HVX 3ccd @ 1080?

Barry_Green said:
I'm not defending their decision not to release it (or to delay releasing it), but I am trying to point out why it's completely irrelevant to the overwhelmingly extremely vast majority of us users, and how it would be misused by almost everyone who hears it. Is that justification to not release it? I don't know. It's probably proper marketing to not release it.

Besides, they've already said that it's a 1080/60p chip. How much more do we need to know?
Click to expand...

Just a comment to reinforce the above point.

The Sigma DSLR sd9 made it's debut some years ago with a Foveon 3.4 megapixel imager... into a field of cameras with 6 megapixel Bayer sensors.

The Sigma didn't sell very well (60 cameras in all of Australia, according to one dealer) because the average customer assumes more pixels are better.

The marketers of the Sigma were stuck in a hopeless position in having to convince the public that their 3.4 megapixel sensor is actually as good as or even better than the 6 megapixel Bayer.

Perhaps Panasonic's decision not to disclose specs on the HVX sensor. It forces the buyer to make his evaluations based on the image, not pixel count.
 
stabwound said:
Just a comment to reinforce the above point.
Click to expand...

And an excellent comment and example at that. I get "Popular Photography" and how many megapixels is the number 1 item referenced on every camera in loud screaming letters despite the fact that their tests often reveal problems with many megapixel cameras, especially the 8MP one under $1000, due to basically to many pixels cause sensitivity, noise and other issues.
 
Barry_Green said:
No manufacturer has said that. Panasonic certainly didn't say that.
Click to expand...

That how I interpreted it when Jan (I believe) said they didn't want to start a numbers-war... how else can you explain this? besides it is all everybody is saying here that are in favor of the HVX whatever the amount of pixels...
 
mezelf27 said:
That how I interpreted it when Jan (I believe) said they didn't want to start a numbers-war... how else can you explain this?
Click to expand...
I don't know -- I don't know that I saw that post. But again, whether they said it or not I'd still say it sounds like avoiding a "numbers war" would be smart marketing, since a numbers war is absolutely irrelevant and potentially misleading, yet it is exactly the kind of thing customers could latch onto, and it would be an invalid piece of information to form a decision on.

I'd have to see the post in question, in context, to see what she may have meant.
 
I told my girlfriend that it is not the size of her boobs that matter, but it is how I perceive them. :laugh: She would still like bigger boobs, :thumbsup: so I just might buy them for her. :evil:

johnc
 
:-)

Well, in small print they might give 'em. Don't make a selling point out of it if it's low, but I'm only thinking this camcorder is for a somewhat more educated and critical public, so they might give 'em.

Mazda has no problem admitting their RX-8 is only 1300 cc for a sports engine? (let rotation be the equivalent of a huge pixesshift on steroids... - although pixelshift doesn't make up for that much...)
 
stephenvv said:
I still think citing the Andromeda as point in favor of more pixels is a contradiction.
Click to expand...
OK, but Juan Pertierra has explained it pretty well. If an HD image is a mosaic created from the images of the 3 CCDs, you can't get full color without demosaicing algorithms to interpolate the missing color information. The more pixels you can start with, the less radical your spatial offset needs to be. But in all fairness, Juan has been cautious about predicting the benefits of "Andomeda-izing" the HVX, because he, like almost everyone outside of Panasonic, knows nothing about the HVX's CCDs or A/D converters.
stephenvv said:
That's for Panny to figure out not us.
But what's too many?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I know -- and I said as much. But my point was that people should be skeptical about blanket statements regarding pixel counts. Obviously, what's true for the CCDs in Panasonic's HVX may not be true for other CCDs.
stephenvv said:
Juan P. might be able to actually work with one, but's he's not a seasoned CCD designer either.
Click to expand...
But if he's the one working with the CCDs and A/D converters and writing the algorithms, his educated opinion counts as much, if not more.
stephenvv said:
But all this stuff about what CCD rez Panny "should use" is really just playing and pretending.
Click to expand...
I think much of the discussion has been idle speculation or about irritation over Panasonic's silence on the spec. Other posts seem to be attempts to understand the relationship between CCD pixel count, format (e.g., 1,280 x 1,080), and resolution (i.e., actual line pairs resolved).
stephenvv said:
The point that really matters is the folks here that know the most (Juan, Barry, Graeme) are very united in their opinions of how relevant the pixel count is.
Click to expand...
And none has said that pixel count is irrelevant. On the contrary, they've all said or implied that pixel count is indeed relevant, but no more so than a host of other factors. And I think we've agreed that the final image is the most relevant consideration. Besides, I think we've worn out this discussion -- I know I've got nothing more to add. So feel to have the final word.
 
Tzedekh said:
Besides, I think we've worn out this discussion -- I know I've got nothing more to add. So feel to have the final word.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Though hopefully this rather exhausting thread will at least inform some that whatever the pixel count, it is defintely not the most important or relavent spec on the camera or imaging system. Interesting to those who actually can make use of the info.

But for the rest of us, I know we all can't wait to see the full range of images possible from this camera and if it indeed, lives up to our expectations :beer:
 
well, two things that are extremely good about the only grab frame available are:
1-It seems to have a very good lattitude, good highlight and shadows definition.
2-there is NO visible noise.

I can't wait to test it !
 
mezelf27 said:
Mazda has no problem admitting their RX-8 is only 1300 cc for a sports engine? (let rotation be the equivalent of a huge pixesshift on steroids... - although pixelshift doesn't make up for that much...)
Click to expand...
Fantastic analogy. I mean, I love the car analogies anyway, but this one is most excellent!

Yes, just imagine if they didn't have the relevant stats available to go along with the irrelevant -- I mean, is 1300cc going to sell against a 5000 cc Mustang? If that's the only statistic available? Not in a million years. But fortunately they have relevant statistics to go with it: 0-60 times, miles per gallon, and (somewhat irrelevant but very popular) horsepower.

So perhaps once they have the footage available to demonstrate the complete package: horsepower (pixel count), gas mileage (sensitivity/noise), and 0-60 time (measured resolution of the recorded frame) then they'll release the full specs.

Until then, arguing pixel count is about as relevant as arguing car 0-60 times based on knowing only the engine size. I'd rather argue 0-60 times based on actual 0-60 times...
 
Graeme_Nattress said:
Te he, it would be funny if the XLH1 used the Sony Z1 chip, but by the rez measured and posted at DVinfo, I doubt it. Much higher than the Z1.
Click to expand...
I honestly believe the lens quality has something to do with it... Also, these tests rarely indicate what f/stop was used. I know for certain at least my DVX-a is soft wide open, and noticeably sharper when stopped down. This is also probably a big part of why people think 35mm adapters are soft. They would certainly be sharper if the camera lens was stopped down a little. Ahh, nonetheless, it would be quite funny if sometime down the road we knew for sure what the CCD's are in the XLH1. Cheers.
 
Problem with stopping down the 35mm adapters is then you start seeing the grain in the ground glass. You can only go to about f/4 safely, any smaller and you start seeing grain.

And yes, I thought about the lens issue as well. That there XLH1 needs some side-by-side testing against the Z1, I'd say!
 
Barry_Green said:
Problem with stopping down the 35mm adapters is then you start seeing the grain in the ground glass. You can only go to about f/4 safely, any smaller and you start seeing grain.
Click to expand...
See, that's one of those "real world" scenario's I hadn't considered. Thanks, Barry!
 
I'll tell you the Canon has really impressed me when I saw it at Bon-Con a month ago. It really created the sharpest out of all the other HDV compeditors.
 
Shiloh Arts said:
I'll tell you the Canon has really impressed me when I saw it at Bon-Con a month ago. It really created the sharpest out of all the other HDV compeditors.
Click to expand...


HDV? are you sure you were viewing HDV and not its SDI output?

If not HDV, of course it looks better.

Steve
 
Stevet said:
HDV? are you sure you were viewing HDV and not its SDI output?

If not HDV, of course it looks better.

Steve
Click to expand...

Actually, yes their HDV. It was sharp, crisp, and clear. Only thing I didn't enjoy was the color reproduction accuracy. It seemed a bit dull straight out the camera. Nevertheless, that can all be adjusted.
 
Shiloh Arts said:
Actually, yes their HDV. It was sharp, crisp, and clear. Only thing I didn't enjoy was the color reproduction accuracy. It seemed a bit dull straight out the camera. Nevertheless, that can all be adjusted.
Click to expand...

That's interesting. You're the first person I've heard report they've seen HDV from the H1. I've only heard of footage that was captured from the SDI being shown. I'm glad to hear it has the best HDV quality, especially since it cost 9K.
Steve
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top