Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

is the HVX true 1080?

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    is the HVX true 1080?

    I had a workshop today on the XDCAM HD and they mentioned that the HVX didn't shoot in true 1080i and actually uprezzes to 1080i, is this true?
    ~Shane




    #2
    is the HVX true 1080?

    I had a workshop today on the XDCAM HD and they mentioned that the HVX didn't shoot in true 1080i and actually uprezzes to 1080i, is this true?
    ~Shane



    Comment


      #3
      Well, yes that's true that the HVX200 isn't true 1080 but neither is the XDCAMS or even F900 for that matter.

      Comment


        #4
        Depends on what you mean.

        The CCDs are not 1920x1080. But that's not the same as saying it doesn't shoot 1080.

        The pixels on the CCD do not correspond 1:1 to pixels in an image. The CCD is an analog, monochrome devices meant only to capture light. The magic happens in the processing of the light.

        Functionally, the HVX shoots everything as 1080 first and then downrezzes to the other resolutions.
        LEARN FILMMAKING - DIGITAL STREAMING AND DOWNLOADS OF GREAT TRAINING PROGRAMS!



        WRITING FOR TELEVISION ARTICLE | "ASSUMPTION BLUES" FILM NOIR RADIO PLAY | "BLUE SCARLET" RADIO PLAY

        Comment


          #5
          Probably referring to the CCD size being less than 1080x1920, I forget what the actual pixel res is though. So yes, very true. Sure is pretty though
          Jeff Anderson
          www.lichtuberstromt.com

          Comment


            #6
            No its not true. It shoots 1080P infact, not 1080i. EVERY mode it shoots starts in 1080p and is downressed.

            The lower pixel count chips is the result of a engineering technique. essentially think of it as a "one chip" 1920x1080 CCD, broken into three chips for the sake of Chroma seperation. ( the one chip cameras have lower resolution counts for each color too. the luma signal is composited from these chroma samples. the HVX 200 IS a 1080 camera. Its just that the chip array is GENIUS. the XDcam guys were just down talking the competition.
            Cinematographer
            Sigma Pro

            www.timurcivan.com 917-589-4424

            Comment


              #7
              No it isn't true. "uprezzing" refers to digital interpolation. That's what Sony does with the V1U. The HVX uses spatial offset to create an actual 1920x1080 sampling array off the chips.
              ..
              The AU-EVA1 Book - The DVX200 Book - The UX180 & UX90 Book - Lighting For Film & TV - Sound For Film & TV

              Comment


                #8
                OK, forgive my ignorance, but if the chips are not the native resolution that they are supposed to reproduce, what's the difference? It's technically "uprezzing" no matter what. It's making up resolution that is not there, one way or another. So what am I missing?

                Comment


                  #9
                  All I want to know is, whatever the process the HVX uses is it better or worse than what the F900 or the F350 does?
                  ~Shane



                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by smpproductions
                    All I want to know is, whatever the process the HVX uses is it better or worse than what the F900 or the F350 does?
                    It's an ambiguous question. If you're talking about effective resolution then there's no way the HVX can even come close to either the F350 or the F900 (those are more than 10x the price for a reason). Even if you somehow define a process as being "better" in theory, you still have to look at how it's being implemented and the end results is what counts.
                    "Local studio seeking young female actresses for short film in which they definitely will NOT be killed. Lack of identifying scars, dental records, or concerned family a plus. Payment to be discussed after shooting...uh...filming."

                    www.hiddendreamsmedia.com

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Originally posted by smpproductions
                      All I want to know is, whatever the process the HVX uses is it better or worse than what the F900 or the F350 does?
                      The HVX has about the same or better apparent resolution (shoot a resolution chart and observe the image) as the other 1/3" cams which have actual 1920x1080 chips.
                      LEARN FILMMAKING - DIGITAL STREAMING AND DOWNLOADS OF GREAT TRAINING PROGRAMS!



                      WRITING FOR TELEVISION ARTICLE | "ASSUMPTION BLUES" FILM NOIR RADIO PLAY | "BLUE SCARLET" RADIO PLAY

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Originally posted by Mediacre
                        OK, forgive my ignorance, but if the chips are not the native resolution that they are supposed to reproduce, what's the difference? It's technically "uprezzing" no matter what. It's making up resolution that is not there, one way or another. So what am I missing?
                        What I said above. A CCD is an analog, monochrome device and the pixels on the CCD do not correspond to digital pixels in the final image. What matters is the final image.
                        LEARN FILMMAKING - DIGITAL STREAMING AND DOWNLOADS OF GREAT TRAINING PROGRAMS!



                        WRITING FOR TELEVISION ARTICLE | "ASSUMPTION BLUES" FILM NOIR RADIO PLAY | "BLUE SCARLET" RADIO PLAY

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Originally posted by Mediacre
                          So what am I missing?
                          You're missing an understanding of how CCD "pixels" get translated into image pixels. There's no one-to-one correlation. A CCD isn't a digital device, it's analog. It outputs an analog signal, like a microphone does; that analog signal gets sampled into digital pixels, like an audio A-to-D does (and yet nobody ever asks if a microphone is "16 bits" or "24 bits" or whatever, right?)

                          The resolution of each individual chip is largely irrelevant, because the system doesn't read each individual chip. It reads all three as an aggregate imaging block. And as an aggregate imaging block, the HVX system delivers about a 2K image worth of resolution according to Juan Pertierra of reel-stream.

                          The "pixel shift" system is not "uprezzing". Uprezzing is a digital interpolation; that's what Sony does with its V1U. "pixel shift" is not actively "shifting" anything, it merely references that one chip is spatially offset by half a pixel, which doubles the effective sampling sites (960x2 = 1920, 540x2 = 1080) to give the system a theoretical max of 1920 x 1080 sampling sites. Juan says that he gets 2K out of it because there are more active pixels on the chips; he's reading an actual 2048 x 1105 out of the system.

                          To take matters further, the "pixel shift" system isn't really all that different than a bayer pattern system. Look at the Silicon Imaging SI-2K chip -- that's a 1920x1080 chip system, right? So is it "true" 1920x1080? Well, it has a bayer filter over it, which means that 1/4 of its pixels are covered with blue, 1/4 of them are covered with red, and 1/2 are covered with green. And that means that its red and blue resolutions are (guess what): 960 x 540. Its green is better, at 960x1080-ish (but "ish" because it's not an actual 960x1080, it's a zigzag pattern of half-size 960x1080 pixels). You cannot read the system as discrete pixels, because no individual chip pixel works on its own -- each blue pixel must be used in concert with a nearby red and green pixel, for example.

                          So does that mean that the "highest resolution" you can get from an SI-2K is 960x540? Try making that claim to them and they'll laugh you out of the room. Look at the footage -- it's obviously 2K res. So how can this be? It's just the way it is.

                          And spatial offset works largely the same way, but instead of having all the pixels on one big chip, they're separated out onto three separate chips (one red, one green, one blue). And the total surface area of the three HVX 1/3" chips is about 75% as large as the total surface area of the SI-2K's single 2/3" chip.

                          You've got to divorce yourself from the mentality that "one pixel = one pixel", because it just doesn't. For example, each pixel in the target YUV frame is made up of 60% green, 29% red and about 11% blue (or thereabouts). How does that work for a 1:1 relationship? It doesn't. Because there isn't a 1:1 relationship. It's too bad that sensor designers chose the same term ("pixel") as the RGB graphic frame people did, as that just adds an unnecessary layer of confusion.

                          It's a different way of getting there, but the end result is quite comparable. We'll find out just how comparable once Juan gets through with the Hydra.

                          In the meantime, just look at the images. Listen to the testimonials. The system works, and delivers a true high-def image that intercuts nicely with other camera systems, whether VariCam or F900.
                          ..
                          The AU-EVA1 Book - The DVX200 Book - The UX180 & UX90 Book - Lighting For Film & TV - Sound For Film & TV

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Originally posted by smpproductions
                            All I want to know is, whatever the process the HVX uses is it better or worse than what the F900 or the F350 does?
                            Are you concerned about the process? Or the results?

                            The process is different. The F900 and F350 are interlaced chipsets that use dense-pixel imagers, the HVX200 uses a progressive chipset with large-pixel imagers. But do you really care about how it gets there, or do you care more about where it gets to?

                            Of course a $100,000 system is going to do better than a $6,000 system. But is it that much better? Is it 15x better? Or, more likely, about 15% better?

                            Read Chris Oben's article about how they tested the HVX200 for integration with their F900s on the TV show "The 4400". After extensive testing they declared "The P2 material was intercut with compressed HDCam all on a DVCProHD timeline. The edit looked great. With minor tweaking I was able to bring the P2 footage into line (contrast and brightness) with HDCam. The kinetic energy of the P2 footage definitely added to the intensity of the scene. Even the breaking glass footage, which was a static shot, intercut nicely. When closely scrutinized it was possible to discern the P2 footage from the F900 by looking at the detail in the highlights." They then said that the highlight issue was because of the default settings, so they took the camera into the lab and tried to match it better: "We brought the ‘P2’ back to the studio and in a controlled lighting situation, ran through the various Matrix and Gamma settings looking for the best match to our F900 look in a tungsten environment. This test was performed by comparing captured footage output from Final Cut Pro on the G5 Framestore system to our 23” HD CRT monitor. We achieved our goal using a Black ProMist 1/2 filter a Detail setting of plus 2, Gamma ‘Cine-Like D’ and Matrix set to ‘Cinelike’."

                            So "The 4400" is happily intercutting F900 footage and HVX200 footage for their TV series. Shane Ross talks about how they intercut the HVX200 with the VariCam in several History Channel documentaries. You can read firsthand experiences from people who have intercut the F900 with the HVX and projected it on a 30' diagonal movie theater from a 4K projector: "It intercut almost seemlessly with the F-900. For sure there was a little extra sharpness and a little better skin tones with the F-900 but not $100,000 dollars worth." (from http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=85252)

                            Or you can get hung up on counting pixels on a chip. In the end, which is going to do more for you: using footage? Or arguing about some pixels?



                            Last edited by Barry_Green; 05-05-2007, 10:38 AM.
                            ..
                            The AU-EVA1 Book - The DVX200 Book - The UX180 & UX90 Book - Lighting For Film & TV - Sound For Film & TV

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Thanks for the detailed reply Barry. It explains a lot in terms of how it works and the difference between uprez and pixel shifting.
                              The comparison to the SI2K was also useful and I would think the same comparison could be drawn with RED since it also use a Bayer sensor?


                              Originally posted by Barry_Green
                              In the meantime, just look at the images. Listen to the testimonials. The system works, and delivers a true high-def image that intercuts nicely with other camera systems, whether VariCam or F900.
                              It's here where all ends for me too. The final results. I have shot with the HVX200, Z1 and HD100 and it's clear that the HD100 makes sharper images. If pixel shift is the same as having native resolution because it's not a 1 pixel = 1 pixel ratio and the HVX shoots all in 1920x1080 why is that the HD100 is sharper? I don't believe itís the lens because that 16x fuji stinks. OK the HVX has a fixed lens but still, I don't think it can be worse than the fuji 16x, maybe equal but not worse. So what is it? That's not something that somebody told me. It's something that I have seen with my own eyes and produced the footage. I don't think it's because the HD100 has too much image enhancement either as last time I did a test I shot with the HD100 way down in sharpness and it still came out sharper. On the top of that, every single review I have read on the HVX (outside of DVXuser of course) has said things to the effect of "The HVX200 has low rez CCDs and it shows". I think if pixel shift was really that magic of a thing more expensive cameras would be using it at the same level of the HVX and using a cheaper lower rez chip and making more profit. But they are more expensive for a reason right?
                              Not putting the HVX down. In terms of color, skin tones etc the HD100 canít touch it. But it is not as sharp as the HD100.
                              I'm still curious to see how Juan will squeeze 2k out of it . I have never been impressed by Andromeda and in my opinion, all I ever saw from it looked basically the same as normal DVX footage, just bigger, but not necessarily sharper.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X