Resolution Comparison

[Petr Marusek]

http://www.dvxuser.com/articles/shoo...Align-CF30.jpg

http://www.dvxuser.com/articles/shoo...mAlign-60i.jpg

http://www.dvxuser.com/articles/shoo...%20EIA1956.JPG

http://www.dvxuser.com/articles/shoo...p-thin-4x3.jpg

http://www.dvxuser.com/articles/shoot3/

I found this article and these charts. DVX chart vertical result needs to be decreased by 25% for 16x9 letterboxed aspect ratio, since the CCD's are 4:3, unless you are going to shoot in 4x3 aspect ratio or with an anamorphic adapter. Some other minor adjustments need to be done.

I've viewed some of the charts in MS Photo Editor with 400% zoom, despite the fact that my 19" monitor has 1600x1200 resolution and is not even set for this resolution, so the equivaelent resolution increase for the close study was about 600%.

I conformed again the H1 progressive resolution as 800Hx650V. Sony CF30 resolution is lower in both vertical and horizontal compared to the Canon in 24F. Sony CF25 resolution should be identical to CF30.

XL2 resolution is 525Hx525V; DVX is about the same, but in letterboxed 16x9 aspect ratio it becomes 525Hx395V. Both of these cameras are progressive.

[Chris Hurd]

Originally Posted by Pierre Barberis

People who do this without following a documented process and describing the production thread they have been using are just an embarrassment, and they lead new candidates to erroneous choices. Try by yourself and make judgement on Movies !! Some Moderator should do his job and kill such ( suspect ? ) posts.

I'm inclined to agree with you, but I've recently been too busy dealing with trolls, trolling posts, vulgarity, profanity and other inappropriate mayhem to bother with this one yet. Sorry,

[Petr Marusek]

There is nothing wrrong with analyzing charts from different sources. On the contrary, it is better to have the information confirmed from more than one person. The dvxuser charts indicate similar resolution on the Sony camera as Martin's chart does; that is why I did not repeat the numbers from the dvxuser chart. You only have to compensate for the way the charts were shot and some charts from these various sources were not shot properly, but as long as it's clear, what has to be corrected, it's no problem.

On another forum there are posts that HVX has higher resolution than H1. It is not true. I've looked at the Canon chart at 600% magnification and i stand by the 800Hx650V resolution figures in the progressive mode.

[A. J. deLange]

There's definitely nothing wrong with analyzing charts as long as you keep their limitations in mind and understand that they only convey some of the information necessary - particularly in the way we use them. For example, everyone looks to see where the lines blend or aliasing begins and call that the resolution but no one looks at the amplitude difference between black and white which is also an important part of resolution (this is moving towards measurement of modulation transfer function). For example my analysis of Putora charts for the XL-H1 stock lens and the 3x wide angle show the two to have about the same resolution where they clearly do not in any real world picture (the 3x was reputed to be "soft" in the XL2 days). I'll bet MTF plots of the two would show a clear difference.

It is also important to remember that the ultimate suitability of a particular camera or lens for a particular purpose depends on a subjective judgement that A is better than B irrespective of what res chart or MTF plots may show.

[Shannon Rawls]

Originally Posted by A. J. deLange

It is also important to remember that the ultimate suitability of a particular camera or lens for a particular purpose depends on a subjective judgement that A is better than B irrespective of what res chart or MTF plots may show.

A.J., I totally agree....

But how come these things weren't taken into consideration when the tables were turned early last year when measuring the Sony HVR-Z1U? Back then, resolution chart scores were ALL the nay-sayers pointed at. They sang the "low resolution chart" song so loud, that that's all many people payed attention to when trying to make purchase decisions.

But Now that the HVX-200 "MIGHT" have lower resolution then its competitors, all of a sudden resolution charts are no longer important. Now it's all about intended use and picture quality. What's up with that?

Furthermore, in light of the "ALLEGED" noisy image the HVX-200 produces, HVX lovers are starting to now brainwash people into believing "NOISE IS A GOOD THANG!" and trying to convince themselves (and potential buyers) that having a noisy camera is beneficial to all so you can achieve a more film-like image.

Sadly, people are listening and BELIEVING all this hogwash. *sigh* It's funny & disturbing at the same time.

- ShannonRawls.com

[Petr Marusek]

When you're buying 1080p camera, do you expect it to resolve 100% more lines than Canon XL2 480p camera, or just 10% more, or it somehow does not matter any more? Should 1080p HD camera really resolve less vertical lines than PAL XL2 SD camera? Is something wrong here? If not, explain it to me, please, pleeeeeeeeeease!

[Steven Thomas]

Shannon does bring up a good point.

Where's the benifit for 1080P with resolution that may not even
benefit for 720?

Maybe I'm missing something here.
Please help me understand?

Well, we'll all soon know after the camera comparison test kicks off soon.

Steve

[Shannon Rawls]

Originally Posted by Petr Marusek

When you're buying 1080p camera, do you expect it to resolve 100% more lines than <snip> 480p camera, or just 10% more, or it somehow does not matter any more?

Great question Petr.

Remember, there's more to resolution then measuring it Up & DOWN....let's not forget LEFT & RIGHT as well.

To answer your question, I guess I would expect an NTSC 1080p camera it to perform twice as good as an NTSC 480p camera. Both vertically & horizontally. And in color rendetion for a potential film blow-up quality.

This is one reason why I won't use 720p. That format makes no sense to me. (save your breath on trying to convince me, i've studied & read it all)

So now that we know what I expect of a 1080p camera vs. a 480p camera.......is it actually happening???

Is the XL-H1 twice the horizontal & vertical resolution of the XL2?
Does the picture of the XL-H1 look twice as good as an XL2 when blown-up to the best 35mm film stock you can buy?
Will the XL-H1 make a BLU-RAY/HD-DVD look twice as better then an XL2 make a BLU-RAY/HD-DVD look?
Would the picture of the XL-H1 create a prettier and more "hollywood-like" movie on a regular plain' ole DVD then a XL2 would?
Will my executive producer give me TWICE AS MUCH MONEY to make a movie if I were using a XL-H1 instead of an XL2?

likewise

Is the HVX200 twice the horizontal & vertical resolution of the DVX100?
Does the picture of the HVX200 look twice as good as an DVX100 when blown-up to the best 35mm film stock you can buy?
Will the HVX200 make a BLU-RAY/HD-DVD look twice as better then an DVX100 make a BLU-RAY/HD-DVD look?
Would the picture of the HVX200 create a prettier and more "hollywood-like" movie on a regular plain' ole DVD then a DVX100 would?
Will my executive producer give me TWICE AS MUCH MONEY to make a movie if I were using a HVX200 instead of an DVX100?

I have no idea, let's test it and see. Resolution chart tests are cool...but THAT'S the answers I need to know!

- ShannonRawls.com

[Kenji Kodama]

Originally Posted by Petr Marusek

Canon XLH1 about 800 lph (unconfirmed !) (1080i)
Sony HDR-FX1/Z1 about 700 lph (1080i)
Panasonic HVX200 about 600 lph (1080p)
JVC HD 100 about 500 lph (720p)

And,

Sony HDR-HC1/A1 about 800 lph(1080i) in good light condition(1000lx).
(same as H1!)

But FX1 looks better.

[Petr Marusek]

http://www.pixelmonger.com/hd_assets/cam27V.jpg

This is a resolution chart of Panasonic Varicam, which shoots 720p. It is overall similar to H1 in progressive 1080p (24F). The Panasonic resolves slightly less horizontally, slightly more vertically than the Canon, which resolves 800Hx650V, per chart that was provided by Shannon, who claims that when viewed on a monitor, the resolution was higher. The Canon chart data was adjusted for not shooting the chart in proper size.

H1 1080i resolution (interlaced) is 800Hx800V, per German magazine test that was presented here.

HVX-200 resolution is 625Vx600H @1080p, per tests dome by Kaku from Japan, at various sharpness settings.

Resolution naturally is not everything, but resolution-wise the cameras stack as follows:

1.
Canon @ 1080i, which is the most comon mode, at which great majority of HDTV broadcast is done worldwide.

2.
a/ Varicam in 720p. Varicam shoots 60p and 720/60p is one (minor share) of the HDTV broadcast standards in the US. This broadcast does not exist anywhere else in the world. HDTV broadcast in Europe and Asia (Japan, etc.) is 1080i only. Varicam shoots 720-60p at 100 Mbps; its 24p derived stream is 40 Mbps.

b/ Canon @1080p has overall similar level of resolution as Varicam.

3.
HVX at 1080p. The resolution is significantly less than Varicam at 720p but more than NTSC Canon XL2. I'd say it's in the same class as PAL XL2.

The resolution is based on lines per picture height, which is the standard way of describing it.

[Chris Loomis]

how does the JVC hd100u rate in this profile?

[Pete Bauer]

Wrangler Note:
The thread "Resolution: Panasonic HVX and Varicam, Canon XL-H1" also started by Petr was MERGED with this thread, since it was an extension of the same topic. Merged posts appear in order based on the date/time posted. Just trying to reduce the clutter.