HVX Res Charts in every format

Luis Caffesse

Luis Caffesse

Admin
Thanks to Mike Curtis at HDforIndies
I was able to do some shooting with the HVX a while back.
One of the things we did was shoot a res chart in every format the camera had to offer.

I've pulled stills from each clip and put them up on my site - though I'm not sure how long my bandwidth will last. Mike has asked Chris to host these over at DVinfo - if that happens I'll let you know here.

The charts probably shouldn't be used to compare with other charts from other cameras - the only way I think you can do a real cam to cam comparison is to have the same person shoot the same chart at the same location with the same settings, etc. But, I found these charts great to compare each format against the others from the HVX.

The settings were as follows (unless noted otherwise by the file name):


FStop: 4.0

Zoom: Z74

Gain: ZERO

Detail: ZERO

Gamma:
HDNorm (for HD shots)
SDNorm (for SD shots)

All other settings were at factory defaults.

{EDITED TO REMOVE LINK - SEE BELOW}

The files are in TIFF format
I also uploaded a zip file that contains all the TIFFs so you can just download that if you want to see all of them.
 
Yes.
That's one of the reasons I said it shouldn't be used as a rigid test, but a gauge to view the formats in relation to one another.
I wouldn't pull any numbers from this.

By the time we got around to shooting charts we were running out of time with the camera.
I didn't notice the framing until we were through about half of the formats...and didn't really have the time to go back and start over. I felt at that point it woudl be best to leave things as they were, and at least have a relative guide of each format against the others that the HVX offers. While you can't pull objective numbers from it to compare to other cams, I think you can still use these images to compare 1080P to 720P for example (which I found interesting).

I would wait until Barry's side by side test to see any objective readings that we can compare against other cams.
So again, take this for what it is.
 
I see.

Yet, for some reason I have a feeling there's going to be a hefty amount of people pointing at the resolution numbers from these incorrectly shot charts.
 
Fair enough - I'll pull them

EDITED TO ADD:

They're gone.
I don't want to be held responsible for misinformation, or seen as a biased source of information.
 
anyway, I see there's a clear increase in horizontal resolution between the 720 and the 1080 formats
 
Ok, here's what I've done... It is far from being accurate but I have redimensioned the pic to the area it should have covered and resized it back to 1920*1080... the results continue to be much better than kaku's test:

deleted according to Luis' petition
 
Rodrigo - as I said above, I woudln't pull any number from these charts.
I had hoped people could view them for what they were.
Please don't try to take any objective data away from them.
 
Luis, thanks for taking the files down.

Rodrigo:

Because of the way the charts were shot, the entire chart was not contained in the frame. This yields a better reading than what the camera really resolves, regardless of how much you resize the image in post.

For example, you can take your DVX(or any other camera), and zoom in to a EIA chart such that it resolves the 800V line section, but that doesn't mean it does resolve 800 TVL.
 
You're right,

There is cropping...

BUT

It clearly shows that these grabs "LOOK" A LOT SHARPER, than Kaku's ones...no matter if the're cropped or not.
 
Antoine_Fabi said:
You're right,

There is cropping...

BUT

It clearly shows that these grabs "LOOK" A LOT SHARPER, than Kaku's ones...no matter if the're cropped or not.
Click to expand...

Antoine - that's the whole point - they may LOOK sharper ONLY because of the cropping.
As I said - not a rigid test, but I suppose people are too excited for numbers.
I had hoped others would find these usefull as I did in comparing the different formats to eachother, but I guess we're all too number hungry.

It's my own fault I suppose - probably shouldn't have posted them.
 
pertierr, the cropping and resizing CAN really show a good approximation of what the camera resolves... I have modified the canvas to the equivalent 16:9 area that SHOULD have been shot and afterwards have resized the image to 1920*1080 thus throwing away the correct percentage of information that the camera acquired by cropping...

Anyway, at first glance it is pretty obvious that it IS much sharper than Kaku's stuff (no pun intended, Kaku)
 
Luis,

again...i'm not looking at numbers...i clearly see a much cleaner image no matter the rez...
It was IN focus, with good aperture, and it showed clearly.
 
Okay, maybe these charts were'nt shot "correctly" and maybe somebody needs a sandwich and a glass of milk. I don't know about you, but I'm starting to get a warm fuzzy feeling inside.
 
Yeah I think it looks sharper(without looking at resolution numbers) than Kaku's charts, which makes me even more curious to see some more actual well-framed rez charts. I also thought the results from Kaku's charts where way too low, in both axes.
 
We should get accurate numbers after Barry's test.

The only thing I think you can take away from the charts I have is that 1080 was obviously sharper than 720, as one would hope. I was kind of suprised as to how much sharper it seemed.

But I don't think it's fair to compare these charts to Kaku's charts.
Again, different cameras, locations, framing, settings, etc....
Let's wait for the side by side before drawing any conclusions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top