this message.

Assuming Canon is ramping up Sony's 1440x1080 CCD production line -- we should see a "better" FX1/Z1 next year.

Sony will have 35Mbps MPEG-2 -- and so may JVC.

JVC will have a 60fps MPEG-2 encoder to provide 720p60.

Over the next few years there will be a rapid roll-out of new low-cost HD products.

I've also edited my first post to consider alternate CCD resolution options including the use of BOTH horizontal and vertical Green-shift and Adam's mention of 1080p CCDs outputting half the rows.

I don't understand, in layman's terms is there 1080p on the camera or not. Jan told us A YEAR AGO there would be--she didn't say there'd be some synthetic version of it--she said there'd be 1080 24p period. So... is there? I can't quite keep up with the math talk of the above posts.

There is 1080p over 1080i recording. The big beef is over the apparent lack of a huge difference between 720p and 1080p resolution.

I think people are freaking out over feeling deceived. I am not one of those people. I think people need to get over it. The camera shoots gorgeous imagery and is fantastically flexible. But I'm sure this thread will live longer than it should.

These are my very quick tests as you saw earlier. 480p and 720p blown up to 1080, along with 1080 itself:

480p - http://www.holyzoo.com/content/hvx200/screengrabs/HVX200_027_DV25.jpg

720p - http://www.holyzoo.com/content/hvx200/screengrabs/HVX200_027_720p24N.jpg

1080p - http://www.holyzoo.com/content/hvx200/screengrabs/HVX200_027_1080p24.jpg

I may run more tests, but I've never planned on doing 1080 with the camera anyway. 720p24N baby!!

I don't understand, in layman's terms is there 1080p on the camera or not. Jan told us A YEAR AGO there would be--she didn't say there'd be some synthetic version of it--she said there'd be 1080 24p period. So... is there? I can't quite keep up with the math talk of the above posts.

The camera records a 1080 format - DVCPRO HD, but subsamples, just like HDV and HDCAM, only DVCPROHD uses only 1280x1080 instead of 1440x1080. So, yes it is a 1080 camera. About the "p24" part, the camera actually records this inside the 1080i stream, but I believe the CCD is capturing progressively at 24Hz, so that has been fufilled.

However, it appears the camera can not deliver resolution as high as the codec. This is due to a number of factors: lens, CCD block, laws of physics.

Panasonic have always said that at this price they would have to make compromises. It seems they have choosen to opt for a lower resolution in order to focus on latitude capabilities and low light performance. If you want pure resolution, it probably isn't the camera for you.

I don't understand, in layman's terms is there 1080p on the camera or not. Jan told us A YEAR AGO there would be--she didn't say there'd be some synthetic version of it--she said there'd be 1080 24p period. So... is there? I can't quite keep up with the math talk of the above posts.

Yes, the camcorder records 1080/24p. The controversy comes from two things:

1) The Panasonic website claims the CCDs "scan and capture 1080p."

2) The EFFECTIVE Vertical resolution from 1080p CCDs should about 1000-lines, but the HVX200 provides only about 540-lines.

That leaves a huge set of question questions:

1)) Was Jan wrong? (I'm very sure she did not lie!!!) But, the info she got from Japan could have been incorrect.

2) Is the website wrong?

3) Were the test measurements wrong? Why has no one measured any units in the latest batch? Why the silence?

4) If the CCDs are 1080p chips -- why are half of the lines "lost?"

5) If the CCDs are not 1080p -- what size are they? Panasonic could clear this whole mess up by simply telling us the CCD's resolution, but they won't.

6) Why won't they?

7) One possibility is that camcorder uses SD -- not HD -- CCDs. Likely 960x576.

8) Jan has also claimed the CCDs would use BOTH vertical and horizontal Green-shift to increase resolution. Is this true?

9) Why, since the camcorder doesn't even deliver true 720p resolution -- why would Panasonic add insult to injury by offering 1080p? You are sending empty bits to P2.

10) Why would Panasonic promote a 1080p camcorder and then deliver one that offers less real resolution than a 3 year old JVC single-CCD HD1 you can buy from eBay for $1500?

9) Why, since the camcorder doesn't even deliver true 720p resolution -- would Panasonic add insult to injury by offering 1080p? You are sending empty bits to P2!

This one's easy. Less compression.

-Steve

The official info from Panasonic was that it samples at 1080/60p (or whatever frame rate you're using). Any other formats are converted from that.

1080/60i has the exact same resolution as 1080/60p does.

There is no interlace scanning being done on the chip, nor is there any line-twitter filtering. The thick/thin filter doesn't apply in high-def. It takes two 60p frames and slices them into fields and creates the 60i stream from that.

Some compelling evidence that 1080i is indeed providing more resolution than 720p...

It is. There is more resolution from 1080 than 720. Comparing the two doesn't show that there's a huge difference between the two though. Something else to considered is this. If the other cameras could do both 720 and 1080, would you see much of difference on those cameras??? Heh heh heh.

Here are two screen grabs:

http://www.holyzoo.com/content/xl-h1/1920x1080_a.jpg
http://www.holyzoo.com/content/xl-h1/1920x1080_b.jpg

Which one is an upres from 1280x720?!?!

Can you really say there's a tremendous difference?? I think not.

I'd vote for "A" as being the 1080 shot. The live E-to-E image shows about the same res in 1080 or 720, but the recorded image in 1080 retains more resolution than the recorded image in 720.

Why, since the camcorder doesn't even deliver true 720p resolution -- why would Panasonic add insult to injury by offering 1080p?
Oh, come on. This is getting silly.

If we want to talk numbers, and we want to talk resolved definition, let's talk about it all the way. Steve, are we still arguing pixel count? Because if we are, I propose that you have to decide one of two choices: either pixel count is important, or it is not. Only one of those two can be true, correct?

If it matters (as Steve seems to think by exhorting the JVC's native pixel count) then obviously Steve must abandon the JVC immediately, since the Canon offers 69% more pixels than the JVC does. The Canon offers 1,555,200 pixels vs. the JVC's 921,600 -- that's a difference of 68.75%. If pixel count is so important, stay true to your convictions and go with the Canon and forget the JVC, since the Canon has indisputably the highest pixel count of all the low-cost HD cameras.

So if you choose to stick with the JVC, that pretty much means admitting that pixel count isn't really all that important, right? So if pixel count does not matter that much, then why continue to bring it up in an attempt to discredit the Panasonic?

Here's a great, great, great example. Compare these two res charts. One is from a 378,840-pixel DVX100 using the Andromeda, and one is from the 921,600-pixel JVC. So if pixel count is so important, one of these shots should have roughly 2.43x as much definition as the other one, right?

http://www.fiftv.com/HVX200/Andromeda-vs-HD100.JPG

Ummm... Hmmm. Son of a gun. Maybe overall pixel count isn't such a big thing after all? Maybe it's actual resolved image definition that's a bit more important perhaps?

The Andromeda is showing equivalent horizontal resolution from its 770 pixels (vs. the JVC's 1280) and it's showing substantially higher vertical resolution from its 492 (vs. the JVC's 720). The Andromeda-ized DVX with 378,840 pixels is showing a sharper image than the HD100 with its 921,600 pixels.

I for one don't really care what the pixel count is, as long as the resolved image definition is competitive. And Juan Pertierr of reel-stream has shown us how you can get equivalent definition (and arguably BETTER definition) from as few as 770x492 pixels. So as long as the HVX has at least 770x492 pixels it should be able to deliver an image comparably sharp to the JVC, right?

And, surprise surprise, it does. Here's an extraction of the HVX vs. the JVC:
http://www.fiftv.com/HVX200/HVX-vs-HD100.JPG

In that shot the JVC is showing higher horizontal res, the HVX is showing higher vertical res, they're showing about equivalent amounts of edge enhancement, and the overall image of the HVX is a tad sharper than the JVC.

So again, I don't care what the pixel count is. It could be 770x492 for all I care, what I care about is resolved definition in the image. And the HVX is every bit as sharp as the JVC with its "native pixels".

(res chart extractions taken from the originals posted here: http://forum.reel-stream.com/viewtopic.php?t=363)

Here are two screen grabs:

http://www.holyzoo.com/content/xl-h1/1920x1080_a.jpg
http://www.holyzoo.com/content/xl-h1/1920x1080_b.jpg

Which one is an upres from 1280x720?!?!

Can you really say there's a tremendous difference?? I think not.

It looks pretty different to me. The 'a' shot looks higher res but was is sharpened in post? Both those images are identical.

Yes, but neither the JVC or Andromeda are claiming to be native 1080 cameras. The argument is very much like the difference between a small engine with a turbo and a large engine, they may claim to produce similar horse power, but the way the power is delivered is very, very different, torque, lag, revs etc. It is the same with a camera that uses clever sharpening or enhancement to give a percieved increase in resolution. To my knowledge no one has yet created a way to create picture information from picture information that simply wasn't captured in the first place. Maybe Panasonic has, perhaps all manufacturers will follow Panasonics lead and fit low res CCD's into thier new HD camcorders (saving us lots of money) and then use trickery to magically restore all that lost detail.... somehow I think not. Any camera can be set up to give good test chart results, but it is real world images that count and these results need to be viewed and compared on decent sized monitors truly capable of displaying the whole story, I belive then people will realise why the difference IS important.

What is the point of buying into HD if you don't care about resolution? Yes I would also hope that you are looking at all the other aspects of the image, but the one thing that is supposed to differentiate HD and SD is resolution. In theory there sould be no difference in lattitude, dynamic range or contrast ratios, the one and only difference is RESOLUTION and if I was being sold a 1080 camera I would expect 1080 resolution. Hell my old JVC HD10 could output 1080i over the component output but JVC never claimed it was a 1080 camcorder as this was simply an up sampled output from 720p.

For me it has to be 1080, preferably 1080P which the HVX200 just dosn't seem to deliver. I await future developments.

The official info from Panasonic was that it samples at 1080/60p (or whatever frame rate you're using). It takes two 60p frames and slices them into fields and creates the 60i stream from that.

Since the very definition of HDTV is about resolution -- it IS "a" critical specification. The very fact you continue to talk about "1080p" means you continue to think it is an important issue. However, it's time for you to come to terms with your past and current claims about HVX200 RESOLUTION. So you have a choice:

1) Continue to support the "offical" 1080p info and explain how 50% of the lines get lost OR decide there is something invalid about the official info. A 1080p chip would yield nearly 1000 TVL, not 540 TVL. You understand video well enough to know this.

Or, do you continue to worry Adam screwed-up his tests OR the HVX200 was flawed? In that case, you need to get Adam to correct his DV story or run tests with a new HVX200.

2) If you believe interlace is generated by outputting two 540-line fields without row-pair summation -- then the interlace V. rez. should be nearly 1000 TVL, not 540 TVL. Look at the Canon's resolution data. (Such video would also be unwatchable because of line flicker/twitter and wouldn't really be "interlaced.")

The CCDs yield 550x540 RESOLUTION. That number is lower than 720p which yields 700x700. And, the only way 550x540 can fill a 1440x1080 frame is by scaling. And, after scaling, the resolution remains the same -- which indicates scaling is indeed used.

These published data clearly indicate the HVX200 provides a measured resolution -- TVL/ph and TVL -- not "pixels" or "pixel count" -- that does not equal either that measured from 720p or a 1080i/p camcorders.

Plainly put, the HVX200 records a slightly better than PAL SD resolution image within either of two HD "wrappers."

------------

If one believes that 50% of the lines are not simply "lost" then IMHO the only reasonable belief is that the CCDs are 960x576. And, the sensitivity data support this belief. But, you don't have to believe this. It's the test measures that are important -- not my belief about the CCDs.

Here are two screen grabs:

http://www.holyzoo.com/content/xl-h1/1920x1080_a.jpg
http://www.holyzoo.com/content/xl-h1/1920x1080_b.jpg

Which one is an upres from 1280x720?!?!

Can you really say there's a tremendous difference?? I think not.

Is this a trick question? I can't see how you can record the identical frame in 720p and 1080i at the same time...? Picture A looks "sharper" but seems to be digital sharpening rather than actual resolution. In fact, sharpening "B" in photoshop results in a better image than "A" because "A" has more compression artifacts.

So go on, tell us the answer :)

You guys are way more knowledgeable about this than me, but from my perspective, the fact that we have heard nothing from Panasonic (Particularly Jan Crittenden Livingston who was on DVXUser quite consistently during the lead up to the HVX) does make me wonder. Now I know it the final image that matters, and franky, I can't afford one anyway, but my curiosity wouldlike to be satisified, and I'm sure so would the curiosity of all those who ARE thinking of buying.

Just answer our questions Panasonic. Can it be that hard?

I was just thinking about this.

Right, we all agree that the HVX horizontal resolution isn't great? From what I have seen it is worse than the vertical.

So why is HR lower than VR? The lens shouldn't favour one axis and the codec has more pixel horizontally than vertically.

That leaves the DSP and the CCDs. Maybe the pixel shift favours vertical res?

BUT, maybe the CCDs have higher vertical res than horizontal. That would also explain why Panasonic won't release the CCD info! It would look pretty odd if they admitted it used 576x720 CCDs wouldn't it.

Hey, I'm just throughing a new spanner into an old debate :)

If it matters (as Steve seems to think by exhorting the JVC's native pixel count) then obviously Steve must abandon the JVC immediately, since the Canon offers 69% more pixels than the JVC does. The Canon offers 1,555,200 pixels vs. the JVC's 921,600 -- that's a difference of 68.75%. If pixel count is so important, stay true to your convictions and go with the Canon and forget the JVC, since the Canon has indisputably the highest pixel count of all the low-cost HD cameras.
Not quite so fast. The JVC is true to it's format (1280x720) and lives within it's format resolution parameters. The Canon's count is higher, but the camera is intended for a higher resolution to live within it's format.

Pixel count is important once the camera goes in motion.

... the fact that we have heard nothing from Panasonic (Particularly Jan Crittenden Livingston who was on DVXUser quite consistently during the lead up to the HVX) does make me wonder.

Just answer our questions Panasonic. Can it be that hard?

Keep in mind Aaron, that Jan was involved in an automobile accident at Sundance film festival. This is about the same time that the HVX began shipping to customers. I don't know that she 'feels' like posting at this time. She may be on pain medication and doesn't want to post something while under the influence. See the 'Get Well Soon' thread elsewhere on DV-INFO.

-gb-

Plainly put, the HVX200 records a slightly better than PAL SD resolution image within either of two HD "wrappers."

So seeing how the HVX200 has more resolution than the JVC HD100, I guess the HD100 is a little less than a little PAL CCD camera. ;)

Okay, I finally figured out what bothers me the most about this whole thread. This reminds me of the 96khz 24bit audio crowd (or SACD) that says they hear such a huge magnificent difference compared to 44.1khz 16bit or 24bit audio. Trained "professional" ears. Sure. Now... Go ask the general public! Now go ask people who actually produce award winning material!! How many people can hear above 16khz? How many people can see the difference between 600 and 900 vertical lines on a res chart? How many people sit down and watch SD broadcast recorded to Tivo in glorious triple compressed and halved sliced diced hashed to hell Mpeg-2 and thoroughly enjoy themselves? Or even the ubiquitous and cherished SD commercial DVDs Ha hah ha ha. This is great!! These cameras are simply a big cut above the SD-DV crop, and calling the HVX200 a little better than PAL resolution is ridiculous.

Is this a trick question? I can't see how you can record the identical frame in 720p and 1080i at the same time...? Picture A looks "sharper" but seems to be digital sharpening rather than actual resolution. In fact, sharpening "B" in photoshop results in a better image than "A" because "A" has more compression artifacts.

So go on, tell us the answer :)

So, although not scientific, it makes a point. I took a screen grab from Canon XL-H1 footage at 1920x1080. This is image "A". Then I downconverted it to 1280x720 in Photoshop, throwing away the pixels by saving the file out. Then I closed the file, re-opened it and scaled it up to 1920x1080. This was done to see if there's really much of a difference. And there is not. There *is* a difference, but it's slight. And I would say the difference looks similar to the difference betweeen 1080 and 720 on the HVX200.

I know this may not get addressed here, but is this thread done yet? ;)

Steev, I don't think it botters people as much that the resolution of the HVX is a bit low, I think they are more dissapointed or concerned about the fact that the camera doesn't output the resolution Panasonic says it does.
If you promote your camera as a 1080p camera, you should deliver those lines of resolution. Otherwise you are lying to the customer. (I'm not saying Panasonic does this and I ain't saying they don't, but there seems to be doubt here...)
Well, I shouldn't be speaking for other people, but that's what I think anyway.
I don't care about all that resolution that much, but I AM interested in this thread, because I do think it's a relevant issue. People who buy this cam have the right to know if the camera delivers the true lines it says it does. Even if most of the customers don't care - as I do -, the ones that DO care have the right to know the RIGHT information.
I know what matters is the FINAL image, but you can't always throw that in as an excuse to lie as a company about the CCD's (this is NOT an attack to Barry Green, NOR an attack to Panasonic, just a general statement)

PS: I am not saying the camera does or doesn't deliver the lines, I don't have the camera and I wouldn't know how to make a proper test, I am only interested in the conclusion of this thread if what Panasonic says is right or wrong. Not because I don't like Panasonic - I do - but I just think that's relevant. That's all.

Now I'm done with my preaching ;-)

How many people can see the difference between 600 and 900 vertical lines on a res chart?
Everybody, when it's on a silver screen. You are right about SD but when you're shooting for the big screen, resolution and absolute critical focus makes a big difference. Everything is amplified...

Everybody, when it's on a silver screen. You are right about SD but when you're shooting for the big screen, resolution and absolute critical focus makes a big difference. Everything is amplified...

Will the audience know that you could have shot it with better res? Will it matter? It probably matters more to the content creator, yes. And I think it was said once before that if you are doing a resolution battle, the Canon XL-H1 would be the winner.

I know much was said and specifically not said, before the camera was released regarding CCD specs and such. Well this drama continues here without real specs on the CCDs, and I suppose some will go the grave always wondering, "man, I still wonder what the HVX200s CCDs were?"

On their site, right now it just states "1/3" 16:9 native high-sensitivity progressive 3-CCD with 1080/60p scanning". Is anything pointing to this being patently false? I think Jan had said this isn't some numbers war, and/or certainly she didn't want it to be. And with that being said, I suppose there's no way to avoid the numbers war with this. But I wouldn't count on Panasonic coming back to make you feel better about what you perceive as being a lie, or numbers not being real, or as they should, etc.

Do you like the images the camera produces or not? No? Isn't good enough? You can purchased something else today for sure. Or you can wait for another rev after all of this painstaking waiting already.

I for one made my decision without seeing any footage at all and not knowing any numbers. Ha ha. If I had received the camera and thought it was all hype and sorely lacking, I would have returned it. Plain and simple.

On the other hand, I'm blown away by the image quality and feature set. If you're going for absolute best the camera will do, shoot 1080. It does look better. To me, 720p is the sweet spot, in my opinion, as I've stated before.

Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!

One area people seem to never look at when starting with a higher resolution is the compression artifacts.

On a DVD the compression artifacts look great on a standard sized SD TV. Once you get into a HDTV or very large SDTV you can really start to see the image break up.

When I take DV images and scale them up it isn't the softness that kills me it is the artifacts and the low color space.

This is why is some ways it is better to start with 1080p/i even if there isn't an increase in resolution. At least you know at that size all of the compression is done and chances are it either will not be scaled up or at least has more pixels if it does get blown up to film. Even if there is no more detail there are more pixels to make up that image and it will scale up or down better.

Even 720p may start to have problems when watching on a newer true 1080i/p display or on a film transfer because there are less pixels to blow up. The compression artifacts from both 720p HDV and 720p DVCPROHD (yes there are compression artifacts equal to around DV artifacts) will get enlarged more than they would if you were starting with a 1080p source.

It is always better to scale up a raw image (either in a computer or dsp) before compression.

This reminds me of the 96khz 24bit audio crowd (or SACD) that says they hear such a huge magnificent difference compared to 44.1khz 16bit or 24bit audio.

I agree with the one caveat that Panasonic has strung everyone along for 10 months to believe we were going to get 1080p that was going to be better than the competition. It isn't and now people are arguing the HVX looks about as good as the competition, which I would agree with. But it's pretty comical to watch from the sidelines. Panasonic should be squirming and taking some hits for that one.

Now in my personal opinion there's PLENTY of resolution on the HVX200 from all the stuff I've seen... and I've seen enough of it on big monitors etc.

The reverse of this resolution argument is the HDV argument. It's just as theoretical!!!

I've never seen anyone post ANY footage or audio that the HDV format has ruined... much less JVC's 6 frame GOP. That's 1/4 second sampling. I've seen a BUNCH of action stuff that looked GREAT. So far all the smoke, fog and haze I've seen looks great. A friend of mine who has much more of a critical eye for this stuff than most has 40 hours of footage on his Sony that looks great. No audio problems ever. He just wishes it was 24p and was more light sensitive.

If I was shooting nature stuff for HDTV I'd want the Canon.

For 35mm adapter stuff (other than P&S) and Final Cut users (right now) I think the HVX gets the edge. This is me...

For everything else that JVC looks really good to me. The form factor is amazing and the focus assist makes focusing on the LCD possible which is HUGE in my mind though I want to test more. It's the lowest cost solution and delivers at least as good quality.

For overall picture quality I now think I could dial any of them in to look pretty good to me.

It is always better to scale up a raw image (either in a computer or dsp) before compression.

Which is what I think people could do with the JVC or the HVX. Obviously it needs testing, but it might be that a software app crunching numbers all night long could produce a very good uprez. Once you've got enough info (and 720p might be enough) software uprezzing can be pretty amazing.

So it might be better than what's happening in camera in the HVX's case. Or not.

Which is what I think people could do with the JVC or the HVX. Obviously it needs testing, but it might be that a software app crunching numbers all night long could produce a very good uprez. Once you've got enough info (and 720p might be enough) software uprezzing can be pretty amazing.

So it might be better than what's happening in camera in the HVX's case. Or not.

Joel,
Explain this. You can/could uprez the 1080 P with software?
That would be brilliant.

I hate the purely theroretical - But, could this be a firmware update that allows the Linux in the HVX (not the chips) to change thier compression algorythms...?
Shouldn't expect that --I'm just trying to talk myself into this Cam.

better solution might be reelstream for the HVX
http://www.reel-stream.com/
I'm hope I'm not being a pain, because I keep harping on this last point - (...sorry Juan)

cheers everybody,
J

i think you'll find that viewing 1080p clips looks best on a 1080p monitor/digital projection ..

720p material looks it's best on a 720p monitor/projection ...

which all comes down to viewing 1080p on a 720p system you might not be able to see the difference between 720p & 1080p material .. on the 1080p down res artifacts & other errors can be introduced = the 720p may look a litter better overall (viewing on 720p) ...

viewing 720p material on a 1080p system might introduce artifacts/errors on the up-res ...

some sysyems up/down -res better then others .. the BEST seem to be hardware 3rd party boxes ( $2500 and up ) that do the up/down res..

IMO if you have a 720p camera then use 720p monitors/digital projection ..
if 1080p then use 1080p monitors/digital projectors ...

Keep in mind Aaron, that Jan was involved in an automobile accident at Sundance film festival. This is about the same time that the HVX began shipping to customers. I don't know that she 'feels' like posting at this time. She may be on pain medication and doesn't want to post something while under the influence. See the 'Get Well Soon' thread elsewhere on DV-INFO.

-gb-

Greg, well that is definitely something I didn't know and could explain her absence.

Still I hope Panasonic go clear this up for people. Lay it all out and let people forget about it once and for all.

Joel,
Explain this. You can/could uprez the 1080 P with software?
That would be brilliant.

My assumption is that software like Sorenson Squeeze or Compressor might do it etc.

I sure thought they had hardware suites in LA that could change formats but I haven't done it. I also could have sworn I read in Adam Wilt's book that he really liked the Varicam and had experimented with upconverting. If I'm wrong about that I stand corrected. Thanks for pointing it out.

well, i'm definitely going to test out 1080p/720p next month when i purchase this lcd:

http://www.costco.com/Browse/Productgroup.aspx?Prodid=11112191&whse=&topnav=&browse=&s=1

i think you'll find that viewing 1080p clips looks best on a 1080p monitor/digital projection ..

720p material looks it's best on a 720p monitor/projection ...

which all comes down to viewing 1080p on a 720p system you might not be able to see the difference between 720p & 1080p material .. on the 1080p down res artifacts & other errors can be introduced = the 720p may look a litter better overall (viewing on 720p) ...

viewing 720p material on a 1080p system might introduce artifacts/errors on the up-res ...

some sysyems up/down -res better then others .. the BEST seem to be hardware 3rd party boxes ( $2500 and up ) that do the up/down res..

IMO if you have a 720p camera then use 720p monitors/digital projection ..
if 1080p then use 1080p monitors/digital projectors ...
Absolutely Don. It's refreshing to read your words. The JVC ProHD is true to it's format (ie full rez 1280x720 CCD's). It will display excellently even on a 50 inch plasma (http://www.jvc.com/product.jsp?modelId=MODL027371&pathId=113&page=1)that is 1280x720.

I have taken part in a 35mm film transfer of ProHD with really good results. We found out alot in doing the transfer. Of course 1080p originated material would have been better, but the 1280x720 uprezzed to 1080p with good results. I attribute it to the full rez 1280x720 material we had to start with.

I've never seen anyone post ANY footage or audio that the HDV format has ruined...

Ah, sorry, I guess I've been negligent. Let me take care of that right now.

These shots were taken with a Sony FX1, at the "Sirens Of T.I." show on the Las Vegas strip. HDV utterly destroyed any pretension of "high def" resolution in these shots. Look at the palm trees, look at the back of the ship, look just about anywhere and you'll see macroblocking that looks lego-sized if not worse. I doubt there's VHS-caliber resolution in these shots. These are pixel-for-pixel identical lossless grabs from what the HDV camera recorded.

http://www.fiftv.com/FX1/Image1.png
http://www.fiftv.com/FX1/Image2.png
http://www.fiftv.com/FX1/Image3.png
http://www.fiftv.com/FX1/Image4.png
http://www.fiftv.com/FX1/Image5.png
http://www.fiftv.com/FX1/Image6.png
http://www.fiftv.com/FX1/Image7.png
http://www.fiftv.com/FX1/Image8.png

Thanks but no thanks for HDV, I just don't trust it.

Since the very definition of HDTV is about resolution -- it IS "a" critical specification. The very fact you continue to talk about "1080p" means you continue to think it is an important issue.

You misunderstand. Resolution is vitally important, at least when it comes to the final image. But you are equating pixel count with resolution, and I think we've demonstrated pretty conclusively that pixel count does not equal resolution. Were it so, the 770x492 DVX/Andromeda would be incapable of showing up the 1280x720 JVC, yet the 770x492 DVX/Andromeda clearly demonstrates notably superior resolution than the JVC does.

Resolution is the defining key statistic in "high def". But what matters is what the final recorded image looks like. Not the # of pixels on the CCD to get to that recorded image.

If you care about the # of pixels, you have to go with the Canon hands down. Since you have not gone with the Canon, then clearly you recognize that the # of pixels is not the paramount deciding factor.

If you care about the ultimate amount of resolved definition on a black & white res chart, then you have to go with the 1440x1080 Canon, or you have to go with the 770x492 DVX/Andromeda. There's no room for the Sony or the JVC or even the Panasonic HVX to play in that game if b&w res chart results are all that you care about.

If you care about what the final image looks like, then you'll be pleased (or chagrined, depending on your particular agenda) to note that the HVX delivers a sharper image than the JVC does, and a sharper image than the Sony does, but not a sharper image than the Canon does.

The CCDs yield 550x540 RESOLUTION.
Look at the chart again. The CCDs are delivering about 630 x 740.

That number is lower than 720p which yields 700x700.
Look at the chart again. The 720p is yielding 700 x 530.

These published data clearly indicate the HVX200 provides a measured resolution -- TVL/ph and TVL -- not "pixels" or "pixel count" -- that does not equal either that measured from 720p or a 1080i/p camcorders.
And yet I just published a chart (or did you not even bother to look at it?) which shows the HVX exceeds the resolution of both a 720p and a 1080i camera.

Plainly put, the HVX200 records a slightly better than PAL SD resolution image within either of two HD "wrappers."
Have you ever seen a frame of HVX footage? It's every bit as high-def and higher than the FX1/Z1 and the HD100. That's what the real-world truth is.

You cannot continue to cling to the "numbers war" because it just doesn't work. Pixel count numbers do not equate to resolved image data; you and your PhD should know this. Look again at the final image of 770x492 vs. 1280x720:
http://www.fiftv.com/HVX200/Andromeda-vs-HD100.JPG

Statistics can lie. But these cameras are not here to make "statistics", they're here to make images. The images do not lie.

If one believes that 50% of the lines are not simply "lost" then IMHO the only reasonable belief is that the CCDs are 960x576. And, the sensitivity data support this belief. But, you don't have to believe this. It's the test measures that are important -- not my belief about the CCDs.
We are going to agree. I wouldn't mind whatsoever if the CCD count is 960x576, as long as the test measures and the real-world images show that it's a high-def image. Fortunately, they do. At least, higher-def than the Sony and the JVC.

It feels like we're watching an episode of "Smartest Kid in the Sandbox".

Just waiting for one to call the other one's mother, "lo-res".

Love to stick around and watch the next exchange, but I have to get my fake-HD camcorder (the one that's paid for itself 3 times over in 2 weeks) ready for work....have fun kids, be nice!

but I have to get my fake-HD camcorder (the one that's paid for itself 3 times over in 2 weeks) ready for work....have fun kids, be nice!
Brilliant! That's all that it's about, for those who make a living with their gear. I don't even know which "fake-HD" camera you have. Love the post though!

Next weekend I'm doing a job that will pay off the HVX and the Mac system in full, on its first commercial gig. Evin Grant paid his HVX off in its first weekend shooting a national spot for ProFlowers.com; Jarred used his HVX to shoot pickup/composite shots for the international theatrical release of "Munich" (hmmm... resolution was high enough for that job!) MTV bought something like 25 HD100's, the BBC is using HVX's to shoot the 2006 Turin Olympics, various shows are using the Z1...

So seeing how the HVX200 has more resolution than the JVC HD100, I guess the HD100 is a little less than a little PAL CCD camera.

HD100 measures at 700x700 while the HVX200 measures at 550x540. The HD100 has more measured resolution.

These shots were taken with a Sony FX1, at the "Sirens Of T.I." show on the Las Vegas strip. Thanks but no thanks for HDV, I just don't trust it.

You really mean you don't trust 1080i HDV -- which I agree with.

720p HDV is a totally different animal at 30fps and 16Mbps data rate.

Resolution is the defining key statistic in "high def". But what matters is what the final recorded image looks like. Not the # of pixels on the CCD to get to that recorded image. You cannot continue to cling to the "numbers war" because it just doesn't work. Pixel count numbers do not equate to resolved image data.

Barry -- I specifically said in my post that I was NOT talking about pixel count -- I was talking about measured resolution.

Specifically measures from the ONLY test of 6 HD cameras who's results were INDEPENDENT, taken with the SAME CHARTS, UNBIASED, and generally published.

There is no point in coming along now and posting a chart that "just happens" to show higher measures. You've got to retest all the camcorders.

Why, if the HVX200 can produce these numbers, were YOU not able to get these numbers when other people and other camcorders were around?

Bottom line -- stay to the topic:

1) The only independent measures of the HVX200 show it to have 550x540 resolution while the HD100 measures 700x700 -- exactly as does a Varicam.

2) IF you want to continue talking about 1080p CCDs -- then YOU need to explain why/how a 1080p CCD produces less measured resolution than do 720p CCDs.

The HVX and HD100 are basically pretty similar resolution wise. The HVX offers 1080 recording which, if nothing else, makes the compression artifacts smaller. It also increases the recorded chroma resolution.

The only question I have is why did the HVX perform so badly res wise in the shootout? Barry?

I'd prefer to keep out of the 'which camera is better' debate, except to say that I'm sure all four of the comparable models will be found good enough to earn their respective owners money. But a few words of general theory regarding the whole concept of 'pixel shift' and resolution.

At first sight, it sounds like magic - how can resolution be magiced out of nowhere, how can a system deliver more resolution than the sensor posseses? Perhaps the key is to realise that what it can deliver is increased LUMINANCE resolution. What it effectively does (in a one dimensional sense) is convert five three-colour pixels (say) into ten from the perspective of luminance only. Hence instead of (R+G+B),(R+G+B),(R+G+B),(R+G+B),(R+G+B) it will give (R+B),(G),(R+B),(G),(R+B),(G),(R+B),(G),(R+B),(G) - ten (derived luminance) pixels instead of five.

What it won't do is give the same level of chrominance resolution - but that's not normally important as chrominance is recorded at a lower resolution anyway, and the eye is less sensitive to chrominance resolution than luminance. It also depends on the pixels being smaller than ideal, the theory showing best results would be obtained if they are only half as wide as the inter pixel spacing. If the pixels could be made as wide as they are spaced (obviously desirable for sensitivity) pixel shift wouldn't theoretically work.

It's easier to see how this all works in the horizontal dimension (and that's how the Z1 gets 1440 from a 960 chip). The suspicion is that Panasonic have employed it vertically as well, and that's where the geometry gets interesting........ (It also leads me to think that 4:2:2 recording there gives no advantage to 4:2:0 - the chroma resolution isn't there in the first place, for the reasons given earlier - but that's another story......)

You've got to retest all the camcorders.
Sounds like a good idea.

Why, if the HVX200 can produce these numbers, were YOU not able to get these numbers when other people and other camcorders were around?
Don't know. Adam and I have been scratching our heads over that one ever since it happened.

Especially since I can point it at an EIA chart and get 730 lines out of it.

1) The only independent measures of the HVX200 show it to have 550x540 resolution while the HD100 measures 700x700 -- exactly as does a Varicam.
Yet that wasn't recorded resolution, that was E-to-E. So HDV didn't have a chance to take a whack at it (although it probably wouldn't matter; HDV would excel at a static b&w resolution chart) and the Varicam's subsampling upon recording didn't come into play either. That test measured live camera heads. Which is largely irrelevant, it's recorded definition that matters to 99.9% of us.

2) IF you want to continue talking about 1080p CCDs
Never talked about a 1080p CCD. I said the image was scanned off the CCD at 1080p, which is what Panasonic said. As far as I know nobody's ever said that the CCD has 1080 vertical pixels; the only thing they've said is that it employs vertical spatial offset (aka "pixel shift"). I would find it very surprising if the CCD actually had 1080 vertical pixels on it. In fact I'd be floored if it had more than 720. But that doesn't stop 'em from employing spatial offset to scan a 1080p image off of the 720 (or 576 or whatever else you want to guess at) pixel CCD.

-- then YOU need to explain why/how a 1080p CCD produces less measured resolution than do 720p CCDs.
I can explain it by three ways: pointing out that a) nobody said it was a 1080p CCD, b) pointing to the EIA that shows the HVX delivering 730 lines and the JVC doing about 530, and c) pointing to a 492-pixel DVX delivering about 750 lines vs. the 720-pixel JVC doing about 530.

It ain't about the count of the pixels, it's about what the system does with them. Final measured definition is the only thing that should matter here, and even then luma resolution (which is *all* we're talking about here so far) is only one component. I don't know how many of us are shooting black & white, but I'd venture to say there's not a whole lot of us doing that.

So when you put it all in context, and look at the actual images, what do you get? You get six of the eight of us at that test choosing to buy the HVX. You get one who decided to keep his JVC instead of buying the HVX he was contemplating. And you get one who decided to buy a second Canon instead of buying the HVX he'd been contemplating. So 75% of us there chose the HVX and chose that that's where we'd spend our money; even some of those of us who already had one of the competing products.

Actions speak a whole lot louder than theoretical pixel discussions, and those are the actions that those of us who were there took.

The suspicion is that Panasonic have employed it vertically as well
That's not a suspicion, that's confirmed. Panasonic has said that they employ spatial offset both horizontally and vertically.

I know this may not get addressed here, but is this thread done yet? ;)Sadly, it's over-done.