hvx200 pixel count revealed

[Jarred Land]

Originally Posted by Steve Mullen

Images certainly count, but when you read the review at http://digitaljournalist.org/issue06...eracorner.html and count the sheer number of technical errors you realize why camera companies -- at least until the HVX200 -- published specifications.

The review is clear, honest, and very well written -- until he starts to describe HVX200 technology. He then falls pray to Panasonic's PR.

Remember, his first line is a disclaimer that he has no idea what he's doing, hes new to video.

1) He claims the camera is "optimized for 720-line progressive scan video recorded to DVCPRO HD." TRUE -- perhaps more than he realized given its CCD resolution. Interestingly, he does conclude "If you find, like me, that 720p looks at least as good as 1080i ... ." One has to wonder WHY he didn't comment on what that says about the HVX200.

what does that say? I prefer shooting in 720 as well.

2) He notes clearly that "My shooting mode with this camera is to stick with 720/24PN recording mode going to the P2 cards." But, he claims the 720p optimized "HVX records at 100 mbits/second as opposed to 25 mbits/second for HDV." Sorry, 720p HDV is 19Mbps not 25Mbps.

Given the HDV title under your name, I assume you do realize that HDV can very well be 25Mbps. At least for this I hope as you do not have a disclaimer.

But more importantly, at 720p24 the actual HDV compression has a data rate of 47Mbps while at 24PN the HVX records a data rate of 40Mbps. Therefore, HDV 24p is almost 25% less compressed than 24PN DVCPRO HD.

True 24 frames on the HVX, not 60i.. are you kidding me, please, Steven, i cant believe its you getting this stuff wrong. Im gonna stop there cause it just gets worse.

[Chris Hurd]

If you guys care to continue this further, then I'd like to ask Jarred to post directly to Steve's site at www.gyhduser.com, or for Steve to post directly to Jarred's site at www.dvxuser.com. DV Info Net isn't here for your turf wars. Thanks,

[Jarred Land]

sorry chris.. i think all this funky info going around is starting to drive me a little batty. My bad.

[Steve Mullen]

Originally Posted by Chris Hurd

If you guys care to continue this further, then I'd like to ask Jarred to post directly to Steve's site at www.gyhduser.com, or for Steve to post directly to Jarred's site at www.dvxuser.com. DV Info Net isn't here for your turf wars. Thanks,

Unfortunately, the background information for a "discussion" that started in 2003 is never fully repeated, so I agree comments can seen wrong even though they have been discussed before. The AVS Forum sometimes reorganizes threads into one master thread so folks can follow better. I'm not suggesting it's worth the trouble. Unfortunately, every person who doesn't read and understand these threads has a very good chance of repeating what he's heard -- which is almost always based upon PR.

At least we have gotten past the 2003-2004 claims there was "no way" HD could be recorded at 20Mbps and that it was "impossible to edit MPEG-2 with Frame Accuracy."

[Chris Hurd]

Originally Posted by Steve Mullen

And, that's exactly why I started this long thread.

Actually it was started by Jaser Stockert -- and this is the closest thing we'll have to a happy ending.

If we can now please dispense with the utterly meaningless issues of numbers and move on to what ultimately counts above all else -- and that is, how the image actually looks (and how the camera is used) -- then we've finally accomplished something.

For those who prefer to continuously debate pixels and other specifications, I strongly encourage you to cruise any number of a variety of other online communities that seem to specialize in that very purpose.