Finally! CCD specs and DSP released!

redindian said:
I donno why everyone keeps saying this....
Click to expand...

Me neither.
I don't want to sound like I'm trying to bash the camera or the company - because I'm a big fan of the HVX. But releasing the CCD specs isn't exactly something they should be cheered for ... in my opinion, if this is being marketed as a professional tool then it's the least they should do.

Reminds me of that old Chris Rock routine about people taking pride in things they are supposed to do:

"I take care of my kids"
"You're SUPPOSED to take care of your kids!"

"I never been to prison"
"You ain't SUPPOSED to go to prison!"
:)

"I released our CCD specs"
"You're SUPPOSED to release your CCD specs"
:thumbsup:

Either way - I'm glad the information is finally out there....
 
Last edited:
If a mistake was made it was not releasing the specs much earlier - together with the explanation as given now, and the reasons for adopting such an approach with a 1/3" chipped camera. To me it is a clever, valid approach to engineering a camera at this price point, and reinforces to me that all these four comparable 1/3" HD cameras have performance roughly on a level par, and all unheard of compared to much more expensive models a relatively short time ago.

They do bring one thing into question though. The colour space of DVCPRO HD and 4:2:2 has been a proud boast until now - no vertical chroma subsampling, so better for such as chromakeying. The use of pixel shift with these chips indisputably improves LUMINANCE resolution, but does not improve chrominance resolution, and implies that the chrominance being delivered to the codec limits performance well below what the codec itself is capable of. Exactly the opposite of it's competitors, where more chrominance resolution comes out of the front end than the recording system can deal with.

With the HVX it's a bit like pouring one litre into a two litre bottle, with the others more like starting off with two litres, but having to pour half away as you only have a one litre bottle! In each case you end up with one litre.

At the end of the day sheer technical performance is perhaps the least important difference between them all, and the above just reinforces that they end up with more similarities here than differences. It also reinforces (IMO) that buying decisions should be primarily made on other matters. The HVX is obviously strong on variable framerates, slo-mo etc, and the wideness of the zoom at w/a is a big plus. Counter to that is it's awkwardness to handhold (please look at the HD100 here, Panasonic!). And then there's P2 - either a fantastic plus, or a nightmare, depending on your workflow.

All of the above factors should be far more important in deciding where to spend your money than sheer 'quality' considerations. Now the facts have come out, hopefully there will be less trying to prove A is better than B, the more I hear, the more I feel that all are extremely good for the price, though all with their own issues.

[EDIT - My apologies, I see others have already brought up the colour resolution. We do seem to be in agreement though.]
 
Last edited:
OK, that makes sense... shifting the pixels is not creating extra chroma... So best case is XLH over HD-SDI?


ash =o)
 
AshG said:
So best case is XLH over HD-SDI?
Click to expand...

I suppose if money is no object, you're right.
Then again - we may as well say best case is an F950 over Dual HDSDI.
Yes, I know - that's a bit extreme... I'm just trying to make a point that
XLH1 over HDSDI is great - but just not feasible for most people.
I think to compare the cameras that are in the same pricing range it's probably better to compare what the cameras themselves are capable of (not 'potentially' capable of).

Given that - I think they're all probably on about equal footing.
It really just comes down to ergonomics and workflow preferences - in my opinion.

Although - you are right - if you are in a position (or will be in a position) to take advantage of the HDSDI output on the XLH1, then it's a great choice.
But I suppose that would fall under "workflow preferences"

Just my 2 cents.
 
I have used the Canon a little and the lens they provide is pretty bad. Even a 20% brightness jump has visible abberations. In every single zoom position. The older SD lenses are equal or better. Any medium quality broadcast SD lens with apochromatic elements certainly outperforms that lens. If you can afford a better lens the Canon certainly has the most capable CCD block. But with a good lens the package enters a price category that is very hot at the moment. I would wait 2-3 months before spending more than $10,000 on a camera.
 
LOL, I'm so glad I have a DVX100B! I don't have to worry about all this pixel/resolution controversy!:)
 
Last edited:
i'm probably going to be the last one to get an HVX. i don't care what other people think, it's a badass piece of equipment. pixels can kiss my ass, i'll still make some great looking images with that stuff.
 
Justin_Kirch said:
pixels can kiss my ass
Click to expand...
Luis Caffesse said:
Hahahaha
I"m making a Tshirt and a bumper sticker right now.
:thumbsup:
Click to expand...
Great idea! As soon as the HVX200 wins its first Emmy/Sundance/Oscar nomination etc, that slogan would make a brilliant Panasonic marketing campaign!:grin:
 
The funny thing is that this camera has 3x960x540x30x1 (8bit) = 48mb of info = 384mbit/sec. That would be fully uncompressed. Just 3x more data than 1080p compressed even without any attempt at lossless compresion. Even a simply (cheap) huffman algorithm would reduce that to 200kbit/sec which is 25mb/sec and possible on a single portable 2.5inch disk.

Why do we get color reduction and 6.7:1 compression when the uncompressed data is just 3 times more than the capability of the format? And why don't we get uncompressed to hard disk from this camera? Rhetorical question:)
 
24p would be 38mb/sec uncompressed and about 20mb/sec with lossless huffman.

Perhaps we have to wait for Juan:)
 
limo991 said:
3x960x540x30x1 (8bit) = 48mb of info = 384mbit/sec...3x more data than 1080p compressed even...lossless compresion...huffman algorithm...200kbit/sec...25mb/sec...2.5inch disk...6.7:1 compression...uncompressed data....
Click to expand...
Justin said it best.:)
 
filmmaker1977 said:
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...
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) ...
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
Click to expand...
Then why did Jan deny that it was 960 x 540? I mean, she could've just said nothing.
 
CineAlta said:
Justin said it best.:)
Click to expand...

Yes, if we have more people with Justin's way of thinking, we can be sure we will have to use technology leftovers till 2100ad at least. More 1/3 sensors, a little higher resolution every 15 years, etc.
 
Tzedekh said:
Then why did Jan deny that it was 960 x 540? I mean, she could've just said nothing.
Click to expand...

Jan just said "It is not the Canon chipset!" which I believe is true. If the HVX uses a 16:9 window from a 4:3 960x720 sensor, it is same resolution and size but chips like that should be available from many manufacturers.
 
hehehe...

Now that's some funny sh*t !

Let's not drag Jan into this. It's over, we know the specs.
 
limo991 said:
Jan just said "It is not the Canon chipset!" which I believe is true. If the HVX uses a 16:9 window from a 4:3 960x720 sensor, it is same resolution and size but chips like that should be available from many manufacturers.
Click to expand...

I think the big thing about the article is the new DSP.. thats where we should be looking at instead of which CCD is what.
 
limo991 said:
And why don't we get uncompressed to hard disk from this camera? Rhetorical question:)
Click to expand...
Because Juan Pertierra of Reel-Stream hasn't andromedized it yet. But when he does, this thing is going to rock.

Actually the pixel count being what it is does help him make the HVX Andromeda an even more practical idea than ever.

Cannot wait. Cannot WAIT.
 
limo991 said:
Jan just said "It is not the Canon chipset!" which I believe is true. If the HVX uses a 16:9 window from a 4:3 960x720 sensor, it is same resolution and size but chips like that should be available from many manufacturers.
Click to expand...
The chips are 16:9. The Canon's are 4:3. The Canon's chips are interlaced & progressive. The HVX's are progressive-only.

It's not the same chipset.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top