Hvx 200 Resolution Chart Footage

The horizontal resolution looks pretty low... <600? :huh:

Vertically it looks like just around 650.

I am only using the .tif though. Maybe I am being overly harsh, I don't use res charts much.

If that is the case it sounds like Pany have choosen to pull a lower resolution in order to maximise latitude. I should think that the shadow noise is the result of the DSP further stretching the latitude in the shadows.
 
image scene1dtll0.tiff

H 650- 700
V 750- 780

convexblur in the H above 620 in corners and centre
 
SJUSER said:
THE LATEST NEWS:

The Germans have the fastest and the best measurement tests in the world. Martin Doppelbauer from Karlsruhe, Germany wrote:

"Vertical resolution is:
Canon XLH1 about 800 lph (unconfirmed !) (1080i)
Sony HDR-FX1/Z1 about 700 lph (1080i)
Panasonic HVX200 about 600 lph (1080p)
JVC HD 100 about 500 lph (720p)".
Click to expand...

Do they mention horizontal rez?
 
Well here is a FX1 res chart done by Barry and Jarred. I had these printed to print film at a service lab last year. The FX1 looked good then and does now.

You would think a true progressive ccds in teh HVX200 would have more res than the FX1 i-ccd, In movement it would change for the FX1 though. But since this is res charts tests, the FX1 does better. If the conrtast is adjusted to correct values, this chart improves even more for the FX1.

check it out
link to chart
http://www.dvxuser.com/articles/shoot3/FX1-charts/FX1-AccuChart-60i.jpg





LINK TO XLH1 MATERIAL: http://www.pbase.com/Arrfilms


Michael Pappas
Arrfilms@hotmail.com
PappasArts & Arrfilms Main site
http://www.pbase.com/Arrfilms
http://www.PappasArts.com
http://www.Myspace.com/
 
I think it's unfair to test the FX1/Z1U & the XL-H1 while in 60i mode to the HVX in 24p mode.

I think all cameras should be in comparative modes as well. FX1/Z1U should be in CF24, the XL-H1 should be in 24F and the HVX-200 in 24P, no?

60i vs. 24p is Apples vs. Onions. Just unfair.

If you're going to have those cameras in 60i, then the HVX200 should be as well.
likewise...
You should put the Z1U in Cf24 and see how well "THAT" compares to the HVX200. Same for the XL-H1 in 24F.

- ShannonRawls.com
 
unfortunately shannon.. the Z1 in cf24 would look so horrible people would probally vomit on the screens when they watched it.. its doing it a favour to shoot it in 60i.

but i agree.... all tests should be equal.. not try to handicap the weaknesses of every camera.
 
ShannonRawls said:
I think it's unfair to test the FX1/Z1U & the XL-H1 while in 60i mode to the HVX in 24p mode.

I think all cameras should be in comparative modes as well. FX1/Z1U should be in CF24, the XL-H1 should be in 24F and the HVX-200 in 24P, no?

60i vs. 24p is Apples vs. Onions. Just unfair.

If you're going to have those cameras in 60i, then the HVX200 should be as well.
likewise...
You should put the Z1U in Cf24 and see how well "THAT" compares to the HVX200. Same for the XL-H1 in 24F.

- ShannonRawls.com
Click to expand...

I've been under the impression that a progressive scan CCD will provide the best possible resolution when run in progressive mode. With that in mind running the HVX in progressive mode should provide the cleanest frame that its capable of.

Perhaps someone more knowledgable can correct me on that.

If that is the case though, then running the HVX in progressive and the other cams in interlace should reveal the maximum resolution that each camera is capable of. Now if the HVX ends up really being in the low 600 lines count in progressive scan, its not going to get any better in interlace.

I hope that something was off in Kaku's tests, because In my opinion that's just pretty bad resolution for a $6000 HD camcorder (plus the cost of whatever P2 or drives you actually write the HD to). I believe Sony's consumer oriented HC1 can match or best those resolution numbers. I know resolution isn't everything, but its certainly one of the major reasons to go HD.

I'll be putting off a final opinion until after Barry and company do their comparison of course.

Philip Williams
 
lol, one thing you all have forgotten to take into account is that the Canon XL H1, clearly the only competition to the HVX, barely resolves around 600 in its 24f mode, surprising isn't it? =)
 
Right. For me it´s all about f- or p- mode. Don´t need the i- mode, will never need it. Of course there will be a camera that will unify the best of HVX and XL H1 within one or two years. But you will be two years older then and there might be some guys that shot the feature you were dreaming of with one of those two cameras - and nobody might care about which one of them they choosed. Because each one is providing a good image. Last word - of course - for Barry Green & crew.
 
philnerd said:
I've been under the impression that a progressive scan CCD will provide the best possible resolution when run in progressive mode. With that in mind running the HVX in progressive mode should provide the cleanest frame that its capable of.

Perhaps someone more knowledgable can correct me on that.

If that is the case though, then running the HVX in progressive and the other cams in interlace should reveal the maximum resolution that each camera is capable of. Now if the HVX ends up really being in the low 600 lines count in progressive scan, its not going to get any better in interlace.

I hope that something was off in Kaku's tests, because In my opinion that's just pretty bad resolution for a $6000 HD camcorder (plus the cost of whatever P2 or drives you actually write the HD to). I believe Sony's consumer oriented HC1 can match or best those resolution numbers. I know resolution isn't everything, but its certainly one of the major reasons to go HD.

I'll be putting off a final opinion until after Barry and company do their comparison of course.

Philip Williams
Click to expand...

Well said
 
Mr. Blonde said:
lol, one thing you all have forgotten to take into account is that the Canon XL H1, clearly the only competition to the HVX, barely resolves around 600 in its 24f mode, surprising isn't it? =)
Click to expand...

Thanks for pointing this out

so if we tested all at 60i ....XL-H1 would be the winner
if we tested 24p/24F they would tie

izzat it?
 
Mr. Blonde said:
lol, one thing you all have forgotten to take into account is that the Canon XL H1, clearly the only competition to the HVX, barely resolves around 600 in its 24f mode, surprising isn't it? =)
Click to expand...



I have yet to see a single chart that showed it at less than 650 in 24f... you keep saying under 600... based on???



ash =o)
 
Mr. Blonde said:
lol, one thing you all have forgotten to take into account is that the Canon XL H1, clearly the only competition to the HVX, barely resolves around 600 in its 24f mode, surprising isn't it? =)
Click to expand...

I think the Z1 and HD100 are in direct competition as well. I am torn between the HD100, XLH1 and HVX at present.

At the end of the day it seems clear that the XLH1 is the res king though, there is nothing to suggest otherwise.
 
......and now the bumpy roadway of the HVX has come to the resolution-charts halt.
Eventually someone will discover that shooting STATIC resolution charts with a DIGITAL VIDEO CAMERA doesn't make much sense!
It had some merit for broadcast TV.
But when things start moving (that's the intended use of video cameras) the DVCPROHD codec implementation vs. HDV codec implementation starts to play in the game. And also the difference between progressive scan frames vs. interalced frames will dramatically manifest.
If one wants just to have good static scenes, better he buys a cheap SLR photo camera.
 
Could somebody tell Kaku that he should tell all the settings of the camera when he announces the footage.
Otherwise we are just guessing here.

I'm getting a bit tired to this overload of noise we get in these forums when we have one hobbyist distributing samples (maybe shot even full auto) without any data and 10,000 posts screaming about noise etc.

So we need to know for each and every shot: fps, f-stop, shutter speed, gain, wb tc, detail,... ETC.!
 
Toke,
you have a good point, but I am not sure If I would call Kaku a hobbyist.

IMO, the only decent footage I've seen so far is the desert video that Barry and Jarred posted earlier.

To tell you the truth, people can say what they want to say, but I am a bit worried about the recent footage. To me, it doesn't have that HD look an appears a bit noisy (grainy).

I realize a lot of manufactures do this, but it makes me wonder why the camera comes with the sharpness (detail) setting on. With HD, you would hope you would not need it.

Well, I can say this - We need to wait until this camera gets into someones hands that can offer some structured examples.

Steve
 
Also keep in mind that you can't just download a hi-rez chart and print it up on a 300 dpi printer and use this for tests. You will want to use at minimum a 1200 dpi printer or purchase an official resolution chart before doing your own tests and drawing your own conclusions.

Michael
 
it's one way to make res chart comparision with all cameras have similar settings - and it's another thing, not less interesting to say: ok - each camera may have just it's best setting for this test, let's compare the max. of each camera!

IMHO the print of the chart is very important (as you say, Michael) and also the light settings need to be clever, the distances and angles need to be well measured (straight axis), iris settings, ..., ...

And at least you will find anyway differences in the results of different testers. The only thing you can do: just do the test with all cameras by yourself and consider the differences in percent and not in a number of lines. So if you get 700 lines for camera A and 750 for camera B, this would mean, after YOUR test, camera B has 7% better resolution. Your mate perhaps measures 680 for camera A and 730 for camera B..... that's still 7%! - So you can neglect the little faults that are always involved in this measurement (e.g. distance) - as long as your cameras have the same conditions of measurement. The risk of fault may be also brought down by repeating the test under minimal differences in the measurements - e.g. another room with a different setting, or another man than you having the test made.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top