Calculated estimate of HVX200 CCD resolution

[Walter Graff]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kilgroe

FWIW, I can find 8GB P2 cards easier than I can find an XBOX 360, so it's not like they don't exist.

You ought to read my post. I said just that (not being mass produced any time soon) and added that they will not flood the market even after March.

[Toke Lahti]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kilgroe

8GB cards weren't even supposed to start shipping until mid/late February...in Tokyo last week and only paid the Yen equivalent of $1750 for 8GB cards from a retail store.

Originally 8GB cards were supposed to on the market at the same time with hvx. Maybe panny delays 8GB cards as long as they have massive inventory of 4GB cards. Seems to be that in panny's pricing logics are: Europe is subsidizing US prices and whole globe is subsidizing Japanise prices.

[Heath McKnight]

We're getting a little off topic with the talk of the cards. If you guys want, I can move these parts over to a new thread, or you can start a new one to talk specifically about the cards.

Thanks,

heath

[Steve Mullen]

Back on topic -- I noted this in Adam's comments:

"Sharpness on the Sony was at 5 and on the HVX we used -3 or -4, both to give the same apparent sharpness (as judged from edging artifacts) as the Canon did on its minimum setting."

A week or so ago someone published HVX200 charts and I quickly noted the amount edge outline enhancement. Without debating the issue of how much sharpening is correct -- if other tests were made with different charts (that might increase resolution up to 15% -- as mentioned by Adam) AND if the HVX200's DETAIL were at DEFAULT -- we would expect such tests would indicate much higher resolutions -- very likely the approx. 700 numbers Barry has mentioned.

Such higher numbers could be plugged into my model which in turn would yield higher CCD resolutions. It might even be possible the model would support a 1080-row CCD running at up to 60Hz.

Now here is where logic gets tricky.

If the CCDs really are much more dense -- then why would the camera's DEFAULT DETAIL be higher than Adam, et. al. wanted to accept? The answer is that a lens with low MTF will need enhancement!

My model assumed the limiting factor was CCD resolution. It may be that in the case of the HVX200 -- it is the lens not the CCD. Conversly, the H1 lens may have such good MTF, that even with no enhancement -- it blows the others away.

Bottom-line:

1) If you do not want any edge enhancement then this does NOT change anything. You will have to accept a soft image.

2) But, there are those who feel the total elimination of edge enhancement looking at a chart leads to video that looks too soft. In other words, Panasonic's Default setting may be acceptable in the real world. So if you want an HVX200 -- you may have to accept an "enhanced" image.

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Originally Posted by Walter Graff

And then don't expect the next jump to 16gigs anytime soon if at all.

While I'd like to pick at that statement a bit, I won't because you're probably right... Just not how you might think. The next generation of P2 cards will most likely be 32GB~64GB in capacity. The 4GB SD chips needed to make 16GB cards are in extremely short supply and manufacture yields are very, very low. Samsung, Siemens and Toshiba are currently working together to bring a new SD fab process online that will yield quantities similar to current 512MB and 1GB chips. Their first chips off the production lines will be 8 and 16 GB. Samsung has been demonstrating 8, 16 and 32GB SD chips over the past few months and saying that 16GB chips will sell for about the same price as current 1GB chips once their production reaches full capacity (figure mid 2007).

By folks at two of the largest retailers. I didn't put EVS on that list.

And yet that still didn't answer my question. I would count B&H as one of the "largest" retailers and I know that they're not receiving any significant number of cancellations, or at least nothing unexpected with the usual small percent of shuffling about.

[Heath McKnight]

Please keep this on topic, as Steve Mullen has (thanks) about resolution. Create a new thread about the card. I'd be happy to do it and drop some of these posts in it! (smile)

heath

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Also in interest of keeping this thread on topic, what do we know about the horizontal sampling and encoding of the HVX200 and its resolving power? DVCPROHD encodes at either 960x720 or 1280x1080 - a more horizontally compressed resolution than HDV @ 1440x1080. While DVCPROHD wouldn't play a role directly in viewing the uncompressed camera output via the component interface, would it be possible that the internal sampling/image processing still may be playing a role in setting up the horizontal imaging for DVCPRO encoding? With all these tests and everyone focusing on how many lines this camera can resolve, it seems that nobody has made any mention of horizontal resolution capabilities of the HVX. If there is some horizontal processing and compression going on, could this be having an effect on the perceived vertical resolution?

[Michael Struthers]

I imagine within a couple weeks we will know for sure. Someone will rip apart an HVX and run it down to the lab.

My sheer speculation is that Panny has done some serious pixel-shifting and we might find the resolution is quite low. I mean 960 by 780 or therabouts is no reason to not give out the resolution, just say how and why you are doing it.

Is it really just a juiced up dvx? a la reel stream?

[Toke Lahti]

Steve, would there be any idea to measure the pixel size with Airy disk phenomena?
Shooting charts and closing the aperture and when the resolving power starts to decrease, calculating the size of Airy disk there?

[Steve Mullen]

Originally Posted by Michael Struthers

My sheer speculation is that Panny has done some serious pixel-shifting and we might find the resolution is quite low. I mean 960 by 780 or therabouts is no reason to not give out the resolution, just say how and why you are doing it.

If anyone is still interested in this topic -- I've posted my "latest" understanding of HOW the HVX200 works -- which seeks to explain why Adam's tests measured such low resolution when folks shooting with the camcorder are getting very high quality images.

Please note I'm not saying Adam's tests were wrong or unfair. His procedure was intended to remove the benefits of pixel-shifting -- and they did. And, they are very useful for indicating the native resolution of the CCDs. (Something we shouldn't have needed to do.) But, they underestimate real-world performance -- as they do for the other camcorders that use Green-shift.

http://www.gyhduser.com/showthread.php?t=341

[Bob Grant]

This article here:
http://www.coax.tv/DefaultJAN17.htm
and part 2 here:
http://www.coax.tv/Default.htm

may give some insight into the impact of DVCProHD compression on image resolution.

[John Benton]

Originally Posted by Michael Struthers

I imagine within a couple weeks we will know for sure. Someone will rip apart an HVX and run it down to the lab.
...no reason to not give out the resolution, just say how and why you are doing it.
Is it really just a juiced up dvx? a la reel stream?

& Hopefully the person who will rip apart the HVX first, to find out the inner workings, will be Juan from Reel-stream !

[Bob Diesso]

Originally Posted by Steve Mullen

If anyone is still interested in this topic -- I've posted my "latest" understanding of HOW the HVX200 works -- which seeks to explain why Adam's tests measured such low resolution when folks shooting with the camcorder are getting very high quality images.

http://www.gyhduser.com/showthread.php?t=341

I was in Kyoto for a shoot in mid-January. After the project ended, I took the opportunity of dinner in Osaka (Kadoma) with a Panasonic engineer who I got to know while he was assigned in the U.S. With an HVX on order, I was eager to privately learn the "inside" story about the HVX's HD methodology. The design makes clever use of inexpensive components for a "prosumer" buyer, but actual performance must not infringe Panasonic's more elegant Vericam products. Within a pixel or two, the description provided at dinner exactly matches Steve Mullen's posted description.

Steve's nailed the HVX's reality.

[Ash Greyson]

Using this same logic... the Canon's 540 in 24F mode is likely effected the same way correct?

ash =o)

[Steve Mullen]

Originally Posted by Bob Diesso

The design makes clever use of inexpensive components for a "prosumer" buyer, but actual performance must not infringe Panasonic's more elegant Vericam products.

Very interesting because a friend I got to know when I worked in Japan said the exact same thing -- which I brushed off as "too paraniod." But, I can see how Panasonic might be concerned because they watched what the VX1000 did to BetaSP products.

Has anyone got delivery of their PAL unit? A while back I heard that the Euro version is/was proving to be a problem. The rumor in Japan was that the Euro version will be delayed while a "fix" is implemented.

IF that's true, and its always a big IF with rumors, then that MAY give us another insight into how the HVX200 works. Here's why. I assumed that ALL recorded formats are from the 1920x1080 buffer -- including PAL and NTSC. But, maybe PAL and NTSC are taken from the CCDs running in interlace mode. (The dvx100 used switchable CCDs.) Were this to be true -- 540-row CCDs might not yield a high-quality 576-line PAL image for DV, DVCPRO, and DVCPRO50. Hence the "problem" with Euro units.

Frankly, I can't believe Panasonic would not have been smart enough to use 960x576 pixel CCDs. In Region 60 camcorders, 540-rows would be used for HD while only 480-rows would be used for NTSC. Likewise, in Region 50 camcorders, 540-rows would be used for HD while all 576-rows would be used for PAL.

Not only would this be smart -- the use of "widescreen" PAL CCDs would keep CCD cost down.

+++++++

I guess I should have been clear that my model is calculating Effective, not Gross resolution. Thus, the physical CCD would have perhaps 10- to 20-percent more elements.