HVX200 CCD specs?

[Shannon Rawls]

Originally Posted by Steve Mullen

I believe the CCDs are 960x720 which matches the 720P DVCPRO HD codec. However, both the CCDs and the codec are under-sampling in terms of the ATSC 720p format which is 1280x720 and 720p HDV.

If that's the case, is it safe to call the Panasonic HVX-200 and the Sony Z1U a "FAKE HD" camera since they come up short on both versions of HD?
Especially since everybody is so hellbent on calling things TRUE & FAKE based on what's happening at the sensors and not the final recording.

Just curious.

- ShannonRawls.com

[Keith Wakeham]

There is are a couple of ways to find out for sure the pixel could, unfortunately both of these mean dissassembly of a HVX200.

Hook an osscillascope up to all pins and record waveform off a ccd. Eventually you will figure our what is the horizontal clock, vertical clock, and the reset and shutter clocks. From that you can figure out all the pixels, link up to the ccd front end and find when the output is active. This will give you an indication of active, but not as accurate as the method to figure out the number of total pixels driven.

The other way is to rip off the lens and use a metal microscope (reflective not transpartent) and measure pixel size. But since your already their, you could just start counting.

Either way a scarifice could be made. Anyone got one? I'll do it, I promise i'll be very careful!

[Les Dit]

Shannon,
I'd say yes to the 'Fake' label.

To me, when I think of HD from the old days, it was 1920 across. As in 20 years ago. NHK et al. Now they have taken the HD logo and watered it down to all kinds of flavors. To compensate for this, they apply highly excessive sharpening to make it look sharp to first glance prosumers. Other than chopped off high lites and shadows, this sharpening is a dead giveaway to the 'video look'. And yet they talk out of the other side of their mouths about film makers. It's funny. It's all about selling.

If the last couple of years results in a resolution barely better than the old JVC HD10, it will be pretty sad. They would be taking the prosumers for a HD label ride. Like the H2 Hummer = Chevy Tahoe with a new skin. ( candy coated ).

-Les

Originally Posted by Shannon Rawls

If that's true, is it safe to call the HVX-200 and the Z1U a "FAKE HD" camera since they come up short on both versions of HD?
Especially since everybody is so hellbent on what to call stuff because of what's happening at the sensors.

Just curious.

- ShannonRawls.com

[Petr Marusek]

Originally Posted by Steve Mullen

Green pixel shift can give UP TO 1.5X only on static images that are of certain colors. That, of course, is a rez. chart and not real motion video.

I believe the CCDs are 960x720 which matches the 720P DVCPRO HD codec.

Thus rez charts will look fine, but the real test is either a non B&W rez chart or real video.

That is very interesting. What is amazing are the frame grabs that the Italian guy posted that show how much sharper H1 is compared to Z1 on color images. Looking at the resolution charts, which are B/W, the differences not that big.

[Graeme Nattress]

Early HD was analogue, so it didn't have any pixels across. HDCAM is 1440x1080, so not even that is full raster. Recently we got the terribly expensive HDCAMsr which is 1920x1080 - finally.

To call HD fake or not fake is a joke. Just look at the specs and decide yourself what you think, and look at the picture too and decide on that.

Personally, I think RED has the right idea - skip all this HD nonsense and go straight to Ultra-Definition.

Graeme

[Shannon Rawls]

Originally Posted by Graeme Nattress

To call HD fake or not fake is a joke.

Graeme, that's the same song I was trying to sing about HDV being real HD. Also about the Canon XL-H1 and its ability to record 24p.
But I got slammed for it.
It didn't matter to them that it 'records' 24p, everybody kept pointing at the sensors and told me to use that as the definitive answer.

OK, well, hell......don't stop looking at the XL-H1's sensors.....look at EVERYBODYS sensors! if you define "24p" by what's happening at the sensors, shouldn't we define "HD" by what's happening at the sensors as well?

HDCAM may not meet the mark for 1920x1080, but the sensors clearly meet the 1280x720 mark, so it gets a "TRUE HD" pass, don't it?

For the record, I think it's all stupid. I define a camera by what it delivers me, not by how it creates it. I'm just playing devils advocate since I got ripped a new one for calling the XL-H1 a 24p camera.

- ShannonRawls.com

[Les Dit]

Absolutely. In those 'video' days, it was Mhz not pixels.

I agree, Matsushita and Sony need to be dealt with, with companys that have no history in selling tape and $80K tape decks. An Arri D20 looking thing is the right direction, in many ways.
-Les

Originally Posted by Graeme Nattress

Early HD was analogue, so it didn't have any pixels across. HDCAM is 1440x1080, so not even that is full raster. Recently we got the terribly expensive HDCAMsr which is 1920x1080 - finally.

To call HD fake or not fake is a joke. Just look at the specs and decide yourself what you think, and look at the picture too and decide on that.

Personally, I think RED has the right idea - skip all this HD nonsense and go straight to Ultra-Definition.

Graeme

[Petr Marusek]

Originally Posted by Shannon Rawls

HDCAM may not meet the mark for 1920x1080, but the sensors clearly meet the 1280x720 mark, so it gets a "TRUE HD" pass, don't it?

HDCAM CCD's are 1920x1080.

[Graeme Nattress]

To say it's "the sensors" whether it be real 24p or not, or real HD or not is close, but it's a touch over-simplisitic. I think you have to take a holistic approach and look at the entire image process.

With the canon, it looks like you've got 24p from de-interlaced 48i, which to me, is not 24p, but very close. Certainly closer than CF24. So is it true 24p - no, but is it fake 24p, only a little :-) The end results look good, and we can read between the lines to figure out what it's doing. It would have been better if Canon had just said outright what they're doing and not kept quiet, but hey... What do you expect. So the answer is not TRUE or FALSE, but somehwere inbetween.

As for the Panasonic, we know it's using some pixelshift, which can in most cases give real resolution. DVCProHD rightly or wrongly trades some of it's luma rez for chroma rez, over and above what the other formats are doing. Does this make it any less real HD - no, but it does give a different quality, and the human eye is best to judge that, not a spec sheet.

Graeme

[Chris Hurd]

Originally Posted by Petr Marusek

HDCAM CCD's are 1920x1080.

Incorrect. HDCAM CCD's are 1440 x 1080, with a PAR (pixel aspect ratio) of 1.333:1. HDCAM SR is 1920 x 1080 with a PAR of 1:1. But this is all... so very pointless.

[Chris Hurd]

Originally Posted by Shannon Rawls

I'm just playing devils advocate since I got ripped a new one for calling the XL-H1 a 24p camera.

You're supposed to be playing devil's advocate on other websites. I thought that's what I was paying you for. I'd really rather not have devil's advocates running around this place. They burn the soles of my sneakers when I stamp 'em out.

You did not get "ripped a new one" for calling the XL H1 a 24P camera. It pretty much *is* a 24P camera for all intents and purposes. Where you got into trouble was not in what you said but *how* you're saying it. And there's the problem. Hope this helps,

[Graeme Nattress]

Originally Posted by Chris Hurd

Incorrect. HDCAM CCD's are 1440 x 1080, with a PAR (pixel aspect ratio) of 1.333:1. HDCAM SR is 1920 x 1080 with a PAR of 1:1. But this is all... so very pointless.

The CCDs on the HDCAM are 1920x1080 with a PAR of 1. The image is subsampled to 1440x1080 by the HDCAM codec, but you can see the full resolution and detail out of the SDI.

Indeed it's pointless - you've got to look with your eyes, and not just look at one spec, but all the specs and fully understand how those specs interact.

All video cameras are a compromise - but different people like different features, and different manufacturers compromise in different ways - this is good.

Graeme

[Chris Hurd]

I always look to you to get me squared away, Graeme... much appreciated! My apologies to Petr Marusek.

[Graeme Nattress]

No probs Chris. I often wonder how I keep it all straight in my head - all those utterly useless factoids...

Graeme

[Shannon Rawls]

Originally Posted by Chris Hurd

You're supposed to be playing devil's advocate on other websites. I thought that's what I was paying you for.

WELL I AIN'T GET MY CHECK YET!!!! You keep telling me to wait til next week, but you've been saying that for 6 years now. DAMMIT I WANT MY PAYCHECK!!!

and can I get my "well there you have it" post back that you just deleted since YOU WERE WRONG and graeme just checked your butt!

- ShannonRawls.com