HD Camera Shootout: "Let the games begin" : In this corner we have.....

[Danny Dale]

please be sure to make Quicktime versions of everything as well... thanks.

//danny

[Jarred Land]

well initial reports are pretty good.. they seemed to have way too much too do and too little time, but from what I have heard it seems that bottom line is that they all looked pretty good when used like a camera should.

Wish I could have been there as well, in the middle of moving so couldnt make it :(

[Evan C. King]

Yes please post quicktime as well! Can't wait for the results!

[Matthew Greene]

Originally Posted by Petr Marusek

I've seen it on a high end Sony 24p monitor, some 1000 lines either way; no difference in resolution between interlaced and progressive. The myth that the resolution is lower when switched to interlaced is total BS.

Don't forget that 1000 lines is also right near the limit of Sony's HD CRT too, probably best to examine it closer in a computer before solidifing those figures.

As Petr said, the CCDs are natively progressive so there's no static resolution difference between modes. If you're shooting a rez chart that were to be moving around progressive would be higher but that has nothing to do with the camera, just the nature of progressive vs interlace.

[Petr Marusek]

This is a myth too. It all depends on a shutter spped; you can make the moving chart resolution read sharper with a interlaced camera. Subjective sharpness due to the interlaced factor is something different. The problem is that there is this myth that that an interlaced camera reads lower resolution than a progressive camera on a chart, which by the way is always measered statically. It does not measure lower. The resolution drop is subjective in nature and not something that you can measure with a resolution chart.

[Matthew Greene]

Originally Posted by Petr Marusek

This is a myth too. It all depends on a shutter spped; you can make the moving chart resolution read sharper with a interlaced camera. Subjective sharpness due to the interlaced factor is something different. The problem is that there is this myth that that an interlaced camera reads lower resolution than a progressive camera on a chart, which by the way is always measered statically. It does not measure lower. The resolution drop is subjective in nature and not something that you can measure with a resolution chart.

Sorry, little misunderstanding Petr, I was refering to it more in the lines that if the chart was moving around in interlaced you'd have to freeze a field and not a frame in order to get a clear picture to read resolution (hence 1/2 resolution).

[John Mercer]

I think this is a fantastic opportunity but alas I seriously doubt it will end the vociferous rivallry between make loyalists or provide definitive data.

These cameras will all be indistinguishable in actual production conditions - no-one but no-one will be able to tell wether that low budget feature was shot on a H1, HVX200, HD100 or a Z1 and that's what matters.

They are all 1/3" chip prosumer HD cameras manufactured to a price point, with similar technology. I say with all due respect to everyone get out there and make things and do not spend sleepless nights worrying wether your new HD camcorder has 25 lines more resolution on a chart than another make.

[Petr Marusek]

Originally Posted by Matthew Greene

Sorry, little misunderstanding Petr, I was refering to it more in the lines that if the chart was moving around in interlaced you'd have to freeze a field and not a frame in order to get a clear picture to read resolution (hence 1/2 resolution).

If the camera shutter stays open the same amount of time for the 2 fields or for the one frame, the chart resolution will be the same.

[Matthew Greene]

Originally Posted by Petr Marusek

If the camera shutter stays open the same amount of time for the 2 fields or for the one frame, the chart resolution will be the same.

If you're shooting at 60i and have a rez chart that's moving around and froze a frame you'd end up with field showing half the chart in one place and another field with the other half of the raster in the other place wouldn't you? You'd have to freeze a field in order to make a reading which would yeild a 1/2 resolution reading.

If the shutter is open for a full 30th of a second (or if a single image is recorded onto 2 fields), what you're really doing is technically just shooting 30P and laying it to a 60i tape format, so you're actual camera is really shooting progressive, not interlaced.

[Douglas Call]

So what happen did the test go off as planned on January 11th? When can we hear something about the results?

[Rob Lohman]

Douglas: yes it did. Results are on the way. Hold on a bit longer!

[Douglas Call]

I can't wait to hear/see the results!

[Steven White]

Barry Green posted some preliminary results over at DVXuser.com. The results from this whole affair should be very interesting, but it sounds like the moral of the story is going to be:

They're all good. So quit your bellyaching about specs, buy one, get out there, and make some decent high-def content.

-Steve

[Chris Hurd]

The direct link Steven refers to is http://www.dvxuser.com/V3/showthread.php?t=43409

[Rob Lohman]

Since the shoot is over this thread is closed.