Finally! CCD specs and DSP released!

Well.. Well.. I'm reading well?

BobDiaz said:
Tzedekh said:
You originally suggested 960 x 540 in December. Luis Caffesse replied, "Hmm, 960x540? I suppose that means they could be using the same exact chips that are in the XL2" (here). Jan Crittenden in turn responded, "Unbelievable. It is not the Canon chipset! and the numbers suggested are not correct" (here). So, unless Jan's wrong, it's not 960 x 540, either.
Click to expand...

Steve and I have different views on what the Native Resoluation is; that's OK, because it's our best guesses. I may have a different view on the number, but I respect Steve's viewpoint and logic. In reading his postings, I can view the question from another perspective.

I also do NOT believe that Jan would lie to us about the specification when she says it is not ... This means that: (a) It is not exactly 960x720 (or 960x540) and is a bit higher by 2 to 20 pixels. The extra pixels are not recorded, but are used in the image processimg. _OR_ (b) Steve and I are WAY off the mark: I do think that 960h x 810v is possible too, but the lower number seems more likely and maybe we're both wrong and the number is 960h x 1080v. Whatever it is, the image still looks good.

Kodak makes (or made) a #58 filter that blocks most of the red and blue light, while allowing just the green light to pass. If the Native CCD is 960x540, I would expect the vertical resolution to drop to less than 500 lines. IF the Native resolution is 960x720 or higher, the vertical resolution would be above 500 lines. I have a 3" #58 square filter, but don't have a camera to run the test.



Bob Diaz
Click to expand...

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showpost.php?p=437177&postcount=67http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showpost.php?p=447882&postcount=15

LOL
 
Last edited:
First, Steve Mullen's model was right on the money. Mine pointed to 960x720 as the most likely number with 960x810 as slightly possible and 960x540 as highly unlikely. Good work Steve, you created the correct model.

Second, I hope we don't start hearing (reading) endless crys over the pixel count is only 960x540. In truth, it acts like 1440 x 810.

Third, there is all sorts of technical details I'd love to write, but it's late and I have to work all day tomorrow (Saturday). I jot it down later on...


Bob Diaz
 
Amazing that Steve nailed it so exactly; and amazing that it gets the results it gets. I had long thought 960, but I hadn't guessed at 540; even so, it seems so obvious now in retrospective: 960 with spatial offset gives a theoretical 1920 sampling sites, 540 with offset gives a theoretical 1080. And 960:540 = 16:9.

But the wild thing is the sharpness. I shot the same chart with an FX1 and an HD100 and the HVX, and did some extractions. This is the exact same chart framed the exact same way (although it could use a bit of manual white balance adjustment!):
3-Cams-Charts.JPG


Comparable vertical res, and comparable horizontal res, from 960x540 chips. Amazing. And very cool -- as a software engineer, I'm really impressed!

I guess that goes to show what Juan's been saying about the reel-stream is spot-on. And it further makes me want Juan to andromedize the HVX; if he can get a solid 1540x984 out of a 770x492 DVX, then just imagine how awesome a 1920x1080 HVX image would look.
 
Barry_Green said:
And it further makes me want Juan to andromedize the HVX; if he can get a solid 1540x984 out of a 770x492 DVX, then just imagine how awesome a 1920x1080 HVX image would look.
Click to expand...
Next plot point? This is a good one!
 
Jarred Land said:
I dont know why i keep hearing this.. its very odd to me. The HVX compares to all other HD footage in this class, about middle of the road. Ive never felt the HVX footage to be soft, But i know it LOOKS soft on the low pixel flipout LCD... are you sure thats not what your comparing it too?
Click to expand...

I think it comes down to the perceived noise issue...that is, the recipe for taming noise in the HVX seems to require bringing down the detail or boosting coring quite a few notches. I know the H1 has noise too, but it's fairly mild and it handles it differently. I've brought detail and coring up in the XL-H1 also, and found the image to go a little softer as expected. I'm happy to deal with a negligible amount of noise in order to get a very detailed image.
 
Last edited:
I am very happy that panasonic put this info out. Now we don't have to keep guessing. But like jared said we have all gotten past pixel count is what makes a camera. But you do have to wonder if this is Panasonics way of feeding the wild dogs. We all are still waiting for our cameras and they have 6,000 back orders so why not give us what we have been asking for and get our minds off it. It is good info and I'm glad that Panasonic told us. But I'm just saying.
 
I think a whole whackload of cameras are coming in during the next week.. it makes it all good timing.
 
I learned of the actual pixel count from the folk over at PCDP in December. Since no one was talking about it publicly, I figured best to just kept my mouth shut. Glad the veil is lifted.

Proof is in the pudding... Resolution is only one factor in visible sharpness. The HVX is plenty sharp even after 35mm blow up.

I.
 
Dealers are starting to say that they're more available. Call around. We had a post here just yesterday (IINM) from a dealer who said he'll have 8 available in a couple of days. And ROSCOR (which is a huge dealer) said that they anticipate turnaround times as short as one week (i.e., place your order today, you should have it in your hands within a week). Now, of course, if three hundred DVXUsers go place orders with Roscor, that could seriously impact their one-week turnaround prediction! But the point is, definitely call around, as some dealers have massive pre-order lists and others are already caught up and may even have some in stock or have available spots on their incoming lists.
 
Well, 25p won't be available until the European/Oceanic version starts shipping about a month from now.

As far as 1920x1080, the answer is yes and no. Yes, in that the proper uncompressed unsqueezed aspect ratio of the HVX is 1920x1080.

But no, in that no camera (not even HDCAM) records 1920x1080, they all subsample, usually to 1440x1080. The HVX, HDV, and HDCAM all record 50hz at 1440x1080.

But when you bring it into your editing program and "unsqueeze" it to properly display it, you're looking at 1920x1080 at that point.
 
SergejIvanovits said:
Field A and Field B will be the same in the video stream.
Click to expand...
Not quite correct. Field A and Field B will be from the same moment in time, but they won't be the same. If they were the same, you'd be looking at field-doubled video (like CineFrame 25). In the HVX 25P, the fields will contain different information, but will have been captured at the same instant in time.
 
it seems i have to rent a cinealta to fit the specs requested. here in rome is 1000 euros per day. the job is scheduled for june and for that time i would have use an hvx package i'm building.
barry, it seems you never sleep.
 
I'm going to put my 2c (technical, not artistic/creative) in here: pixel shift works perfectly when shooting B&W objects (like resolution trumpets etc), because the object in front of the camera has green AND red AND blue in it. My question is: what hapens to the resolution of the camera when you shoot something which does't have one of the colours used in "creting" the extra res? What if you shoot a night scene where green is missing almost completely? How are you going to take advantage of the pixel shift if there's nothing (or almost nothing) going on the shifted CCD? IMHO this technology should be called "daylight HD", because as soon as you change the colour balance (lack of blue or green), you're back in the good'ol SD world...
 
Barry_Green said:
Not quite correct. Field A and Field B will be from the same moment in time, but they won't be the same. If they were the same, you'd be looking at field-doubled video (like CineFrame 25). In the HVX 25P, the fields will contain different information, but will have been captured at the same instant in time.
Click to expand...
Yes, it is correct. Actually it was what I wanted to write. It works like the Pal DVX in progressive mode but with higher resolution. Or if someone exports an interlaced video from a timeline using only stills. Fields are from the same frame but contains different information.
 
Fascinating. I find it interesting that they're the same principle as Juan is with the Andromeda. I wonder if they decided on the pixel count before or after hearing about Juans work... that would be interesting to find out!
 
My question is: what hapens to the resolution of the camera when you shoot something which does't have one of the colours used in "creting" the extra res? What if you shoot a night scene where green is missing almost completely? How are you going to take advantage of the pixel shift if there's nothing (or almost nothing) going on the shifted CCD? IMHO this technology should be called "daylight HD", because as soon as you change the colour balance (lack of blue or green), you're back in the good'ol SD world...
Click to expand...

You have described how color difference component color systems work. While some detail comes from the pre-filtered red and blue signals, most of the image detail and most of the image enhancement (detail) information are derived from the green channel because that is where 70% of the HD luma signal comes from (it was 59% in NTSC.) Unless you are able to select detail from G+R+B, which often significantly increases noise, you will lose at least half of your resolution in saturated colors. The result is that heavy blue or red lighting in a concert causes cameras to go very soft. This can be a problem, but the good news is that the human visual system is much less sensitive to fine detail in color than in luma. That's why color component systems work.

So, while there is an issue with loss of resolution in color, it is not a new problem and not confined to the HVX200. In fact, if you are really worried about this phenomenon, you might be very unhappy with the CineAlta color reproduction of just 480 recorded color samples per line in each of the color channels. In normal shooting, it is not a big issue. Color matting can be a different story. If you are not already careful of this problem in your shooting, you probably shoot "normal" scenes and shouldn't have much problem with the HVX.

Panasonic's new paper reinforces my advice to not get too caught up in the numbers and lose sight of the big picture. The truth is that, while resolution is one of the parameters of high definition, reproduction of the highest resolution is seldom the most important aspect of a "good" picture. Focus, good mid range contrast, good color and lack of artifacts are all important, and content is still king. Make an image that does not distract the viewer from your compelling story and you will have a hit.

Go shoot!

cheers,
crc
 
I predict... 20 pages in relatively short order on this thread. Personally, my mind slips into an oily blackness when this type of tech talk starts... I think it's best just to get thing out in the open so that rampant speculative "wankerism" will be curtailed eventually. Kind of like when an athlete comes forward and says.. yes, I shrank those gloves, and yes I killed my wife and her delivery boy boyfriend... instead of just driving around in a bronco and acting nuts... Just come clean, baby.


I have seen nothing but beauty coming from my friend's HVX. Pixel whatnot and shifting info aside, this is a sexy beast of a camera... I hope that the 14 people in front of me at AVS decide.. hey, this isn't the cam for me and let me waltz right in next week and grab one.


So, there is a rumor in the air about massive shipments? Kudos to Panny for releasing this... now only if they'd give those box of steaks out like the canon is doing.
 
Kudos to Panny for releasing this....
Click to expand...

I donno why everyone keeps saying this.... its more like there were democratically forced to do this... why?
  1. the cat was out of the bag (read steve mullen's spot-on analysis - he declared it is exactly 960X540)
  2. they already got the word out and won the hearts and minds....
    Imagine, if this info was out at NAB2004, and some Panaboy goes on to trash HDV codec or JVC split screen... the Canon/JVC/Sony owner would just say.."hehe - you have a tiny ---, go play with it" :)
  3. They were getting a bad rap on suppressing information (remember the flak Google got for sensoring in china)
So its more like they were made to do it....

Just like JVC was forced to acknowledge the split-screen and battery issue (by offering free batteries) - where there they were voted with the wallet... shrinking JVC sales...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top