Increased latitude of HVX?

J

JeanD

Member
Hi everyone,

I was wondering if anyone has an idea of whether the HVX, with its 4:2:2 sampling versus the DVX with its 4:1:1 sampling will have -- at least in theory -- increased latitude, i.e. an increased range between the darkest and lightest parts of a scene.

Thanks

JD
 
I would think that it will be more capable then the DVX - just look at the Sony Z1 - it does a lot better than the PD170.
 
But, while the Z1 has a higher resolution, it has less color space than the 170. It's not a good example. A better example is to look at BetaCam footage vs. DV.
 
he is talking about stop latitude - at f/8, you can discern items in the frame at f/2.8 and bright white appears at f/16 - more latitude = we would be able to discern information from f/2 to f/22. Latitude is range + & - your targeted f-stop. The HVX, with newly redesigned CCD's ought to be better than the DVX - a 3 year old cam.
 
...it should gain from the new CCDs. but it also loses from packing enough pixels for HD into a 1/3" chip .. so well have to see how it does when it comes out.. id assume it wil be at least as good or a little better than the DVX in the lattitude dept. though.
 
Jan has publicly stated that they're going for the best combination of latitude, sensitivity, noise, color reproduction, and resolution that they can possibly get. All of those elements are important to them.
 
I would think until they have working hardware that they really wouldn't know what the latitude or low light would be, I mean they could probably guess, but it seems like that will need to wait for a working model.
 
They won't know what the actual performance is, no... but they know what their targets are, and what goals they're going to design for.
 
"best combination" in company speak usually means "compromise". However this is Panasonic, so its not going to be a slouch performer.
 
headroom / low LUX

headroom / low LUX

My betting is that because of the much smaller pixel size, both will be worse than the DVX.
 
Simon Wyndham said:
"best combination" in company speak usually means "compromise". However this is Panasonic, so its not going to be a slouch performer.
Click to expand...

Not to imply I know anything about product design, but in engineering, everything is compromise.
 
iamloser said:
...it should gain from the new CCDs. but it also loses from packing enough pixels for HD into a 1/3" chip...
Click to expand...
Although in theory it is true that, all other things being equal, increasing pixel density decreases light sensitivity, rarely are all other things equal. Between two different CCDs that otherwise have the same size and pixel count, a number of factors may differ (each of which may affect sensitivity and/or dynamic range), including signal processing logic, pixel array design (type and positioning of the photodetector within the pixel) and manufacture (material used), light-sensitivity variability within a pixel array, and the quality of the A/D converter.

This is not to say that I'm certain that Panasonic is using some revolutionary, new CCD design. It's a verbose way of saying that we don't know what they've got. I will add that a 1/2", 1,920 x 1,080 CCD could have about the same pixel size/density as a 1/3", 1,280 x 720 CCD.
 
My betting is that because of the much smaller pixel size, both will be worse than the DVX.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't brushoff the company's expertise in DSP and tweaking characteristic curves.
Whatever the final product is, WILL be the best of all worlds. That is for certain.
 
Dynamic range (latitude) and light sensitivity are different things if you already didn't know.
The question in my mind should be: Does the SDX900 have better latitude than VariCam?
 
not only do we have a higher pixel count on the same CCD Size, but the CCDs are 16/9 which means they are wider but shorter. The vertical size is smaller than that of a 4:3 1/3 inch CCD. Vertically, it is more like a 1/4 inch CCD. On the FX1/Z1, I see a problem with that. I can only hope that the HDV will solve the problems, but it would mean that they have solved the CCD limitations due to size.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top