Hvx "new batch" - Improved version?

[Sergio Perez]

Since there's been such a big delay since the original shipment of the HVX and the current new shipment, was there anything done in order to address some of the complains concerning the HVX image? (Noise, for example?)

[Steve Mullen]

Originally Posted by Sergio Perez

Since there's been such a big delay since the original shipment of the HVX and the current new shipment, ... .

Your question is very relevant given these comments made after the 6 camera test: "We all thought it was odd; the resolution on that chart was lower than we were expecting, and Adam reporting 540 lines doesn't match up with other reports and other charts, so I believe Adam asked Panasonic for a second sample to compare."

It's interesting that there has been complete silence on the topic of HVX200 resolution even though the second batch has arrived. So we are left with with a set of measures plus comments that cast doubt these measurements because they were "lower than we were expecting."

I don't understand why any higher rez. was expected. The first rez. test by Kaku Ito
reported "My initial test only show the resolution around 600, not 700."

Others reported -- and the tests confirm -- lower rez. than the single CCD JVC HD10.

Plus, there's Panasonic's silence on the HVX200 CCD rez.

One would think that if rez. tests had shown cameras in the second batch to have better rez. numbers that these results would have been immediately posted.

[John Benton]

good question,
yet...the footage seems better...

or am I just less concerned about noise & differentiating web compression...
I forget who it was on these forums very cleverly called this a Medium def camera - I think it is, but the recent footage has really caught my eye

[Jeff Kilgroe]

From some of the footage I've seen here on these forums and from dvxuser.com, and some I've gathered elsewhere, I have a hard time believing this camera only resolves 600 lines (or even less). But maybe the res charts and other black/white imagery doesn't tell the whole story - think pixel shift. I thought I would have my HVX last week, but maybe I'll have it this week. I'm almost sure that I'll have it by the end of next week... But when I get it, I'll see what resolution tests I can run. I'm not expecting miracles... I'd guess about 700 lines, maybe as high as 750. I don't believe it's less than 600... Panny would have to be using crap glass and a sensor with less than 650 lines to "achieve" that. ...I guess it's possible. Either way, the video from this camera that I've seen up to this point is nothing short of incredible for a camera in this price range. Considering the HVX with 2x8GB cards can be purchased for less than the XLH1, this camera is a bargain if you can work with the tapeless workflow.

[John Benton]

Thanks Jeff -
I'll be waiting a lot longer for my camera -
with all the noise & Low Res talk, the images I see have moved me enough to choose this over the Canon
I know tha canon is far superior in many ways - But For My workflow & my budget this is the thing

so I can't wait to see what you determine with Res. Jeff !!!

[Robert Lane]

There's a now infamous term sparked by the digi-cam craze and coined by Ken Rockwell: "Measurbator", which defines how silly putting things like ultimate resolution under the microscope, really is. In the end, it's all about how things look in a real production's final output.

I can't speak to whether or not the HVX is actually putting out less lines than advertised (why would Panasonic knowingly set themselves up for a class-action suit, the type of which Canon has already endured with the XL1/2?), but I can say that in controlled studio conditions with A/B switching, the HVX is the clear winner in overall image quality compared to Z1, H1 and HD100.

If LPI were all-important we'd all be using bodies like the HD-10 - which by the way is a very noisy, low-LUX double-digit rated camera!

[Steve Mullen]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kilgroe

I have a hard time believing this camera only resolves 600 lines (or even less). But maybe the res charts and other black/white imagery doesn't tell the whole story -- think pixel shift.

Unfortunately, you've got it backwards.

Adam, quite wisely, used a test that measures "dynamic" resolution. The point of a such a test is to discount CCD technology -- like green-shift -- that measure well, but don't deliver real-world resolution. (Exactly why I recommended using a red-on-blue chart.)

In other words, his test indicates what one should expect to see from real-world video. Moreover, all the 6 cameras were measured the same way so if the HVX200 measured low -- so did the others.

Moreover, I've looked and can find no published charts than indicate better than 600 rez. Thus, there seems to be no objective data to indicate the resolution isn't less than 600 TVL.

It's important to note the reason why resolution measures are important is because the video industry has compared cameras using these numbers for decades. For example, the whole supposed advantage of 1080i over 720p is that it has greater resolution. I'm not claiming resolution SHOULD be used -- but it certainly has -- and it certainly has been used by Panasonic.

It hardly seems reasonable after decades of using these data that Panasonic gets to unilaterally decide to change the practice at exactly the point where their new baby scores badly.

That would allow JVC to declare "4:2:2" a meaningless number. Or, Sony to say "25Mbps" doesn't really reflect HDV quality. Making both claims would enable JVC and Sony to claim there is "no advantage" to DVCPRO HD -- something that might even be true -- but something that folks would quite rightly object to as changing the rules to favor what you are selling.

[Brian Luce]

Originally Posted by Robert Lane

I can say that in controlled studio conditions with A/B switching, the HVX is the clear winner in overall image quality compared to Z1, H1 and HD100.

really? did you conduct such a test? you refering to the barry green shootout? i heard that the canon was the best.

[Peter Ferling]

Originally Posted by Brian Luce

..really? did you conduct such a test? you refering to the barry green shootout? i heard that the canon was the best.

Include an admission that the canon was poorly represented because they didn't set it up correctly either.

I've shot with canon's over the last five years, XL1/XL1s, the GLs and ZRs. Only once in did I have problem with a tape jam in an XL1s that was used on a weekly basis, and also as a deck. Never witnessed wandering focus, dead pixels and audio sync issues. I send these camera's via fedex in pelican cases and know they get tossed around. Guess I was lucky.

Anyway, I agree that there are more questions then answers, and it simply comes down to how good the picture looks. The final point in all tests is that any of those camera's tested will make excellent pictures. In the end, that's how the viewers will judge your work.