Calculated estimate of HVX200 CCD resolution

[Barry Werger]

Originally Posted by Shannon Rawls

Ash....the Panasonic website says:
1/3" 16:9 native high-sensitivity progressive 3-CCD with 1080/60p scanning
Pretty clear to me. So obviously it's a Progressive chip like Barry says. We just don't know if its 1080 horizontal or verticle. If anything else was discovered....that would be catastrophicly bad for Panasonic.

I dunno. Would be bad if it wasn't progressive, but I don't know what "scanning" at 1080/60p means. "Scanning" may include pixel-shift processing, etc... so I don't read this to mean the same as "native 1080 resolution". I take it to mean "the first time in the processing chain that the frame is assembled from the disparate pixels, that frame is 1080p sampled at 60Hz"

[Steve Mullen]

Originally Posted by Shannon Rawls

Ash....the Panasonic website says:
1/3" 16:9 native high-sensitivity progressive 3-CCD with 1080/60p scanning

You have two simple choices:

1) Believe this statement means Panasonic is using CCDs that have 1080 rows and are always progressively scanned at 60Hz -- and then deal with the fact that such advanced CCDs deliver measurably less resolution than a 2 year old JVC single CCD (with only 659 rows) HD10. Can anyone really believe Panasonic would progressive capture 1080 rows and discard half the information? If this is true, Panasonic has messed-up its implementation beyond belief.

2) Or, you decide that someone in marketing put together a sentence that tries to describe two things at once: 1080-line output (for 1080i and 1080 at 24F) AS WELL AS 720 progressive at 60Hz. Which is why Chris says "I've noticed numerous occasions where Panasonic went out of their way to state that this camera did have 1080p." Yes, it RECORDS 1080p24. It also RECORDS 720p60. That says little about the CCD. Marketing's single sentence was an attempt to describe the CCDs without specifying their resolution.

So which is it? A massive screw-up by Panasonic R&D or bad turn-of-phrase by Panasonic Marketing?

There is no reason to believe Adam got valid measures of all the cameras except the Panasonic. And, I've got zero reason to believe my model that works with ALL the other HD cameras doesn't work with the Panasonic.

It all suggests to me Panasonic knew review measurements were going to be bad -- and felt giving out the real CCD specification would only add fuel to the fire. I think it's now becoming obvious that hiding information from your potential customers and the press is a bad idea.

Unfortunately, Panasonic is not alone. Sony tried to stonewall a room full of reporters about CF24 after we had all seen how bad it looked; JVC took a month to explain and "fix" SSE; and Canon still won't explain 24F -- like I haven't plugged their test data into my model to "see" how it works.

[Steven Thomas]

Originally Posted by Steve Mullen

JVC took a month to explain and fix SSE.

Steve, where is this documented?
I've heard later model HD100 have less SSE problem, but it still exsists, especially under gain.

Not that I plan on using gain :)

[Brian Wells]

Originally Posted by Matthew Wauhkonen

Personally, I'm betting it's something way lower, like 720X540 with lots of pixel shifting.

That doesn't seem far fetched at all when you think about the Real Stream mod.

I just can't get over how crisp the images are from this camera!
http://www.reel-stream.com/magik_tes....tif?type(tiff)

[Barry Werger]

Hi Steve... is that a "no" on sharing your model?

Without knowing more, it's just throwing around irrelevant data and hiding realities much like you accuse Panasonic of doing.

I can easily create a model that would fit six things and be completely inappropriate for a seventh... especially if the model is created through some kind of fitting to the data of the first six.

C'mon, throw us at least the parameters you're playing with!

[Steve Mullen]

Originally Posted by Barry Werger

Hi Steve... is that a "no" on sharing your model?

Without knowing more, it's just throwing around irrelevant data and hiding realities much like you accuse Panasonic of doing.

You can have any opinion you want, and it won't change anything -- the input and output of the model may be made public as I or Video System's need -- the model remains propritary to me.

Like the data from the DV magazine tests, you can do whatever you like with the information from the model.

[Steve Mullen]

Originally Posted by Steven Thomas

Steve, where is this documented?
I've heard later model HD100 have less SSE problem, but it still exsists, especially under gain.

Not that I plan on using gain :)

They "fixed" the firmware on the USA models and then the non-USA models. This reduced the SSE. Not all fixes are 100% perfect. But, from the volume of posts -- which have gone to zero -- it can't be much of a problem.

[Shannon Rawls]

Originally Posted by Steve Mullen

scanned at 60Hz --

60 hertz??? What do you mean 60 hertz? It "MUST" scan 24hz, correct? Isn't that what all so-called "TRUE" 24p cameras scan at the CCD's? Including HD100, DVX100, XL2, Varicam, F900, SDX900??? Each and every one of those cameras scan @ 24Hz when capturing 24p footage in 24p mode, correct? Otherwise I have a bone to pick with a few people.

Originally Posted by Steve Mullen

JVC took a month to explain and fix SSE.

They did? I must have been sleep when that announcement was made from JVC. What did they do to fix it? And where is it written? If it only took them 30 days to fix, then every camera shipped after July 2005 shouldn't display any Split Screen problems. Yet HD100's sold in January 2006 seem to still have it. I know you like JVC Steve, but keep it real with us big brother.

Originally Posted by Steve Mullen

There is no reason to believe Adam got valid measures of all the cameras except the Panasonic.

Oh lord! You can say that again. I was there....Adam did an outstanding job with what and who he had to deal with that day. TRUST ME! Ain't nothing wrong with those numbers. TRUST ME! If the HVX numbers are off then so are all 5 other cameras as well....The tests he ran are just fine, and actually he's being generous in a few areas on certain cameras. TRUST ME!
Ya know, I've been reading various websites here and there on the net talking about that outstanding DV.com report of Adam's. Sadly, all kinds SUPER FUD is being born. I am really really really really really really trying very very very very hard to restrain myself and not BLOW UP. *counting to 10*, But I am being a better internet person today. I promised Chris Hurd I will conduct myself more appropiately, and I found the best way to do it is to not say anything at all. I don't know how to sugar-coat my words and make people feel all warm and fuzzy. I can hold my own when it comes to arguing a point or discussing camera gear and being REAL about it, but I seem to get banned whenever I make sense and rage against the machine. Anyhow, I'm glad you said that statement. Lord knows I wanted to.....just can't.

Either way, Steve, I do believe in your model and I do believe your PhD means something (i'm a college graduate, so I have a huge respect for doctors), so I doubt you're being unfair with your proprietary calculations. I also know you have a bias for JVC and will say stuff to make them look good *smile*, but that doesn't change your scientifc data about things and how cool of a guy you are! *smile*

- ShannonRawls.com

[Barry Werger]

Originally Posted by Steve Mullen

You can have any opinion you want, and it won't change anything -- the input and output of the model may be made public as I or Video System's need -- the model remains propritary to me.

Like the data from the DV magazine tests, you can do whatever you like with the information from the model.

That's cool... I'm just hoping you'll tell us a little more about the input parameters...?

[Barry Werger]

Originally Posted by Shannon Rawls

Either way, Steve, I do believe in your model and I do believe your PhD means something (i'm a college graduate, so I have a huge respect for doctors), so I doubt you're being unfair with your proprietary calculations.

Oh boy. I really hope noone thinks I'm saying that I think Steve is doing anything unfair or underhanded in his model. I DO NOT. I am an engineer by trade, and know that any model has limits, and that understanding the model is usually essential to understanding and results of a model. I don't doubt that Steve knows what he's doing, or that he's fair... but in a model that must cover different types of scanning, different types of pixel-shift, etc., knowing something about the model is likely to be very enlightening in interpreting results.

I also understand that there are lots of reasons for keeping models proprietary, and don't blame steve for that. But at the same time (and I'm sure he unserstands this), without details, it boils down to trust.

Which is fine, and par for the internet course.

-Barry

[Ash Greyson]

I guess it is all semantics... I mean if Panny says the CCDs scan at 1080p... could it go thru a process to get there? I dunno... they have released so few details about the CCD.


ash =o)

[Chris Hurd]

Originally Posted by Shannon Rawls

I seem to get banned whenever I make sense and rage against the machine

The problem I have with you is not what you say, but how you say it. Let's keep things technical, and not personal please. On this site anyway. For everything else, there's the regular internet.

By the way, what happened to just looking at the image?

Steve Mullen is quite right when he points out that every manufacturer seemingly has something to hide. This is not a Panasonic issue nor Canon, Sony or JVC. It is industry wide. Unfortunately.

[Steve Mullen]

Originally Posted by Chris Hurd

This is not a Panasonic issue nor Canon, Sony or JVC. It is industry wide. Unfortunately.

You are so right about it being "unfortunate." You were there when I asked Sony exactly what CF24 was and got stonewalled. What good did it do Sony? It took about 2 weeks before Adam and I and one other person had it figured out.

The Canon USA folks I talked with were so unhappy at having to say "nothing" about 24F because Japan Inc. said "don't talk." I really doubt Jan, or her husband Phil, who like Jan is truly brilliant -- don't want to sit down and explain a product. And, JVC allowed things to get way out of hand before publishing something about SSE.

It would be so much smarter if ALL these companies would take the lead and not make us "drag it out of them." Cause we will! :)

By the way, I really appreciate Shannon's directness.

[Barry Green]

Originally Posted by Steve Mullen

Barry, I've seen no information from Panasonic that describes anything about the way the HVX works -- in particular any notion it has 1080p chips.

They've said that they're progressive-scan 1/3" 16:9 chips, and that the system works internally off an initial 1080p scan at whatever Hz matches the selected framerate. I believe those statements are now on their site.

Curious if you have a resolution number for 1080i60.

Identical to 1080/24p and 1080/30p. It doesn't get softer in 1080i like the DVX/XL2 do.

I posted an EIA1956 extraction, you can see what you think about the measured res from that. I also don't think the EIA is the right chart to use with a 16:9 camera, but so many people seem to be posting them, and Juan Pertierr of Reel-Stream asked for it, so that's why I put it out there.

We will be re-testing Jay's camera against mine to see what the deal is; an argument could be made for mine showing 670+, so we'll test it against Jay's (the one from the six-cam test) and see how they perform against each other. That should at least confirm or rule out the concept of a spurious sample.

[Barry Green]

Originally Posted by Shannon Rawls

60 hertz??? What do you mean 60 hertz? It "MUST" scan 24hz, correct? Isn't that what all so-called "TRUE" 24p cameras scan at the CCD's? Including HD100, DVX100, XL2, Varicam, F900, SDX900??? Each and every one of those cameras scan @ 24Hz when capturing 24p footage in 24p mode, correct? Otherwise I have a bone to pick with a few people.

It scans at UP TO 60Hz. Depends on what frame rate you're running. For 1080/60i and 720/60p and 480/60i, it scans at 60Hz. For 1080/24p or 720/24p or 480/24p, it scans at 24hz. For 720/12p it scans at 12hz.