|
|||||||||
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
August 3rd, 2006, 01:30 PM | #46 | ||
Major Player
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Europe
Posts: 844
|
Quote:
http://babelfish.altavista.com/babel...2%2Fcanon1.htm Scroll down til you find the paragraph starting "In addition, with respect" Transaltion isn't great, but its clear what is happening. Also, read Chris' post here: http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showpost....59&postcount=2 regards |
||
August 3rd, 2006, 11:55 PM | #47 | |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: WA
Posts: 180
|
Quote:
thanks for the links. the translated text reads "In addition, with respect to the standard of HDV, record resolution becomes the 1,440×1,080 dot, but with iVIS HV10 from CMOS it quarries out image with the 1,920×1,080 dot, from there has reduced in the 1,440×1,080 dot.", so it does imply a reduction from 1920x1080 to 1440x1080 - definitely not clear on any of the official canon english-language sites. so, why go 1920x1080 -> 1440x1080, instead of using native 1440x1080 as Sony does in the HC3 since the only output option is HDV? I'd think you'd get a better picture by not having to scale the source image (i.e., recording what you capture vs extra processing required). or, am I wrong? I see that the XH A1/G1 still capture at 1440x1080. |
|
August 4th, 2006, 06:47 AM | #48 |
Trustee
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Vulcan
Posts: 1,564
|
based on the CMOS alone, looks like the HV10 is "newer" than its big brothers HD cams. i imagine canon moving forward with their CMOS (in the form of 3x) technology in:
XL H2 XH G2 XH A2 now, if they did that and added that new avc codec to record 1920x1080x24p that would totally rock.
__________________
bow wow wow |
August 4th, 2006, 07:08 AM | #49 | |
Obstreperous Rex
|
Quote:
|
|
August 4th, 2006, 08:25 AM | #50 |
Trustee
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Posts: 1,719
|
It's the same reason why SD cameras use pixel shift. On SD cameras such as the DVX100 the chips are at 720x480 but yet pixel shift is used for higher detail. That is because starting with a higher source will always look better.
Since 1080i HD is really 1920x1080, starting at this point may give you a more natural look when the HDV is stretched back out on your TV. The Varicam also does this. It uses chips at 1280x720 even though DVCPROHD only uses 960x720 anamorphic pixels. If the chips were 960x720 then when the image is stretched out to 1280x720 you could have some pixelated or aliased edges. Starting with 1280 and scaling down to 960 can smooth the transitions between the details so when it is scaled back up to 1280 on your HDTV the detail edges will be smoother giving a more natural look. It can be a very small effect but to some it can make a difference. Also note that while the XLH1 uses 1440x1080 chips it does use pixel shift to try and make that closer to a 1920x1080 chipset. With a single cmos chip you cannot do pixel shift so it is best to start with 1920x1080. |
August 4th, 2006, 08:31 AM | #51 |
Trustee
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Posts: 1,719
|
Oh one final thing. With a 1920x1080 chip that means your live component output is a true 1920x1080 pixel image and not pixel shifted or interpolated. This doesn't really matter for consumers however.
Oh one other thing I thought about is the bayer filter. Starting with 1920x1080 pixel cmos sensor means a little bit more detail to work with when a bayer filter is used. While bayer and RGB filtering has gotten a lot better it still isn't as sharp as a 3 chip design. Starting with 1920 using the bayer filter and then down sampling to 1440 should make a more detailed image then starting with a 1440 chip and using a bayer filter. |
August 4th, 2006, 06:20 PM | #52 |
Major Player
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Posts: 393
|
The hc1 has a 1920x1440 sensor area. No difference there.
|
August 5th, 2006, 06:12 PM | #53 |
Major Player
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 424
|
hollly sheet, ive been backpacking in colorado and waiting to post a thread about how i wanted a matchbook vertical hdv camera, beautiful, prayers answered
|
August 5th, 2006, 09:59 PM | #54 | |
Major Player
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Grand Rapids, MI, USA
Posts: 202
|
Quote:
|
|
August 7th, 2006, 08:58 AM | #55 |
Trustee
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Vulcan
Posts: 1,564
|
anyone know when this is due in the marketplace. i've read october/november, is that true? isn't about the same time as the xh series?
__________________
bow wow wow |
August 7th, 2006, 09:13 AM | #56 |
Obstreperous Rex
|
Starts shipping mid September, it'll be out before the XH camcorders.
|
August 7th, 2006, 12:48 PM | #57 |
Trustee
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Vulcan
Posts: 1,564
|
thx Chris for continuing to bring us latest+greatest info. i think we all appreciate the amt. of work you do for us =).
~$1,300 for 1920x1080 is a steal for home movies. it's also great for those who are on a *real* tight budget. i can't wait to test the video caps on my front projector. now, my projector isn't 1080p but @1024x768 i think i can get a good idea of how the visual quality is. do you think there'll be a lot of pt time videographers using this to replace their SD gear just for the sake of resolution? even 1080 downrez to SD-DVD anamorphic will look better than 480p... will it? the next few years ought to be very interesting as the lines begin to blur between consumers, prosumers and pros...
__________________
bow wow wow |
August 7th, 2006, 04:15 PM | #58 |
Major Player
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Hollywood, FL
Posts: 302
|
I'm going to use it for all my drive by shootings and general walking around camera. I'm hoping that it's low light capability when using it in SD mode is pretty good. I'm constantly on the move and always wanted to be able to scan new potential locations with a handy dandy little camera and this one looks just about perfect. Although I wonder if they're coming out with the AVCHD version of it. Now that would guarantee me buying instantly.
|
| ||||||
|
|