Graeme_Nattress
Red Team
"Barry, most buyers know better not to buy a camcorder base on one spec (CCD)alone."
Unfortuneatly, I think they do :-(
Graeme
Unfortuneatly, I think they do :-(
Graeme
HVX 3ccd @ 1080?
- Thread starter Emanuel
- Start date
Barry_Green
Moderator
I agree completely. And Jan has said that they're going to try to put together such an article for the Tosh website.ImBiggie said:
I've never said that I think it's the right decision to withhold information, all I've done is explain why THEY might feel it's the right decision. I'm a technogeek, for sure. I actually read the manuals to every product I buy. I would much rather know the info than not know it.
But I certainly can understand why they may choose to not release it, or at least not release it before the footage is available.
Really? What's the pixel dimensions on the XL1 CCD? That CCD was on the market for six years and they never said what the dimensions were; only an overall gross pixel count.
Does Canon explain how they produce 24F? They just smacked Steve Mullen down and said "information embargo, we will not discuss how we do it".
Here's the other thing that drives me batty about the fixation on CCD specs: WHO SAYS THEY'RE TRUE? I mean, how would any of us verify any of this info? What if they just came out and said "okay, okay, it's 1920x1080, get off our backs" -- what would you do then? Rent time on an electron microscope to count the pixels? They could say anything they wanted. That's what bugs me about the Canon CCD -- they say it has 1440x1080 "effective" pixels. Okay, what does "effective" mean? Is it the pixels in the frame? Usually those are called "active", not "effective". So -- does it mean 1440 "effective" pixels because they're really using Sony CCDs with 960 pixels and half-pixel pixel shift which makes 1440 "effective" pixels?
Who knows?
And how would you verify it?
Who's making that CCD for Canon anyway? It sure isn't Canon, and it sure isn't JVC, and it sure isn't Panasonic... so that leaves... Sony? Hmmm... how many 1/3" HD chipsets are there in the world right now? Four -- two are Sony, one is JVC, one is Panasonic. It can't be the JVC sensor, the pixel count is totally wrong... and it can't be the Panasonic sensor, and Canon doesn't make video CCDs, so that leaves...
Well, would Sony really give Canon a better sensor than they use in their own camera? Really?
Really?
Who knows. Maybe Canon contracted a brand-new sensor out of Samsung or somebody. Or maybe they're just using the same darn sensor as the FX1, but calling it "1440 effective pixels."
If I had to bet, that's the way I'd bet. Maybe Spec-Comm is an authorized Canon and Sony service center too, and someday he'll strip down some broken XLH1's and FX1's and we can at least compare to see if the chip looks different. Until then, we can't actually know anything, we just take what the manufacturer says. Even if it means that it's using "effective" pixels, whatever that means.
braw
Well-known member
Do you wanna know why I wanna know? Because I'm absolutely fascinated by the technology. If they did take a 300x400 CCD and make a beautiful image I would wanna know how they did it. If the image is incredible and it keys great I don't give a crap if it isn't native on paper.
I fully understand why you guys are arguing as to how little the actual count means, I'm arguing on principal. If they would have released the CCD count already, maybe it would have steered people the other way. Maybe not. Maybe we would have had a bunch of threads going over how it's achieving it's image like we have with every other camera. Maybe it would be as old as how P2 sucks threads...only the occasional straggler that thinks he found a flaw no one else thunk of.
What keeps me from the others is codec and format. That's just me.
I fully understand why you guys are arguing as to how little the actual count means, I'm arguing on principal. If they would have released the CCD count already, maybe it would have steered people the other way. Maybe not. Maybe we would have had a bunch of threads going over how it's achieving it's image like we have with every other camera. Maybe it would be as old as how P2 sucks threads...only the occasional straggler that thinks he found a flaw no one else thunk of.
What keeps me from the others is codec and format. That's just me.
Graeme_Nattress
Red Team
Te he, it would be funny if the XL1 used the Sony Z1 chip, but by the rez measured and posted at DVinfo, I doubt it. Much higher than the Z1.
Graeme
Graeme
Stevet
Veteran
braw said:
Braw,
You know what, that's it man!
That's all I needed to hear.
I'm with you 100% on this man.
I'm extremely facsinated in technology. I work in the photolithography field and i'm blown away with the advances in this technology since I started in it. Talk about resolution and DOF. Man when your feature sizes are less than 100nm,were talking tight!
It's these advances that are allowing the large scale fast devices we are striving for.
Steve
wabbit
Evil has Ears
Man, this circus just keeps going around and around.
No one ever said Panasonic will NEVER release the pixel count, just that they are waiting for the footage to be released to the general public. By the way some are talking in here, when Panasonic announces the pixel count at say...the DV Expo, it will be because people like them bullied them into it. Not true, they are simply waiting until they have a public event to unveil everything and kick they marketing campaign into high gear.
How Panasonic, or any company, choses to market their product is up to them and, yes, many people will demand the pixel count before they consider buying the camera. By the time the camera is released these people will have their numbers, just not yet. Be patient.
The point of the earlier posting was not to defend Panasonic not having these numbers out ever but to point out that most possible HVX customers would not know what to make of them even if they had them.
Break it down:
1. You are under the belief that Panasonic never intends to release the numbers. Answer: Wait and see, after the DV Expo start complaining again.
2. You realize that they will release the numbers AFTER they release the footage but think you should have access to the number NOW. Answer: Panasonic has made a marketing decision to show the footage first. Like it or not, that is what they decided. After the numbers are released, what will all this fretting and complaining have gotten you?
3. You have some personal reason why you want the HVX to fail (maybe you already bought an HDV camera and want others to be in same boat as you so you feel threatened by a competing technology) and will take any opportunity to try and bad mouth Panasonic, P2, DVCPROHD compression, or any other thing HVX related. Answer: No matter what Panasonic does will never satisfy a troll like you, get a life
No matter what the category you fall in, nothing will matter until at the earliest Dec 8th and the latest "the last week of December". So can we just shelve this discussion until then?
Cheers
No one ever said Panasonic will NEVER release the pixel count, just that they are waiting for the footage to be released to the general public. By the way some are talking in here, when Panasonic announces the pixel count at say...the DV Expo, it will be because people like them bullied them into it. Not true, they are simply waiting until they have a public event to unveil everything and kick they marketing campaign into high gear.
How Panasonic, or any company, choses to market their product is up to them and, yes, many people will demand the pixel count before they consider buying the camera. By the time the camera is released these people will have their numbers, just not yet. Be patient.
The point of the earlier posting was not to defend Panasonic not having these numbers out ever but to point out that most possible HVX customers would not know what to make of them even if they had them.
Break it down:
1. You are under the belief that Panasonic never intends to release the numbers. Answer: Wait and see, after the DV Expo start complaining again.
2. You realize that they will release the numbers AFTER they release the footage but think you should have access to the number NOW. Answer: Panasonic has made a marketing decision to show the footage first. Like it or not, that is what they decided. After the numbers are released, what will all this fretting and complaining have gotten you?
3. You have some personal reason why you want the HVX to fail (maybe you already bought an HDV camera and want others to be in same boat as you so you feel threatened by a competing technology) and will take any opportunity to try and bad mouth Panasonic, P2, DVCPROHD compression, or any other thing HVX related. Answer: No matter what Panasonic does will never satisfy a troll like you, get a life
No matter what the category you fall in, nothing will matter until at the earliest Dec 8th and the latest "the last week of December". So can we just shelve this discussion until then?
Cheers
Actually, if Panasonic showed footage, before they released the specs, I wouldn't have a problem with that.
I blame Barry. If he wasn't so damn educational, and informative many of us wouldn't even know the details and minutiae of CCD's. Knowledge is a double edged sword, but it's my right to wield it...Duck ! :beer:
Reading the last few pages feels like I've been to a tech symposium. I'm grabbing my girlfriend and a lager to counteract the effects...
Cheers.
wabbit said:
I blame Barry. If he wasn't so damn educational, and informative many of us wouldn't even know the details and minutiae of CCD's. Knowledge is a double edged sword, but it's my right to wield it...Duck ! :beer:
Reading the last few pages feels like I've been to a tech symposium. I'm grabbing my girlfriend and a lager to counteract the effects...
Cheers.
Weird. Some people like to know the pixelcount and for good reason. Some guys don't like that info, or some don't know what to do with it if they got the info. fine for them. Some others like to do.
Any chain is as strong as the weakest link, so CCDs are quite inportant in CCD-DSP-storage. Remember that DVCPRO-HD is 'only' 1280x1080, so there is already a whole lot of stretching going on to 1920x1080 to display it. And then every minor fault will be very very visible.
Saying you won't release the numbers because customers won't understand them? what the hell? Those that don't understand won't ask (I hope). those that do, should be entitled to get this info - or at least: they're expecting this info for being a satisfied customer. Obviously it is up to Panasonic to debated whether they will release it, but that might hurt sales as well....
Any chain is as strong as the weakest link, so CCDs are quite inportant in CCD-DSP-storage. Remember that DVCPRO-HD is 'only' 1280x1080, so there is already a whole lot of stretching going on to 1920x1080 to display it. And then every minor fault will be very very visible.
Saying you won't release the numbers because customers won't understand them? what the hell? Those that don't understand won't ask (I hope). those that do, should be entitled to get this info - or at least: they're expecting this info for being a satisfied customer. Obviously it is up to Panasonic to debated whether they will release it, but that might hurt sales as well....
Emanuel
Cross-Examiner
That's why I slowdown my horses when I knew that PAL DVCPRO-HD was 1440x1080 instead NTSC 1280x1080. Some - like Graeme, for example - said to me that maybe it will be a little bit difference between them. So, what do you think, will it be noticeable @big screen, for instance?mezelf27 said:
Graeme_Nattress
Red Team
That makes PAL very slightly less compressed per pixel than NTSC, so all things being equal it should be better, but.... All depends on the lens and CCD. If that is limiting, then you might see a better picture due to less compression, or it might be completely imperceptable. There's not usually much going on at that level of detail, so I'd expect any difference to be subtle at best. It's like, can you see a difference between NTSC DVCproHD1080i and NTSC HDCAM 1080i?
Graeme
Graeme
khmuse
Tech Guru
Emanuel said:
There may be no real differences in the resolution between the PAL and NTSC version as it is highly likely that the imager array (CCDs) is the exact same in both cameras. All that may be different is the the frame specifications (pixel count and PAR). The resultant resolution will likely be nearly identical.
Jim Arthurs
Well-known member
One interesting quote from Jan on the Creative Cow forum that I've not heard mentioned here...
"If we take the picture of the Z1 and put it up against the HVX, we find that the two cameras are very comparable in resolution on a resolution chart."
That's a profound statement, as it basically asserts that even though the Z1 claims 1440 HDV recorded resolution, the HVX can match it in *real* measurable detail even though the max horizontal for DVCPRO 1080 is 1280 (ntsc land). That's chips and lens working together in unison better than the Z1, I think. And if it has less noise, better dynamic range and a little bit more light sensitivity we have a clear winner.
Regards,
Jim Arthurs
"If we take the picture of the Z1 and put it up against the HVX, we find that the two cameras are very comparable in resolution on a resolution chart."
That's a profound statement, as it basically asserts that even though the Z1 claims 1440 HDV recorded resolution, the HVX can match it in *real* measurable detail even though the max horizontal for DVCPRO 1080 is 1280 (ntsc land). That's chips and lens working together in unison better than the Z1, I think. And if it has less noise, better dynamic range and a little bit more light sensitivity we have a clear winner.
Regards,
Jim Arthurs
Not a contradiction at all. Remember increased luma resolution via spatial offset is achieved at the cost of chroma resolution. For those wanting true full-color output from something like Andromeda, it isn't possible. The point is, CCD pixel count is relevant from a technical point of view -- the more pixels you start with (given a good balance between pixel count and light sensitivity), the better. Too many pixels will increase noise and reduce light sensitivity. But what's too many? Panasonic may have found that 1,920 x 1,080 is too many (particularly since the DVCPro HD format is 1,280 x 1,080) and that 1,280 x 1,080, 1,280 x 720, or even 960 x 1,080 is too many. They may have determined that 960 x 720 is the best pixel count for their CCDs. But saying 1,920 x 1,080 on any third-inch imager is too many is an overgeneralization.stephenvv said:
I disagree -- the imager might fair even better in a 3-chip design.stephenvv said:
I don't recall anyone pretending to be a camera engineer. People are just expressing opinions. The point is that pixel count does matter. But it's only one of many factors that determine image quality, and it's not the most important. And as I said, "follow the advice often given in this forum: Let your eyes be the judge."stephenvv said:
stephenvv
Well-known member
I still think citing the Andromeda as point in favor of more pixels is a contradiction.
That's for Panny to figure out not us.
Oh yes, we all play camera engineer all day. There threads galore filled with camera engineer opinions. But the bottom line is not a single one of us, not Barry or Graeme could sit down and design the HVX CCD block. So our opinions count for pretty much zero. Juan P. might be able to actually work with one, but's he's not a seasoned CCD designer either.
Our opinions on how the image looks, resolves and how well we can use the camera, how much it costs, those count for everything.
But all this stuff about what CCD rez Panny "should use" is really just playing and pretending.
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. Most everyone else, myself included, falls into the "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing" category :grin:
Cees Mutsaers
Veteran
Quote:
"If I were to provide you with this information, what would you do with it?"
Brilliant, and exactly the point. If one is qualified to use the information, it's great to have. If one is not qualified to use it, and it can be construed to be misleading, then -- why publish it? How many of us, honestly, are qualified camera engineers who truly understand CCD design and have a full grasp of the tradeoffs required to engineer the best result? Anyone? Anyone?
Okay, different question: how many of us are qualified to look at the images and say "wow, this one looks a lot better than that one for my purposes"? And that includes the average customer as well as the physicist, the programmer as well as the filmmaker.
I don't doubt that they will publish the number someday. But I also have no doubt whatsoever that they will wait until they have representative footage samples and even comparison footage samples. We've seen enough posts by "Radek" decrying the VariCam vs. HDV, whining about how HDV will look "better" because of the Varicam's subsampling. Well, now we can empirically prove that the VariCam kicks HDV into the weeds, and the numbers do not tell the story, the visuals do. Once there are adequate visuals out there to tell the HVX's story, then they will probably reveal the numbers. But they won't do so before then -- it'd be stupid and foolish on their part to do so, because a) obviously the number is lower than some of the competition, and b) because of that, people will leap to the wrong conclusion. Guaranteed.
Barry, No offence but now you sound like you are the only person who can handle this kind of info. I think there will be more people wo can judge it (and I am not one of them to be frankly).
"If I were to provide you with this information, what would you do with it?"
Brilliant, and exactly the point. If one is qualified to use the information, it's great to have. If one is not qualified to use it, and it can be construed to be misleading, then -- why publish it? How many of us, honestly, are qualified camera engineers who truly understand CCD design and have a full grasp of the tradeoffs required to engineer the best result? Anyone? Anyone?
Okay, different question: how many of us are qualified to look at the images and say "wow, this one looks a lot better than that one for my purposes"? And that includes the average customer as well as the physicist, the programmer as well as the filmmaker.
I don't doubt that they will publish the number someday. But I also have no doubt whatsoever that they will wait until they have representative footage samples and even comparison footage samples. We've seen enough posts by "Radek" decrying the VariCam vs. HDV, whining about how HDV will look "better" because of the Varicam's subsampling. Well, now we can empirically prove that the VariCam kicks HDV into the weeds, and the numbers do not tell the story, the visuals do. Once there are adequate visuals out there to tell the HVX's story, then they will probably reveal the numbers. But they won't do so before then -- it'd be stupid and foolish on their part to do so, because a) obviously the number is lower than some of the competition, and b) because of that, people will leap to the wrong conclusion. Guaranteed.
Barry, No offence but now you sound like you are the only person who can handle this kind of info. I think there will be more people wo can judge it (and I am not one of them to be frankly).
please excuse me if I insist but I have marked the "error" to ADCOM and today they have changed the specs:
3x CCD da 1/3" IT (Interline Type), 1920x1080 50p Progressive
and
http://www.adcom.it/prod/13610_AG-HVX200E.html
i don't know if they're right or not but the biggest problem for me now is that for now they're only selling in bundle with P2 (AHHHH!!!) i hope Panasonic will offer to PAL people the possiblity to buy only the camera (and i stop me becase ulterior comments would be gross...)
bye
3x CCD da 1/3" IT (Interline Type), 1920x1080 50p Progressive
and
http://www.adcom.it/prod/13610_AG-HVX200E.html
i don't know if they're right or not but the biggest problem for me now is that for now they're only selling in bundle with P2 (AHHHH!!!) i hope Panasonic will offer to PAL people the possiblity to buy only the camera (and i stop me becase ulterior comments would be gross...)
bye
Barry_Green
Moderator
Of course they are. Which is why they need to be properly engineered for the whole chain, rather than arbitrarily designed to pander to those who would clamor "more = better".mezelf27 said:
Sure. Just like with HDCAM and 1080i HDV, which are 'only' 1440x1080. All HD recording formats stretch the image, except for 720p HDV. Which is, of course, only 1280x720, so it'd need even more stretching to fit a 1080 display.
No manufacturer has said that. Panasonic certainly didn't say that.
I have suggested that if the numbers don't meet people's pre-programmed "more = better" bias, then releasing the numbers would probably do more PR harm than good. And yes, I do believe that the vast majority of people who read it will think "more = better" without understanding the full situation. So that is my take on it, not Panasonic's!
Barry_Green
Moderator
Well, actually, I readily admit that I am one who could NOT make good use of that info. I am certainly not versed enough in CCD engineering and design to know how their choice of pixel count will affect the overall image and whether it was the "right" choice or not! And I doubt there are very many of us here who are. I mean, maybe an EE like KHMuse? Maybe?Cees Mutsaers said:
We're all curious. We all want the spec released. 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?