Panasonic site updates!

[Barry Green]

Yes, CCD pixel count used to be a hot topic of discussion. And while they haven't told me what it is, I can at least say this: the HVX is noticeably sharper than the HD100 and the FX1. So whatever the pixel count is, it's "more than enough."

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Originally Posted by Lawrence Bansbach

Jeff, over at dvxuser I thought I saw a picture of a slide from Jan C's presentation that actually mentioned a half-pixel shift. I believe it also mentioned a vertical pixel shift, but that may be less severe.

You probably did see this. The half pixel shift is standard fare these days on newer 3 chip camcorders. It makes no sense to not do it and I would be very shocked if this isn't implemented. I've also read some various speculations that having both a horizontal and vertical shift is somewhat counter productive -- so I don't know if it would be shifted in both directions. But I do think the horizontal shift is a given.

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Originally Posted by Barry Green

Yes, CCD pixel count used to be a hot topic of discussion. And while they haven't told me what it is, I can at least say this: the HVX is noticeably sharper than the HD100 and the FX1. So whatever the pixel count is, it's "more than enough."

Even with the H264 compression issues on the first sample clips, the karate clip definitely backs up your statement. Very sharp/crisp imagery there. I'd love to see an unaltered version. :)

[Don Donatello]

i just can't judge a HD camera using H264 compression ..
nor can i really judge a HD 1080 image on the 17" 720p LCD screens at the dv expo .. nor can i really understand pansonic's statement at the show that
1080p is all you really need to know about the CCD block, that the other number really doesn't matter - it could be any number , and how it is used/processed you really don't need to know .. their standard answer seemd to be "why do you need to know? "...
IMO i saw more of the camera when they had it at resfest - at least there you got to view the HD image projected in FEET not 17 inches ..

it does looked excellent on the 17LCD screens and so does all their other camera's on the 17" lcd screens .. all the tapes shot with it look very good ..

i just hope that other manufacturers don't take up pansonic's new thing .. can you imagine you go down to buy a HD TV , digital camera , computer LCD and they just give you one number and then state why do you need to know the other number ? ...

[David Newman]

I think Panasonic will eventually have the information come out. With these highly compressed sequences we can't judge noise or compression artifacts of the source as 264 or WMV will mess with that, yet edge detail and edge enhancement will be preserved. The latest 1080 clips are telling, revealing much lower detail than native 1080p should (which we already knew the sensor would be something lower, otherwise Panasonic would have promoted this.) I placed the image on 24" 1920x1200 display, and yes I bet they looked better on a 17". :) So the speculation will continue.

[Philip Williams]

Originally Posted by David Newman

<snip>The latest 1080 clips are telling, revealing much lower detail than native 1080p should (which we already knew the sensor would be something lower, otherwise Panasonic would have promoted this.) I placed the image on 24" 1920x1200 display, and yes I bet they looked better on a 17". :) So the speculation will continue.

Well, I forsee it coming then; there will be people that compare the $6000 camera's 1080P video to Episode III and poo poo it because it doesn't look as good ;)

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Originally Posted by David Newman

I think Panasonic will eventually have the information come out. With these highly compressed sequences we can't judge noise or compression artifacts of the source as 264 or WMV will mess with that, yet edge detail and edge enhancement will be preserved. The latest 1080 clips are telling, revealing much lower detail than native 1080p should (which we already knew the sensor would be something lower, otherwise Panasonic would have promoted this.) I placed the image on 24" 1920x1200 display, and yes I bet they looked better on a 17". :) So the speculation will continue.

FWIW, I'm also viewing the clips on a 24" 1920x1200 display. I think the latest 1080p24 clip is showing superior detail vs the FX1/Z1 and HD100 -- just as Barry has said. And that's even after it's been recompressed and delivered online. I won't argue that we're dealing with less detail than a true 1920x1080 censor array could deliver, but this is a camera that sells for less than $10K (I'd claim less than $6K, but that won't make it usable for HD). I'm still waiting for raw footage samples to play with, but that latest clip with the guitar seems to be rivaling the resolution and detail level of the Varicam, although it's still limited to the FOV, DOF and other optical characteristics of the 1/3" CCD block combined with the fixed lens.

So far, I'm very encouraged and the camera looks to be a bargain. If it still doesn't meet your needs, then I guess you can always rent a Varicam with the lenses you need. Or why not just rent CineAlta and go straight for 800Mbps HDCAM SR. Hehe... For the price and features, the HVX200 looks like Panny has another winner just like the DVX100.

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Also keep in mind that DVCPROHD at 1080 is being encoded at 1280x1080, not the full 1920x1080 HD bandwidth. So even if there's enough base resolution with or without pixel shift to accommodate 1280 horizontal pixels or more, you will still have to scale the image horizontally by a 1.5X multiplier to fill a 1920x1080 image. 720p is encoded at 960x720. So I'm sure that this plays a role as well in what we're seeing.

[Barry Green]

Originally Posted by David Newman

I placed the image on 24" 1920x1200 display, and yes I bet they looked better on a 17". :) So the speculation will continue.

David, did you view the h264 version, or the .WMV? The h.264 was encoded wrong, and it shouldn't even be looked at -- it's been scaled, it has interlaced pulldown in it, and it's just wrong wrong wrong. If you're basing your statement on the h.264, then I certainly understand what you're saying, but if you're basing it off the .wmv, then I'm very surprised. The .wmv is a much more accurate representation of what the 1080p footage looks like.

[David Newman]

Barry,

I saw the WMV, so no it didn't have any horrible scaling like the first 264 sequence (which I also saw.) I did have the benefit of viewing the image on a 1:1 pixel display, both at full motion and a frame at a time, allowing the subtle blemishes to appear. The overall image as characteristics of a mildly sharpened 1280x720 good quality up-scale. There are the signs of the pixel shift of the green sensor (which I'm guessing it to be horizontal only.) Look in the cream "rope" of the guitar strap, so well see subtle green and magenta/red patches, this can happen due the aliasing of high frequency detail (in this case the rope braids/strands) with the position of the shifted green sensor. The image looks like the long speculated 960x720 sensors with a horizontal pixel shift. The horizontal shift will allow 1280 and 1440 (PAL) images to be generated for the 1080 mode, but no more vertical detail can be obtained. 960x720 design will be a good low noise sensor, and simplify the requirement for the optics, but it take the gloss a little of the 1080 modes. The only real value of the 1080 modes over 1280x720 HDV solution (they have the same resolving power), is the reduced compression. Of course I could be wrong, it will be nice to view some source data. It also would have nice if Panasonic sent CineForm camera or at least raw data (every other vendor has.)

[Joe Orlando]

the prices changed again
http://catalog2.panasonic.com/webapp...odel=AG-HVX200

[John Jay]

David,

If I understand you correctly, you are postulating that the 1080/24p mode is a supersample from 720p and placed in a 1080i stream.

If this is the case then it leaves room for extra scaling to take place - in theory it should be possible for chroma aberrations (CA) to be excised by smart chroma scaling - the limited footage I have seen so far looks good in respect of CA and I wonder whether it has been 'digitally tuned' in camera - if so it would represent a more cost effective solution than an expensive optical one.

[Barry Green]

Originally Posted by David Newman

It also would have nice if Panasonic sent CineForm camera or at least raw data (every other vendor has.)

I don't know that I would expect that anytime soon.

[Edwin Hernandez]

Weeks ago I started a thread by the title "Is the 4GB P2 card dead?".
But now I think the 4GB is a short term winner, because you can buy four 4GB cards (that's a total of 16 GB) for $2,600 while a single 8 GB card costs $2,200.
Ok, you don't have the extra $400... well you can always buy three 4GB cards (12 GB) for $1,950. And you would have the hot swap ability for continuous recording.

[Barry Green]

Exactly -- the 4gb is a way better deal than the 8gb. Two 4gb's cost $1300 MSRP, or almost $1,000 less than a single 8gb. And you can do hot-swapping and perpetual recording with two 4gb's, whereas with a single 8gb you couldn't do that.