Has anyone tested the new cameras with resolution charts yet so we can assess the actual resolution in TV lines per inch of recorded HDV material? What I've seen so far from sample images didn't look much different from earlier Sony HDV cameras.

Umm, TV lines per inch of recorded HDV material? I can't say that measure makes sense for me.

Sony are claiming a measured resolution of over 800 lines for the V1, but be aware that horizontal and vertical measurements are not an indicator of total performance with a clearvid camera. You cannot compare them like for like with a non clearvid camera.

So far noone seems to be able and willing to measure the diagonal resolution, which for clearvid may be more a more accurate objective measure of performance.

Has anyone tested the new cameras with resolution charts yet so we can assess the actual resolution in TV lines per inch of recorded HDV material? What I've seen so far from sample images didn't look much different from earlier Sony HDV cameras.

Yes, both Sony, myself, and at least one other, have shot standard EIA charts and found identical results of approximately 800 lines. I believe Boyd may have posted a shot of a screen grab that was shown at the press conference.

Umm, TV lines per inch of recorded HDV material? I can't say that measure makes sense for me.

I think he's asking what is the resolution of the footage after it's been recorded to tape as opposed to live from the camera head.

Spot, is that 800 lines live from the camera head or measured after recording on tape?

Sorry, I guess the correct term is just "TV lines." I think Spot answered my question with the 800 lines figure, which would put it on par with the Canon HDV cameras.

I may be out of my league for saying it, but as a prospective buyer, the resolution of the V1U CMOS panels is my biggest reservation about it.

800 lines would be good but are you going to get that with interlaced or only progressive? Sony describes the process of creating one sample from four surrounding sample, separating detail from chroma to interpolate a progressive image 1920 x 1080, before downsampling to output as 1440 HDV. But for interlaced resolution, is this really better than just using native 1440 sensors?

I acknowledge creativity isn't the highest priority of my workflow. I choose to remain tethered to a speedy distribution format that HD-DVD represents in the here and now (for now). 24p has to be rendered to support HD-DVD, but 1440 x 1080i60 has existing native support.

Could it be that sophisticated interpolations are better than actual pixels? I have my doubts. Debate has raged about the merits of upscaling, then when native processing gets compared, the myth is debunked.

Could it be that sophisticated interpolations are better than actual pixels? I have my doubts. Debate has raged about the merits of upscaling, then when native processing gets compared, the myth is debunked.


You lost me here....Could you explain what you mean? When comparing for example, images coming from a 960 x 540 sensor block upsampled to 1920 x 1080, there is not a close comparison to an image captured on a 1440 x 1080 sensor outputting the same 1920 x 1080, or images captured with a 960 x 1080 sensor outputting 1920 x 1080 (both of which are actually 1440 x 1080 with PAR of 1.333). Sharpness of image and contrast are quite identifiable.

Yes, both Sony, myself, and at least one other, have shot standard EIA charts and found identical results of approximately 800 lines. I believe Boyd may have posted a shot of a screen grab that was shown at the press conference.

Was this 60i or 24p?

I would tend to think interlaced and progressive would have the same amount of lines of resolution due to the fact that the interlaced is created from a 1920x1080 60p source. The encoder just alternates every other line from the 60p but that 60p should have the same resolution as 30p or 24p. Now the only thing that may reduce the interlaced is any flicker filtering that is done to the 60p first to reduce any interlaced flickering.

Both 60i and 24p were sampled.

As I said, you cannot make a valid comparison against a non clearvid camera using this number.

Why not? What's different about an image from a clearvid sensor which would make you question the results of a standard resolution chart test?

I've been holding off saying this because I wanted a simple answer to the technical question first, but part of my concern here is the claim that the new Sony HDV cameras are "true 1080p." I gave Panasonic fans heck for using the term "true HD" to describe the HVX200, so I figure it's only fair to question any similar hype over the new Sonys. In my book a "true 1080p" camera would be one with a 1920x1080 sensor which can record and play back 1920x1080 pixels without connecting to a computer and without using interpolation or other trickery, and the new Sonys don't do that. If I wanted "true 1080p" I'd save up for the Silicon Imaging SI-1920 or "Red," not mess around with some new way to squeeze more data out of thin air. Show me a recorded image with 1000+ lines of discernible detail and then we can talk about "true 1080p," until then can we maybe not use terms like that? It's distracting.

Why not? What's different about an image from a clearvid sensor which would make you question the results of a standard resolution chart test?

I've been holding off saying this because I wanted a simple answer to the technical question first, but part of my concern here is the claim that the new Sony HDV cameras are "true 1080p." I gave Panasonic fans heck for using the term "true HD" to describe the HVX200, so I figure it's only fair to question any similar hype over the new Sonys. In my book a "true 1080p" camera would be one with a 1920x1080 sensor which can record and play back 1920x1080 pixels without connecting to a computer and without using interpolation or other trickery, and the new Sonys don't do that. If I wanted "true 1080p" I'd save up for the Silicon Imaging SI-1920 or "Red," not mess around with some new way to squeeze more data out of thin air. Show me a recorded image with 1000+ lines of discernible detail and then we can talk about "true 1080p," until then can we maybe not use terms like that? It's distracting.

Well I guess the Cinealta F900 isn't a real HD camera then right? I mean since the HDCAM format only records 1440x1080 pixels.

True 1080p HDV means that it is the first HDV camera to have a true sampled 1080p vertical pixels. Every HDV camera up till now has some form of interpolation to get to 1080p. So in that sense you can call this a true 1080p camera.

I'm just guessing here a little... but if you research the way Hewlett Packard
gets " True 1080P " on the HD TV's,they have invented the method called
" Wobulation "... this should not be confused with " Native 1080 " resolution.

here is the explanation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wobulation


Sony has figured out a way to modulate the pixels on this camera to get
the resolution doubled for the HD resolution.... this is the reason Sony
went to the CMOS as they have indicated one of the reasons is with their new controller is that they can now control each pixel. They would obviously need to control the pixels the same as the wobulation requires single pixel control...

Again, this is speculation on my part.... but this line taken from the Sony site somewhat supports at least some of my speculation...

" The signals from the four surrounding photodiodes are used to reproduce one more signal with the Enhanced Imaging Processor™."

"What's different about an image from a clearvid sensor which would make you question the results of a standard resolution chart test?"

A standard pixel array has a higher diagonal resolution than horizontal or vertical. Clearvid is a standard pixel array turned 45 degrees, so the measured horizontal and vertical resolution increases and the diagonal resolution is reduced.

800lines for a high def camera is nothing short of impressive, but if you have a Clearvid at 800 lines and an ordinary camera at 800 lines, the ordinary camera has a higher diagonal resolution than the clearvid, and a much larger total resolution.

So you can't compare like for like with just this data.

If you look at the comparisons on the Sony site, [they're all] close ups of pictures with vertical and horizontal detail (windows, bricks, all square on), but no close ups of the diagonals. .

What about the other samples we have seen from DSE? Those have some diagonals in them don't they? Couldn't the same also be said about a bayer pattern since in the diagonal direction a line either has every green pixel as a real pixel or every pixel in that diagonal line is an interpolated pixel?

Marvin, attacks or commentary about any manufacturer hiding something is inappropriate.

No one from any company or anywhere else is hiding something. The answer simply is, manufacturers and shooters of any product likely aren't going to worry about the minutaie that you are implying someone is intentionally hiding.
As asked before, are you in the business because you can apply slide rules, math, fuzzy logic, and intense discussion, or are you in the business of being creative and capturing great pictures and telling interesting stories with frame sequences?

Any further posts of speculation or intimation that a manufacturer is "hiding" anything such as these last few will be immediately removed to either Area 51 or a moderators room.

I remember a vigorous debate about the merits of pixel shifting the FX1/Z1U sensor panels to achieve a higher resolution than it would otherwise get.

Then along came Canon with 1440 x 1080 panels and by most accounts it could point to more resolution.

I bought the Z1U, have been extremely happy with it, but now we're farther along, the Canon has dropped in price and Sony still has 960 panels and I'm looking to upgrade. I would acknowledge that between the V1U or XH-A1, either would be an upgrade over the Z1U, possibly for different reasons. For example, better latitude and absence of smearing are very compelling for the V1U. But sensor panels in the native resolution of the HDV format seem fundamental. So the internal struggle I'm having is from the same "less is more" logic. I'm not expecting anyone to be able to answer that dilemma for me, but I will confess I'm just a bit hung up over an observation made by Steve Mullen that interlaced resolution would possibly be expected to be 25-30% less than progressive, yet the EIA resolution charts cited from the V1U don't seem to bear that out. So what's the answer? Can't be both!

yet the EIA resolution charts cited from the V1U don't seem to bear that out.

Since Sony quotes 800 TVL for the V1 verses 600 TVL for the Z1 -- one assumes that both are for interlace mode.

Sony "interpolation" explanation left out important details and so does Marvin's "diagonal" explanation.

So all these discussions are premature. Likewise the worries about diagonal "issues" have no data to support them.

I'm testing the V1 now and results plus a full ClearVid explanation will appear in the next issue of the HDV@Work newsletter.

Discussions by people of the "lack of image quality" with no data, no hands-on experience, and no understanding of how the V1 works are silly.

The same is true for lux numbers -- lux is nearly meaningless.

I can tell you that at under a 100W, it images a large room exactly like it appears to the human eye at only 12dB gain.

Couldn't the 800 lines from SONY mean horizontal resolution which we know would be higher than the Z1. I do not think the vertical resolution of the Z1 was ever in question but it was the horizontal that used pixel shift to try and boost the resolution.

As for the 1440x1080 issue well it will be interesting to see how that works out. Many feel as though less resolution means more sensitive chips for low light shooting. A lot of people feel that the Z1 was better in low light then the Canon XL-H1. The Canon may have had more detail but at the expense of sensitivity. Now the low light argument may be out the window due to the fact that SONY has said the V1 is not as sensitive as the Z1 so that may put it on par with the Canon or maybe even less sensitive. There are so many other factors that determine image quality other than resolution and shooting in a dark environment so again do not worry about the number and just wait to see how the camera performs.

I can tell you that at under a 100W, it images a large room exactly like it appears to the human eye at only 12dB gain.This is interesting and valuable information.

Thanks for posting that up.

Couldn't the 800 lines from SONY mean horizontal resolution which we know would be higher than the Z1.

.....
(re: low light sensity)
SONY has said the V1 is not as sensitive as the Z1 .



I'm a newbie, so I'm going to ask a stupid question. :)
Isn't the V1U supposed to be 1080? Why would the
resoultion chart only show 800 lines?

On the low light thing... when/where did Sony say that the V1 isn't as sensitve as the Z1?

Thanks! :)

Isn't the V1U supposed to be 1080? Why would the
resoultion chart only show 800 lines?

1080 is the theoretical maximum number of lines of vertical resolution for the 1080i/p formats, whereas 800 lines would be the actual resolution of a recorded image from that camera. Just like not all DV cameras are equally sharp even though they all record the same format, not all HD cameras are equally sharp either (and don't all record the same format).