So I guess what it boils down to is "wait and see?" Just like with the Scarlett.

I don't wanna start a fight here, but pixel shifted or not didn't the HXV200 produce a darn nice image when compared to other cameras in it's class? Sometimes I think we get too caught up in technical specs and forget to just look at the end result of all the hocus pocus that happens in camera. Panasonic tends to put out cameras in this range that produce very nice images, why should we think that trend will change any time soon?

Pixel Shift isn't mumbo-jumbo. With only a couple of very rare exceptions, it's used in nearly *every* three-chip camera system ever made, and with good reason too. Pixel Shift is very real, and it's a very good thing to have. To deny that is to remain woefully ignorant about how these cameras work.

Pixel counting aside, these Panasonic CCDs produce a beautiful Cine-like gamma, nicer than anything at the price point. The EX1/3 may be sharper but sharpness has its downsides too. I'm willing to take my lumps editing and be one of the early adopters at this price point! The editing will work out eventually, although transcoding would overshadow all that time saved not digitizing. Maybe faster Mac Pros will be around soon, or can they edit native already?

I admit it. I am "woefully ignorant" about this kind of technology. And maybe I myself am confused between "pixel shifting" and "pixel interpolation."

But, in nearly every discussion I've followed on pixel shift and similar technologies -- including on this board, and including some very knowledgeable people -- there seems to be little or no consensus as to WHAT pixel shifting is, let alone whether or not it's a good thing to have.

Here's an example:
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...ight=Adam+Wilt

and another:
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...ift#post897608

If Adam Wilt and Steve Mullen can't agree on how many pixels a camera like the Z7 actually has, clearly this technology is NOT well understood. Couple that with some aggressive marketing from some manufacturers that poo-poos the whole concept, and you can see why the whole thing has a kind of "magic black box/Voodoo" feel to it. Which is why I used the term "mumbo jumbo." I may have used a poor choice of words. Sorry if I offended.

I am certainly willing to be enlightened. It seems intuitively obvious to me that a chip with a pixel resolution that matches the resolution of the image you are trying to create should have an easier time of it than one that has to jump through some electronic hoops and interpolation to do so. It seems that if you want a 1920x1080 image, having a 1920x1080 chip will make your life much easier than having a 960x540 chip. Is that not true?

Why is pixel shifting desirable?

Like far too many things in life, I'd imagine it's an economic trade off. Three 900ish x 600ish chips must cost a good deal less than three 1920ish x 1080ish ones.

Although an SD capable camera was already mentioned, the AVCHD Information website has specs for the format here:

http://www.avchd-info.org/format/index.html

Interesting to observe that the 1080/720 signals all look to record with AC3-compressed 5.1 Dolby Digital audio, while the 480/576 signals get 7.1 Linear PCM. Am I reading this chart right?

I'm a little surprised 480/60p isn't part of the spec.

If I ever need to get SD say for a quick-turn event I'd just haul my DSR-11 deck along and roll DVcam, or maybe even haul along the trusted Panny DMR-ES20 DVD recorder

Another question: Does the HMC150 output live video to all ports at once: HDMI, mini-D component, and composite?

My setup would benefit from this because I have a 12" focus check LCD monitor that runs off of HDMI, a Sony PHM-14M8U HD CRT client viewing monitor that takes HD component, and then the DSR-11 to record SD from the composite. So I could use all three outputs simultaneously in some shooting situations.

NTSC/PAL factory upgrade
 

There's been some discussion about NTSC/PAL upgrades on the HPX-170, but I've not heard anything about this for the HMC-150. Does anyone have any information on this? Also, I imagine the "upgrade" is just a matter of activating some "hidden" functionality that's already on the camera, or is it actually a matter of physically adding an ASIC or some circuitry? If I'm right, then surely it's possible the procedure will leak onto the Internet, enabling anyone to upgrade their camera?

It will be interesting to see how the image quality of the HMC150 compares to the HPX170 and HVX200A. My guess is, in most cases, it will be noticeably better. 1920x1080 4:2:0 offers almost as much color information as 1280x1080 4:2:2, and almost twice as much luma information. 24Mbps AVC really should even hold up to motion pretty well (if the codec implementation isn't a dud). Once side by side footage starts getting compared extensively, sales of HPX170s and HVX200As may plummet. It seems to me that Panasonic may have made a mistake by not adding AVC-Intra recording capability to the HPX170 and HVX200A.

See a review of the HMC-150 LIVE:

WOW, I can't wait for that....

Bob Diaz

Another Update...
 

I've converted the .pdf file form the Panasonic Government sales rep. into a form everyone could read here. The files might take a bit to load, but say a lot about the camera...

http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f103/KQ6WQ/Page-1.png

http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f103/KQ6WQ/Page-2.png

http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f103/KQ6WQ/Page-3.png

http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f103/KQ6WQ/Page-4.png

http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f103/KQ6WQ/Page-5.png

http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f103/KQ6WQ/Page-6.png

Of interest:

> Pre Record, 3 seconds!!!
> The 3 User Buttons have 11 choices
> PH (21 Mbps/24 max) & HA (17 Mbps) modes use Class 4 Cards
> HG (13 Mbps) & HE (6 Mbps) use Class 2

Bob Diaz

Thanks for posting this Bob!

This camera has really caught my attention as a replacement for my PD-170/VX-2000 cameras.

Nobody know the european distribution date?

Simply, the answer to the question you put is "yes". But think of the implications of other than just the number of pixels, and the effect on resolution. Go from 960x540 to 1920x1080 and you must either make each individual photosite a quarter the size OR make the chip four times the area - use 2/3" chips rather than 1/3".

For sub-$10,000 cameras it should be obvious that compromises are going to have to be made - it's only a question of which is the best compromise, and this is where it starts to get hazy. Panasonic have decided to stick with 1/3" chips, keep fairly large pixels, and use pixel shifting to get as much out of them as possible. Does it improve the camera performance, relative to the same system with no pixel-shift? Yes. Is it as good as using chips of four times the area with four times as many pixels? Emphatically not.

The question isn't whether pixel-shifting works (it does), but HOW WELL it works.

Most discussion about it tends to revolve around resolution, but it's worth thinking about aliasing. That occurs when detail finer than the resolving power of the sensor gets picked up, and will appear as spurious coarse patterning. Unfortunately, pixel-shift techniques rely on detail finer than the native photosite dimensions to work, so a camera with effective resolution enhancement via pixel shift is likely to have higher aliasing levels.

Many cameras use it in the horizontal sense - Panasonic are unusual in using it horizontally and vertically. One unwelcome effect of this is reduce the sharpness of diagonal edges to enhance horizontal and vertical edges! It robs Peter to pay Paul. If you're playing the numbers game, it looks very good on test charts (where the resolution wedges are normally horizontal and vertical), but shows up on a zone plate.

Sonys approach is go for 1/2" chips in the EX series, and 1920x1080 resolution, the larger chip size meaning the photosites can still be reasonably large, and the real cleverness is in keeping the optical system size still to that of an average 1/3" prosumer camera.

Hmmmmm... interesting... I'm getting (a bit) closer to understanding all this. Thanks for helping to enlighten me. And I suppose JVC's approach was to go with lower resolution (1280x720), but keep the chips at 1/3"?

Just to add...

On the 1/3" Sony V7, the image sensor only has 1MP of sensing elements rather than the full 2MP. On the 1/4" Sony V1, the image sensor also has only has 1MP of sensing elements rather than the full 2MP.

The Canon A1 & H1 have roughly 1.5MP, BUT the low light performance suffers as a result.

The big issue is NOT what a paper specification says, but how does the overall image look? There are other parameters that impact the quality of the image, like noise, dynamic range, color saturation, contrast, ...


For some reason, I can't upload image files and the files are too big for my Photobucket account. I may have to crop the images from the HMC-150 in order to show what it looks like....


Bob Diaz

Bob, try this: Controls > Networking > Pictures & Albums

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/usercp.php

As in http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/members/c...rd-albums.html

Quite right, but 1MP is still twice that of the HVX200s 0.5MP, and there seems to be something of a concensus developing that for 1/3" chips 1MP may be a sweet spot in the compromise - more means that individual sites become too small, less just isn't felt adequate, pixel shifting or not. And that 1MP is being offered in a variety of ways - 960x1080 (Z1), 1280x720 (JVC), and the 45degree diamond arrangement of the V1, Z7.

It took me a while to properly understand how the latter worked, but the more I found out, the more impressed I became - it enables a 1MP chip to have square pixels, yield equal resolution horizontally and vertically (and roughly equivalent to a conventional chip of 1440x710), but still be easy to process in a 1920x1080 matrix. No other 1/3" chip design can claim all of those factors.
To a point, but sometimes paper specs can give a clue to important issues that just looking at overall images doesn't! Aliasing would be a good example. Aliases may not show up very much in first generation images, but can really mess up final compression. And generally the less pixels in the sensor, the more likely aliasing is likely to be a problem.

Similarly, and regarding general theory behind pixel-shift techniques, it's also worth emphasising how it may work very well for some images, but hardly at all for others. It's at it's best for subjects of low or zero saturation - a white/black edge can affect the green CCD or the red/blue CCDs, hence (via pixel shift) the system resolution can easily be seen to be more than any individual sensor. But what about a green/black edge? It can't have any effect on the red/blue CCDs, hence pixel shift techniques don't contribute, and the resolution is purely that of the green sensor. That may not matter very much with most real world images, but what about chromakey? In that case the resolution of highly saturated images becomes very important, and pixel shift may let you down.

Frankly though, as far as the HMC-150 goes, I think overall image quality may be less relevant than other factors in making a purchasing choice, and in particular computer processing power required to post produce. I can't help thinking that the HMC-150 may give comparable quality to HDV, but at lower data rates, with the penalty being more computer power needed. So to compare with the Z7 - 25Mbs MPEG2 to Compact Flash may be as economic as a slightly lower bitrate H264 to SD, whilst still giving the solid state advantages....... whilst the MPEG2 is far easier to post produce!

And the Z7 has the option of tape AS WELL as solid state.........

The tradeoffs are there, but I am really factoring in the price.

The HMC-150 is about half the cost of the Z7 and the image quality as I have seen from the clips Barry Green posted will not be half the quality of the Z7.

This pricepoint allows me to consider replacing my VX-2000/PD-170 combo for a reasonable amount as well as not needing to double my rates to get some ROI.

But overall, to me, what changes everything for all of these newer cameras is the ability to pull 4:2:2 out of the HDMI/SDI.

This gives the latent value of getting higher quality than is reflected in the price, which makes them a bargain in a way.

Fair points, though it's not just image quality. How much are true manual, interchangeable lenses worth? Or the tape/solid state option? But OK, maybe Z7 and HMC-150 are apples and oranges.
Here I think you may be disappointed. I'm assuming you're intending to use something like the XDR for recording - which will certainly get over the processing hit needed to process AVC. And used with the EX it will give true 1080 4:2:2.

But by 4:2:2 I understand vertical chrominance resolution to be equal to luminance, and the EX front end is certainly capable of giving 1080 for each. But for a camera with 960x540 chips it's different. Pixel shift enables such to normally give a vertical LUMINANCE resolution equivalent to a camera with more vertical pixels (typically 6-700) but doesn't improve the chrominance resolution, that will remain at 540.

This isn't to denigrate the camera - it's intended to record 1080 4:2:0, so chroma res being 540 is as good as the camera can normally record. And luminance resolution being higher than chrominance is the way the eye works, the same as has been exploited by PAL and NTSC systems.

Recording 4:2:2 via HDMI may give you a higher value than the price reflects in the case of the EX, but I fear it won't work in this case.

Well I have to admit that your knowledge is beyond my knowledge on this topic.

Somewhere down the road, I will upgrade my interchangeable lens cameras, and I am looking at the HPX-500.

But it would seem that what you stated would apply to the HPX-500 as well.

To me, the XDR would be mainly for a greenscreen application as once one can sweeten images in post, I think the 4:2:0, 4:2:2 difference is lessened.

So your point is that the 4:2:2 output might not have much of an impact on the final product compared to the 4:2:0 using the Panasonic cameras?

Do you think keying work would be improved?

The perfect camera does NOT exist, so there's always some give and take when selecting a camera. In the case of the HMC-150 and even the HVX-200, some hate the idea of offset pixels to increase resolution. Dave is correct, if we have a green/black detail, the red and blue pixels do nothing to increase resolution.

However, if we have green/any color with a red or blue component, there is an impact from the offset pixels. Nothing is perfect here, so this is part of the give and take.

On the SONY V7, V1, and even EX-1, we have CMOS Imagers. Is this a problem, well, some hate the idea of a rolling shutter. This can cause a distortion with a whip pan. Possible, but not as noticable as when flash photos are taken, like at weddings. In the case of the CMOS chip, part of the frame sees the flash and part does not. The location is random due to the random nature of the flash.

Is this a problem? It depends who you talk to. Some find it unacceptable and others don't mind. Again part of the give and take nature of different cameras.

The Sony EX-1 is a WONDERFUL camera and it gives sharp images and good low light performance, BUT it costs a lot more than the Sony V1 or the Panasonic HMC-150. Some will argue the cost is worth it and some will say that it's outside of their reach. Again, more give and take with cameras.

If I can post the tilt caused by a rolling shutter, I will do so, if not here's the link to the image.

http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f1...ng_Shutter.png

The Black & White shot comes from footage By Philip Bloom. The blur that tilts is a railroad car as it moves through the image. The right image was a test of a rapid pan and a test chart. The color photo of the wedding shows how a flash will partly expose part of a frame. All the shots come from the Sony EX-1.

Please don't get the wrong idea here, I'm NOT against the CMOS Chips and the rolling shutter effect. That's just the way they work. Again ... Give and Take...


With any camera there's always something. As long as a person understands the choices they will make and understand the give and take issues, they are buying a camera with a understanding of the limits of each technology. Better to understand then feel cheated.


Bob Diaz

"Yes" to the first question above, and "depends" to the second.

Think of "4:2:2" and "4:2:0" recording modes as containers, capable of "holding" resolution (!) Let's say they're each capable of holding 1 litre of luminance resolution :), when 4:2:2 will then hold 1 litre of vertical chrominance information and 0.5 litre of horizontal chrominance information. For 4:2:0 both the chrominance figures are 0.5 litres.

The approach you're suggesting (record HD-SDI via an XDR) effectively replaces a 0.5l container with a 1l container. What I'm saying is that you'll only get an improvement IF the camera head is capable of producing more than 0.5l of vertical chrominance information in the first place. For a camera like the EX the answer is obviously "yes" - it's chips have 1080 pixels vertically each of r, g and b. But for a camera with 960x540 chips, the answers no. Pixel shifting techniques may get about 0.6-0.7l of vertical luminance information (up from the 0.5l you'd expect without pixel shift), but they can't do anything for the chrominance information. You're stuck with 0.5l - double the size of the container, and you just end up with it half empty!

As regards the question of whether keying work will be improved, my guess would be that an XDR type device may have lower overall compression, which could only be a good thing, but the effect of the 4:2:2 recording would be small in this case.

As far as the HPX500 goes, on the up side it's 2/3" chips, and they have proper optical low pass filters to help counter aliasing. (All 1/3" cameras don't, AFAIK). On the other hand, they are 0.5MP chips, so the chrominance resolution won't be as good as a 2MP camera, regardless of the colour space. Colour space numbers are ratios, not absolute numbers, and you have to pay regard to the luminance numbers to make any sense. Would you rather have 50% or 25%? Now what if I asked "50% of 2" or "25% of 8"? In that case 25% is obviously better than 50%, in others 4:2:0 can be better than 4:2:2 by similar logic - you have to make sure like is being compared with like.

I'm afraid that at the end of the day you get what you pay for.

I certainly agree with the first sentence, but am not convinced that there is any "hating of the idea of offset pixels" as such. Any debate is more about when wild claims are made about just how effective it is. Will it improve performance compared to not being used? Yes. Will it enable a 960x540 camera to have the same resolution and alias rejection as one with 1920x1080 chips? Absolutely not. Let's quote from the original press release at the beginning of this thread:
Panasonic seem to have recognised that "full 1920x1080" is seen as a good thing in marketing terms, and undoubtably the codec is making such a recording. But are we looking at a big resolution recording container that's not full, or will the images recorded actually be "full horizontal resolution 1920x1080"? From 960x540 chips I think the former, pixel shift or not. Panasonic don't make any such claim, of course, but quite a few people are putting 2 and 2 together to make 4,000.

I was once told that paper statistics can't tell you how good a camera is, but they CAN tell you how good it CAN'T be, and I do think there's a lot of truth in that.
Absolutely so. In this case Tim thought he could get a HMC-150, take an HD-SDI feed out and record externally, and get much improved keying due to a better colour space. Hopefully, a better understanding of what the technology can and cannot do will help stop him wasting money.

As far as rolling shutters go, I confess I'm a little surprised why such a fuss is only now developing about it. I say that as one who grew up with tube cameras, which exhibit all the same characteristics, as do film cameras. With the move to CCDs, that change wasn't even commented on - nobody said "fantastic, no more rolling shutter effect!" So why all the fuss now?

My own feelings are that they are a pretty small negative compared to the positives (such as vastly better highlight handling) that CMOS chips bring over CCDs for cameras in this price range.

I appreciate your views David.

I am reviewing my needs and think I have decided upon getting one of each.

Horses for Courses in this new HD world!

Not the ideal situation, but the tradeoffs are there and the $3,000 difference of buying 2 EX-1s could get me a steadicam.

By " one of each" do you mean an HPX500 and an HMC-150, or an EX and an HMC-150, or....?

Well actually, the more I think about it, one of all of them.

I have DVC-200s (1/2" chip) Panasonics and a VX/PD combo right now.

These cameras have served me well in just about every kind of situation from multicamera shoots to weddings ect...

Groups of large and small HD cameras are just not affordable, so I am going to break it up this way:

I like operating a larger camera and need a lens with some reach, so the HPX-500 seems to fit that bill.

I also often use more than one camera, so I need a matching image (second camera), HMC-150.

But I also see a lot of potential in chromakey for web design use, so I would enjoy the EX-1 for that role, plus any single camera needs that do not require a long lens & it would excel in wedding work.

Overall I need two small cameras for weddings, and three cameras for some event work.

So all of one is either too expensive, or too short in the lens.

Like I said, it is not ideal, but I don't think it will change in the next year or so.

Interesting, I see where you're coming from and tend to agree there isn't an easy answer.

In your position I may be minded to go for three EXs, as there could be a hidden saving in having all the cameras the same, all taking the same batteries, memory cards, and other accessories. They would obviously then all match well on a single camera shoot, and all being the same codec may make post work easier.

But I take what you say about wanting one of them to be shouldermount - in which case what about one of the 1/2" XDCAM-HD shouldermounts to complement the EXs?

Reading this entire thread has been very very interesting. Pardon my newbish-ness as I open my mouth...

I've been using the HVX200, Sony V1Us and now Sony EX-1 at work. Its been interesting having a boss always looking for greener grass on the other side of the fence as he has purchased a new camera every year. Usually to our detriment since our audience almost never views stuff in HD and we often have 2 different cameras with different workflows and formats being edited together.

In looking ahead, I've wondered about getting to a point after graduating from college when I might buy my own camera. The HMC-150 certainly looks interesting. My understanding is that it uses AVCHD instead of DVCPROHD. I don't know a lot about how much that will affect the image quality but I know that in terms of capture media, SD cards would be amazing to use instead of expensive P2 cards.

In terms of looking at all of these different cameras though, myself and some others where I work have used both the HVX200 and EX-1 and noticed some interesting things. While the EX-1 gets a larger image that is sharp, it cannot do a 1/24th shutter. The HVX200 can and seems to just have a better "feel" about it when we watch its footage. I assume its the motion blur or something. Maybe just the softer image. If the HMC-150 has a very similar look to the HVX200 and can shoot native 1080/24p, I want to see some footage. I really really want to see some footage. Panasonic has me hooked on the HVX200.

How much of a step forward or backwards would this camera be compared to the HVX200? There are noticeably fewer buttons on the camera case...almost like there are less features or a lot of features are buried in menus...? (yuck!) :-)

Well I have struggled with this for a long time.

I am not factoring in the XDCAM 330/350 because they don't shoot 720p60. This is the framerate that imho, is the most useful for what I shoot.

Three Exs, I don't know because I am one of those rolling shutter effect haters. I often film in an auditorium environment (high contrast lighting) and flashes going off would look too messy for me with three of these cameras.

I plan on a Nano as my recoding device on the HPX-500 and on an EX as well. I figure with the cost of memory, might as well.

Then comes the HMC-150. Lightweight, affordable and uses addordable memory.

So what it comes down to for me is get an HPX-500 and two HMC-150s or an HPX-500, HMC-150 and an EX-1.

Keying - HPX-500 vs EX-1
Weddings - HMC-150 vs EX-1

In general use, I don't think there will be that much difference between the HMC-150 and the EX-1, especially for the web.

But the price difference between the two including memory costs is about $5,000+ dollars.

I would like to hear any opinions with my choices.

Thanks

Ryan, check a thread at dvxuser.com the Barry Green titled "questions about the HMC-150".

All will be answered and he also posted raw footage for download.

He is very upbeat about the camera.

Ryan & Tim,

I'll give you some thoughts on the HVX-200 vs. the HMC-150. In many ways they are alike; both use the same CCDs. The HVX-200 has the older CCD and the newer HVX-200a has the improved CCD; which is also used in the HMC-150. According to Barry Green, the ISO of the newer CCD is 500. Also, Berry who has tested the cameras and found that the images from the HVX-200 and the HMC-150 are about the same. The newer CCD has less noise, so it works better in low light compared to the older CCD.

In comparing cameras, it's important to take into account cost. Otherwise it becomes an Apples to Bananas comparison. At around $5,200 (street price), the HVX-200a and the HPX-170 offer over cranking, under cranking, single frame, time lapse, and record to P2 media. (The main difference between the 170 and the 200a is that the 170 does not have the tape drive.)

The HMC-150 is around $3,500 (street price) and lacks those features, but it does record 1080/60i, 1080/30p, 1080/24p, 720/60p, 720/30p, and 720/24p. David is correct is saying that it does not resolve a full 1920x1080 resolution, one would need a minimum of a 1/2" image sensor or better yet 2/3" to resolve the full 1920x1080. The sweet point for the HMC-150 is the 720p modes.

If we compare cameras in the same price range as the HMC-150, none of the video cameras fully resolve the true 1920x1080. The Canon A1 and the Sony V1 fall short of the mark. The HMC-150 (and the HVX-200a ...) come in softer than those cameras, but offers better low light performance. So, we are back to my point of give and take. Which is more important to you, low light performance or highest sharpness?

Panasonic has said that the pixel offset increases the resolution by 1.5 times. If so, that says that the 960 x 520 offset sensors are like a 1,440 x 810 image sensors. My own guess is that the 1.5x factor is a bit high, but whatever it is, the 1280x720 images from the camera appear to be sharp enough. I consider the 1920x1080 images good enough, but this is subjective and others may differ.

If you spend more money, the Sony EX-1 is around $6,500 (street price). The is a very good camera, but because it's almost double the price of the HMC-150, we are talking of two very different classes of cameras.


The debate over CMOS vs. CCD is on going and the answer depends on who you talk to. Go to the HVX-200 section of the forum and you are likely to hear those those who are against CMOS. Yet, in the EX-1 forum, they don't see any problem with CMOS.

Like cameras, the perfect image sensor does not exist. CMOS does have a rolling shutter, which some see as a problem when there are camera flashes going off, like at a wedding. It could be a problem if the camera is attached to a dirt bike that is bounced around. Still, this is subjective, so some see it as a problem and some don't.

CCD is not perfect either. The biggest problem with CCD is if you point it at a very bright light source, a vertical line appears on the same column as the bright light. The older CCDs were very sensitive to this and the newer CCDs are less likely to show this, but given a strong enough light, it will occur.

The old tube cameras did have a rolling shutter, but the real problem was "Comet Tails" from bright lights in the picture. Of the weddings I shot with tube cameras, I can't recall any real problems with camera flashes, but it's been a long time from when I shot with a tube camera.


I did post several photos and information on the HMC-150 on my web page:
Panasonic HMC-150

You may also want to check out Berry Green's answers on the HMC-150. The camera is not out yet, but Barry had a chance to test a pre-release unit.

HMC150 questions answered... - DVXuser.com -- The online community for filmmaking

Barry has also placed the files on a server for download, so others can see what the images look like.



Bob Diaz

Thanks for the additional info.

Interesting learning more and more about all these cameras.

Close, but it's more accurate to say that pixel offset may increase the *luminance* resolution by *up to* 1.5 times. The 1,440/810 figures are where resolution must have fallen to zero, the point beyond which it is physically impossible for any more detail to be resolved. In practice no system resolves detail at 100% all the way to a certain figure, then nothing, in practice it tails off as shown in mtf graphs. Red/blue contribute about 50% off the luminance information, green about the other 50%, treat them separately for resolution purposes (the whole basis of pixel shift) and it's easy to see why the mtf for fine detail will be much lower for such a sensor than for three 1MP sensors - all else equal. Maybe even more important is that the 1MP sensors will show far less aliasing.

This is even assuming monochrome images (the best case scenario for pixel offset), and true 1440x810 sensors would be capable of chrominance detail to the same figure as luminance. In practice, resolution figures are normally quoted to the figure where the mtf has fallen to a certain level. That's why (as you guess) pixel shift is more normally considered to improve performance by 1.2-1.3x, and 1.5 is, well, optimistic.

How important this all is in the real world is another matter, but it should give a foundation for realising that claims of "full horizontal resolution 1920x1080 images" from 960x540 sensors just are not backed up by theory. Not even close. And practical tests back up the theory quite closely.
At the risk of being flippant, Bob, I'd say there were quite a few problems with tube cameras, apart from comet tails! :) Top of my list would be registration errors, followed by low-light lag, shading errors...... But tell all this to the youth of today........

But my point was that nobody even commented on rolling shutter issues, let alone complained about them, they were there, but...... And nobody applauded, even noticed when they went away with CCDs. The absence of comet tails etc was applauded, the advent of vertical streaks was not appreciated, but rolling shutter issues? It's why I'm surprised it's receiving so much attention come the EX.

It doesn't make sense to compare the HMC150 to the EX1, since the latter is a different class of camera targeted at different users. What many wedding videographers are buying is the Sony Z7U, which offers both tape and CF-based recording at affordable prices. And in general it makes sense to buy cameras from one manufacturer with as few different models as possible, so your option of mixing three cameras from two manufacturers doesn't sound too promising.

A fairer comparison might be an HPX500 with two HMC150s versus a Sony S270 with two Z7Us.

Thanks for your reply Kevin, but I have disagree in a way.

The other Sony camera you mention costs the same as the EX-1, so it would be in a different price class as well.

But the main thrust of my post was to get opinions about the effectiveness of the models compared to each other for the two specific tasks , keying and wedding use.

I don't mind which class the cameras are considered to be in, just the performance/price ratio.

I believe we have to compare the cameras, it is part of the purchasing process.

My point was that the EX1 is in a higher performance class than the HMC150, so trying to compare their prices doesn't make much sense. But if you must compare the EX1 to the HMC150 then consider several key benefits of the former to determine whether the extra cost is justified:

Larger sensor with better depth of field control
Four times the resolution at the sensor level
Faster memory cards with more recording options and quicker transfer speeds
More advanced lens and focusing options
More established and efficient workflow on today's computers

I suspect the HMC150 will be popular with wedding videographers due to the low combined cost of camera and memory, but in that price range the most relevant comparison will be to the Canon XH-A1 and Sony Z1U. The latter aren't solid state cameras but are cost-effective, proven performers for wedding and event work. For those who want affordable solid state recording, the HMC150 will best be compared to the Sony Z7U.

I guess I am working from the point that the HMC-150 is a HVX-200a or an HPX-170 with a different recording codec.

Those cameras are considered to be in a class as well.

I don't like the camera vs. camera idea either, but in all reality, it is really difficult to make camera purchase decisions.

I will be shooting at 720p for wedding work.

Will the EX-1's image be $3,000 better than the HMC-150 at this resolution?