Entire list of 1920 X 1080 or better cameras

[David Heath]

Originally Posted by David Jimerson

The 1440x810 refers to the pixel count, the "resolution," of the CCD, not the processed image. As you agree, they're not the same thing.

In the Panasonic paper I linked to, then the 1440x810 limit figure is what they claim as the MAX resolution of the three chip assembly for luminance after processing, the very limit of what you may see off a chart. The text states that the 1440x810 figure ("a theoretical “best case scenario”) is the benefit that their pixel shifting and processing technology gives over what may be expected from 3x960x540 chips - a 1.5x improvement for luminance.

As far as pixel counts go, then there are three relevant numbers:

CCD - 960x540 for each of R,G,B.
Processing - done at 1920x1080
Recording - 1280x1080 or 960x720

In any case, you might want to check with ReelStreem, because they're pulling 2K off the CCDs -- that's BEFORE processing. If what you're saying were the case in the sense you're saying it, that would be impossible.

It's not me saying anything - I'm quoting Panasonics own technical paper about pixel shift. But I really don't see how they can pull 2K off the CCDs before processing - are you sure they are not extracting the processed 1920x1080 raster, before it is normally downsampled for recording? That would make sense. (Though the detail within it could only be up to 1440x810.)

[Ken Hodson]

Originally Posted by Kevin Shaw

Not quite: in terms of measured TVL resolution the Canon XL-H1 trumped it by a slight margin:

http://www.adamwilt.com/HD/4cams-part2.html

But that's not particularly significant, the real question should be what are you trying to do rather than who records what. A recorded resolution of 1920x1080 pixels means nothing if it's coming from a cell phone with a pinhole plastic lens, so resolution isn't the only thing to consider if you're comparing "digital cinema" cameras.

Sorry, the word "progressive" was supposed to be in there. It has the highest progressive resolution of all the under $10,000 cams according to the DV.com article. My bad.

[Jack Zhang]

What about the HC7? It should be around 1920x1080...

[Giroud Francois]

So we have to establish a rating for camera.
each level will be rated with a factor from 0 to 1, so we can get the final value.
Example.
SENSOR: full HD =0.9, 1440x1080=0.8, 1280x720=0.7 etc...
add 0.1 if it has 3 sensors.
sensor size : 1 inch= 1, 3/4=.8, 1/2=0.6 etc...
recording: full HD=1, HDV(1080/720)=0.8
pixel depth:12 bit=1 10bit=0.9 8bit=0.8 etc..
luma/color ratio: 4:4:4 =1, 4:2:2=0.9 4:2:0=0.8

the you multiply all factor and get the real value of the camera.

[Ken Hodson]

Originally Posted by Giroud Francois

the you multiply all factor and get the real value of the camera.

No you will get a number. Which may, or may not have anything to do with the real world performance or "value" of the cam.

[Greg Hartzell]

Originally Posted by Zulkifli Yusof

if you want a list of HD cameras, check this one out:
http://www.hdcompare.com/Cameras.htm

there is a link to a specs comparison chart on the webpage

Pretty cool link.

Good point Ken, numbers don't equal camera's. Now will we ever see an under $10k cam that is full raster HD? Hmmm. Maybe in 20 years, 4k will be akin to U-bit.

[Ken Hodson]

[QUOTE=Greg Hartzell;678573] Now will we ever see an under $10k cam that is full raster HD? .[/QUOTE

Ya, the JVC's.

[Greg Hartzell]

Ah yes, I knew that JVC's pro-hd were full raster 1280x720. I should have specified 1920x1080.

[Jon Fairhurst]

Originally Posted by Ian G. Thompson

WHoa...what...why? What is this cam used for..? 1000fps?

Have you ever seen super-duper slow-mo shots of a drop of milk? Awesome stuff. Takes a lot of light though. The sensor doesn't have the chance to collect a lot of photons when the frame rate is that fast.

[Mikko Lopponen]

Originally Posted by Greg Hartzell

I could be wrong here, but since the second episode of Star Wars was shot with a F900 using HDcam, then it was captured at 1440x1080, and not 1920x1080.

Episode II was captured at 1920x1080 using a modified camera.

[Greg Hartzell]

Any details on the modded cam?