Keep one thing in mind, the Panasonic's sensor size is 960x540 which then captures HD at either 960x720 or 1280x1080.

Too bad they're aren't any specifications, etc., on Panasonic's site that I can find that explains how this works, unlike Canon and Sony. Best I could find was the user's manual, but all it says is 720p and 1080i, nothing about horizontal resolution (I found that out by looking at Final Cut Pro's DVCPro HD settings and it's 1280x1080 and 960x720).

heath

Keep one thing in mind, the Panasonic's sensor size is 960x540 which then captures HD at either 960x720 or 1280x1080.Too bad they're aren't any specifications, etc., on Panasonic's site that I can find that explains how this works, unlike Canon and Sony.

Panasonic's white paper explains this. Go to:

http://catalog2.panasonic.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ModelDetail?storeId=11201&catalogId=13051&itemId=93120&catGroupId=14569&surfModel=AG-HVX200&displayTab=R

Then at the bottom left click on
Tech Paper - AG-HVX200's Advanced Progressive CCDs.

Thanks for linking to that.

heath

How can a true 1920x1080 signal going to the 25mbps minidv tape?
I hear, that pana hvx200 has P2 card because 25mbps wasnt enough for this resolution.


It's ridiculous to attempt to compare bitrates only, because they are two different compression schemes. I know it's tempting to do so, and have seen presenters comment on that specific attribute of both camcorders. It's good market hype, but that's effectively all it is.
DVCProHD is DV-based, and varies from as low as 40Mbps to 100Mbps.
HDV is MPEG based-HDV is either 25mbps, or 19mbps depending on whether it's 720 or 1080. No variances in the bitrates.

You can't compare them based on bitrate alone. They have to be compared via image, because MPEG is significantly more efficient, but is a GOP structure vs intraframe structure.

With compressed formats, you have the option of spatially or temporally compressing. Most manufacturers have expressed that temporal compression is a more efficient means of working, as spatially compressing means shifting up/down at various stages. This is where AVC HD has gotten its legs, there is no spatial compression, but rather temporal compression. Both compression schemes have merit, but again...they can't be compared as bitrates and math; it's a waste of time. you're comparing apples to breakfast cereal.
You can compare the imager, you can compare the images, but that's about it. Does it look good to you or not? If you like one over the other, then that's the one you should buy/rent/borrow.

Thanks for pointing this stuff out, Spot!

heath