1080p/720p - No difference?

C

cocoa_magazin

Active member
I have even more accurate test recordings made in 1080pa24 and 720pa24.

Then I created in Premiere CS3 a 1080-24-project and exported the images as BMP (=1280 x 1080) and als 1080HDTV24p. Here the image:
http://www.cocoa.de/news2/2007/12/29/1080_4.jpg (from BMP)
http://www.cocoa.de/news2/2007/12/29/film_1080.jpg (from 1080HDTV24p-movie)

Then I created in Premiere CS3 a 720-24-project and exported the images as BMP (=960 x 720) ald as 1080HDTV24p. Here the image:
http://www.cocoa.de/news2/2007/12/29/720_4.jpg (from BMP)
http://www.cocoa.de/news2/2007/12/29/film_720.jpg (from 1080HDTV24p-movie)

Now, I have two images converted to 1920x1080.
http://www.cocoa.de/news2/2007/12/29/hd_1080_4.jpg
http://www.cocoa.de/news2/2007/12/29/hd_720_4.jpg

Here excerpts:
ausschnitt_1080_4.jpg

1080

ausschnitt_720_4.jpg

720

The result is astounding when you consider that 1080 needs 2.5 times more space!


The files as BMP:
http://www.cocoa.de/news2/2007/12/29/1080_4.bmp
http://www.cocoa.de/news2/2007/12/29/720_4. bmp
http://www.cocoa.de/news2/2007/12/29/ausschnitt_1080_4. bmp
http://www.cocoa.de/news2/2007/12/29/ausschnitt_720_4. bmp
http://www.cocoa.de/news2/2007/12/29/hd_1080_4. bmp
http://www.cocoa.de/news2/2007/12/29/hd_720_4. bmp
http://www.cocoa.de/news2/2007/12/29/film_1080.bmp
http://www.cocoa.de/news2/2007/12/29/film_720.bmp

The files as JPG:
http://www.cocoa.de/news2/2007/12/29/screen.jpg
http://www.cocoa.de/news2/2007/12/29/1080_4.jpg
http://www.cocoa.de/news2/2007/12/29/720_4.jpg
http://www.cocoa.de/news2/2007/12/29/ausschnitt_1080_4.jpg
http://www.cocoa.de/news2/2007/12/29/ausschnitt_720_4.jpg
http://www.cocoa.de/news2/2007/12/29/hd_1080_4.jpg
http://www.cocoa.de/news2/2007/12/29/hd_720_4.jpg
http://www.cocoa.de/news2/2007/12/29/film_1080.jpg
http://www.cocoa.de/news2/2007/12/29/film_720.jpg

Michael Pilipp - www.24-frames.de
 
Last edited:
but the screen is bigger. blow up the 720p image to 1080p and see if you lose resolution... You'll see that you lose. And that's one advantage of shooting 1080p.
 
Hi Cocoa. Im not sure what the point of your test here is, perhaps you could give more info? 1080 is not better than 720? or something.

Was looking at both shots of the back focus chart and seems to me that your focus is slightly out to begin with. Whats the focal point of these images as there is a little depth on the surfaces.
 
720 cannot be better than 1080 both the hvx and hpx always shoot 1080 always and then downconvert to 720 of SD meaning both cameras are 1080 native
 
I think the lettering in the magazine cover is noticeably sharper in the 1080 image.

Also, 720/24p over 60 takes up the same "space" as 1080, in terms of file size.
 
It has been pretty widely stated that 1080 gives you about 15 percent more rez over 720 for hpx500 and hvx200 - that 15 percent is quite a bit if you can afford the storage of 1080 24P over 720 24PN
 
David Jimerson said:
I think the lettering in the magazine cover is noticeably sharper in the 1080 image.

Also, 720/24p over 60 takes up the same "space" as 1080, in terms of file size.
Click to expand...



my eye may be deceiving me but these letters look really really similar in sharpness to me.
 
The larger the screen you view it on, the more visible the difference will be. And the other element is that 1080 is a lot less compressed than 720.

720's a fine choice for those who don't see or care about the difference. For those who do, 1080 is better.
 
Think abut: HPX500-CCD = 960x540 Pix! So, why should the camera from these pixeln create more than premiere?

I think: better is to shoot in 720p and to make pixelshift in premiere. So you can save 2,5time-space in the P2-Card. The end is the same.

I love my Panasonic, but it is not a real 1080-Cam! So its my think.
 
Premiere isn't pixel-shifting, it's interpolating pixels - not real detail.

The HVX is capturing slightly more detail in 1080p from the image that you point the camera at.
 
It's NOT 960x540 pixels - if you must, say 960x540x3. The pixels are offset, so light is actually gathered at more locations than it would be in a strict 960x540 setup. So, it's less res. than 1920x1080, more than 960x540, depending (a lot!) on the colors of the particular image.

I'm not sure about the exact arrangement of pixels used in the HVX/HPX with their "2-direction spatial offset" - but each horizontal row gets data from at least 1920 spatially unique groups of pixels, and each vertical column gets data from at least 1080 spatially unique groups of pixels...
 
Cocoa,
Thanks for the test. It had the opposite impression on me. On my monitor the 1080p looks so much sharper, I'm going to be very selective about when I shoot 720. 15% isn't much difference, but to my eye it's a difference that makes a difference.
 
No specs have been released about what the HPX500 chip pixel arrangement is, other than to say that it's a full progressive block and each chip is 620,000 pixels.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top