HVX200 CCD specs?

[Chris Hurd]

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

When Graeme or anyone else for that matter checks my butt, it's note-worthy, fun, and definitely adds to the conversation in way or another. Pointless one-liners don't add anything though. And there you have it.

[Barlow Elton]

Originally Posted by Graeme Nattress

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.

I have a challenge for anyone near an Apple store or who owns a Mac with that gigantic 2560x1650 monster. Well....first of all...if you think it's reasonable to say that Kaku's raw clips are fairly indicative of the resolution and quality of the shipping camera...then please read on.

Take the "HVXcity108024p" and "HVXcity72060p" clips. Open them both in QT player side-by-side. Drag the 72060p clip with the "show movie info" window also open. Drag the lower right handle of the 60p clip until it becomes a 1920x1080 frame. The movie info window should update while you're dragging and you can follow the numbers until they reach 1920x1080.

Reposition both clips side by side or on top of each other if you can.

Now look at the fine details. Viewing these clips with such an unforgiving, full-rez monitor seemed to make both shots about as naked as they could be, at least in terms of perceiving resolution.

Can anyone honestly say that both clips don't look nearly identical? I had two store employees (unbiased curiosity) look closely at both clips, and thought they looked the same, in terms of sharpness and fine details.

Somebody else should try this...to my eyes the 1080p looks quite obviously like an uprez. I think it still looked good, just fairly apparent that there weren't many more pixels acquired originally in 1080p mode.

[Mike Marriage]

Originally Posted by Barlow Elton

Can anyone honestly say that both clips don't look nearly identical? I had two store employees (unbiased curiosity) look closely at both clips, and thought they looked the same, in terms of sharpness and fine details.

Somebody else should try this...to my eyes the 1080p looks quite obviously like an uprez. I think it still looked good, just fairly apparent that there weren't many more pixels acquired originally in 1080p mode.

Maybe people who claim they can should sit a "blind" test.

Barry G said that res charts on a pre-production show a 25-30% increase for 1080p over 720p. I wonder if the increase is really so noticeable on a real-life COLOUR, motion pictures..?

[Rob McCardle]

Interesting - I can see what you're saying.
As to the tech details - I haven't got a clue.

To me the 720 clip scaled looks sharper/better/ than the native 1080.

Also rather than drag - in qt player go Cmnd-J, click on the video track and enter 1920 in scale.
Also step thru the clips by using the <- & -> arrow keys to go frame by frame.

[Barlow Elton]

Originally Posted by Rob McCardle

To me the 720 clip scaled looks sharper/better/ than the native 1080.

That's exactly what one of the employees thought...and he teaches FCP and other apps at the store. He's familiar with HD in general.

It's an interesting comparison. I showed them HDCAM to DVCPROHD 24p clips, and 1080i clips from the Panasonic sampler DVD that came with FCP 4.5 for reference. It was easy to see the difference in perceived resolution.

[Rob McCardle]

heh- well, when I get around to buying one of these, which will be when they release the PAL version, I'm going to be saving me some disc space !
cheers, thanks for that.

[Barlow Elton]

Originally Posted by Rob McCardle

heh- well, when I get around to buying one of these, which will be when they release the PAL version, I'm going to be saving me some disc space !
cheers, thanks for that.

I think that's one of the benefits of the camera. You really only need to shoot 720p, because the differences natively are miniscule, unless Kaku's clips are some kind of aberration.

I lean towards the H1 for other reasons, but if I were to get an HVX, it's because I LOVE 720p! P2 seems more manageable in this format. Also, I think with the new uprezzing algorithims coming onto the market, this format will look quite nice if needed at 1080 resolution. I think in reality, the HVX is a cool little Varicam. It's strength isn't raw resolution, but it's incredibly deep options for filmmakers. There's certainly a lot more to image quality than the pixel count. The noise issue on the other hand...well, that's an issue that will rear it's ugly head if there aren't any easy tweaks for it.

What I think is a bit disingenuous is the claim that the camera gives you a native 1080p. It's just a larger file.

[Marc Olivier Chouinard]

If I trust the information in the FAQ page on panasonic website :
http://shop.panasonic.com/webapp/wcs...72005012903035

It says this :
What size is the 3-CCD imager?
The imagers are 1/3" CCD, 16:9 native aspect ratio. These are scanned and captured at 1080/60p, and the signal is then converted to 1080i, cross converted to 720p or down converted to 480p/480i, or cross converted for the many modes on this camera. This assures the highest quality of recording.

So to my knowleadge, they say the CCD scanned at 1920x1080 in progressive at 60 frame per seconds.

If they didnt say it scanned... Then ok maybe it not, but they did. Now it could be a mistake from Panasonic that they are saying this. Maybe the word scanned should'nt be there. But that is what they are saying to me ;)

[Barlow Elton]

Do you just trust what a company claims in their FAQ? Try resizing that 720 clip and compare it to the native 1080. Let your eyes be the judge, not specs.

[Pete Bauer]

Marc,

Fine point: the FAQ didn't explicitly say 1920x1080/60p, and no way are they building and marketing a $6K camera with a 1920x1080 photosite CCD block. Pending further information, l'd simply interpret that as "X x 1080/60p."