Resolve resolution of the hvx200?

J

J5 squared

Well-known member
What is the resolve resolution of the HVX200. how many lines of horizontal resolution is it capable of capturing? I'm in a discussion with a college who believes that an sd betacam has a better picture than that of say an hvx200 in HD because the betacam can resolve 800lines of resolution through sdi while the hvx200 can only record 500lines (not sure where he came up with 500lines resolve). He is convinced that if you capture your betacam image through sdi to avoid the compression and sd limits of going to tape, that the actual image from teh betacam when blown up to even HD size (1080x1920) will outperform that of an image shot and recorded in 1080 from the hvx.
 
Well, Jeff Griffith, Director of Programming and Production, for the Miami Dolphins' cable network made this comment; “The cameras produce amazing details. The range and clarity of the picture are almost too perfect, picking up every possible detail,” said Griffith. “We were zooming in on people at a practice and I could even see the five o’clock shadow on their faces when the footage is displayed on the Daktronic video board. Sometimes we have to pull out because we are seeing too much detail. We thought it would be just a step above DigiBeta, but it went well beyond. In addition, there is very little need for color correction. It’s unbelievable.” He also goes on to say; “One time, we took the HVX200 to shoot a commercial feature in the Bahamas,” Griffith recalled. “The temperatures were very high at that time, but despite the heat and humidity, the camera always performed well with no fog condensation at all. It really has exceeded our expectations. We have never been so excited about shooting.”.......... (Yeah, I know that this last statement was irrelevant to the thread but I was enjoying this cut / paste thing!) This article came from the 'Who's Using the HVX-200' thread by Barry Green. Although I hope that this helps your 'debate', I've heard this 'lines of resolution' debate before and when the smoke clears, it's all about the overall viewable image that the cameras produce. That's what really counts, and this seems to be where the HVX-200 shines.:thumbsup:
 
Last edited:
All depends on how you read the chart, the tech experts will tell you 540. In motion and actual use it appears to be sharper than it really is however.



ash =o)
 
cookester7 said:
Well, Jeff Griffith, Director of Programming and Production, for the Miami Dolphins' cable network made this comment; “The cameras produce amazing details. The range and clarity of the picture are almost too perfect, picking up every possible detail,” said Griffith. “We were zooming in on people at a practice and I could even see the five o’clock shadow on their faces when the footage is displayed on the Daktronic video board. Sometimes we have to pull out because we are seeing too much detail. We thought it would be just a step above DigiBeta, but it went well beyond. In addition, there is very little need for color correction. It’s unbelievable.” He also goes on to say; “One time, we took the HVX200 to shoot a commercial feature in the Bahamas,” Griffith recalled. “The temperatures were very high at that time, but despite the heat and humidity, the camera always performed well with no fog condensation at all. It really has exceeded our expectations. We have never been so excited about shooting.”.......... (Yeah, I know that this last statement was irrelevant to the thread but I was enjoying this cut / paste thing!) This article came from the 'Who's Using the HVX-200' thread by Barry Green. Although I hope that this helps your 'debate', I've heard this 'lines of resolution' debate before and when the smoke clears, it's all about the overall viewable image that the cameras produce. That's what really counts, and this seems to be where the HVX-200 shines.:thumbsup:
Click to expand...

thanks for that! i will be passing that little tid bit on. My argument was "ok i'll give you digi beta produces a better sd picture than the hvx. But then a digi beta cam is ever so slightly more expensive than an hvx (ever so slightly?! :huh: ). But if you have 800 lines of resolution at a 720x480 pixel resolution and you have to more than double that to scale it to a say 1080x1920 pixel res you will be loosing the same amout of resolution that you have to scale. So say you have to scale it 2.5x its original size. You will loose 2.5x the resolution, so now you've dropped below 400resolve resolution, and the hvx is pulling at a minimum a 500resolve 1080x1920 image. To me thats a winning argument right there.
 
The real winning argument is just to show them the footage. Get both cameras together, point 'em at the same screen, view 'em a/b on the same monitor (obviously it would have to be an HD/SD switchable monitor!)

Reality kicks theory's butt every single time.
 
Anyone care to chime in on this responce, I can only argue with stupidity for so long.

Have you factored the Nyquist theorem into your comparison of pixel resolution vs. "lines" of resolution?
How many pixels does it take to define a line?
You have made some errors in your assumptions about scaling.
How do you think a camera can resolve 800 lines of res if the format is 720x486? Starting to see the flaw in the logic?

I'll give you this, for all practical purposes 500 lines IS close to the limit now (final product) of perception of difference.
How do you resolve the fact that most current broadcast methods ultimately compress HD at ratios that make HDV compression look mild?
Obviously, the better you start with and stay with - the better the end result.
Look at the black mojo the big studios can pull on VHS formats.
Of course, if you want to go by the new generation popular notion that VHS=240X480 pixels you'll VASTLY underestimate that formats ability to make a pleasing image as well.........
If you know the tricks.
Click to expand...
 
Supposedly the SDX900 in DVCpro50, can show more detail than the HVX in HD.... Jan said this.... that surprised me too.
 
TimurCivan said:
Supposedly the SDX900 in DVCpro50, can show more detail than the HVX in HD.... Jan said this.... that surprised me too.
Click to expand...
possibly true, but that would be sdx900 in sd can show more detail than the hvx in hd. I believe that, i mean digibeta was very high end in the sd world. For example i would never argue that the dvx is better than the betacam (resolution/detail wise). Nor would i argue against a cinealta or varicame being better than an hvx. But what i will argue is that an hvx is a better hd camera than a betacam. This guys argument is that a beta cam, even when scaled to hd size, still shows more detail and looks better than hvx footage.
 
Last edited:
Have you factored the Nyquist theorem into your comparison of pixel resolution vs. "lines" of resolution?
How many pixels does it take to define a line? ...
Click to expand...
J5 squared said:
Anyone care to chime in on this responce, I can only argue with stupidity for so long.
Click to expand...

Assume that the lens could resolve and the lines matched all the pixels, the number of pixels would be the number of lines of resolution. HOWEVER, this would be a perfect world without crime and war too!

In the real world, the lines almost never seem to land where we want them to, so we use factors from 0.9x on the high side to 0.6x on the low side to decide how many line the CCD could resolve.

The problem here is what factor to use and how much softness will we accept. IF you are willing to say you'll accept a major softness between the lines, then select 0.9x as the factor. On the other hand if super sharp lines are key to you, use 0.6x as the factor.

Assume we have a CCD with 1280 horizontal pixels:

1280 x 0.9 = 1152 VERY fuzzy lines
1280 x 0.8 = 1024 fuzzy lines
1280 x 0.7 = 876 lines
1280 x 0.6 = 768 lines that are sharper than the 876 lines

In general, I like to use 0.7x as the factor, but if another engineer uses a higher or lower number, his or her results are also correct, but they do represent a different sharpness in the lines.

Sorry, but there's no simple rule here, only just a general guideline and even then, the guideline does NOT take into accound the quality of the lens for the final result...

Bob Diaz
 
Barry_Green said:
... which is why, again, just shoot 'em side by side.
Click to expand...

EXACTLY!!!!!

No calculation can ever tell the full story of how the image will look.

Contrast, Color Saturation, and other factors play a big part of how good or bad the image looks.

I remember about 10 yeras ago when I worked at EIZO Nanao, we showed a 40" Gas Plasma Screen at a Trade Show. EVERYONE assumed it was HD, but the native resolution was only 854h x 480v. The high contrast, deep blacks and clean whites fooled everyone into thinking it was HD.


Bob Diaz
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top