is the HVX true 1080?

It really appalls me when Sony reps slam the Varicam and say that it is not real high definition because it only shoots 720p. The truth is according to the United States Department of Defense the interlace format called 1080i is NOT a high definition format and should be called 540i because that is what more truthfully reflects the resolving capability of this interlace format. Although the Federal Communications Commission does indeed recognize 1080i as a legitimate high definition format it is only legitamite for use in the private sector and fails to meet the more rigorous military requirements for HDTV.

That being said we are left with only 2 formats that meet government DOD requirements and that is the 1080p and the 720p format. The 720p format will be superior to to 1080p because it is capable of 60 frames per secound and can handle motion much better. The 1080p format can capture fine detail better than 720p but it cannot handle motion as well because it is limited to 30 frames per secound. Soon cameras capable of 1080p at 60 frames per secound will become more readily available.
 
yea you know its funny, the big broadcast guys all seem to concede that 720 60p is the "highest" definition format avialable. Mainly because it retains so much image information during motion.

To test this, Today, i shot a buncha stuff with my HVX, 720-60p, 1080i, and 1080-24p. And it was kind of true. I showed my Dad, he said the 720p stuff while slightly less sharp, "showed better when you move the camera" The 1080i looks a little smeary when moving, and the 1080p, while RAZOR sharp, strobes. Do i suppose, depending on the application, each has its place. I can see the military wanting 720-60p cameras, to study moving objects. Filmmakers wanting 108024p, because of the resolution, and i suppose....... Sony wants 1080i just to be difficult. ;) Joking joking.... its a good compromise, between Sharp static shots, and minimal strobing. though it does smear a bit.

All was shot in 1/60th shutter. so the motion blur was the same.
 
Well yes there is indeed. It may seem very rude of the Department of Defense to criticize the interlace 1080i format but the fact remains that in combat situations inferior 1080i video quality could cause errors in judgement and could very well risk the lives of soldiers amd innocent civillians.
 
1080i is not a compromise at all but rather a format that simply damages picture quality. For people that want the best fast action 720p shot at 60 frames per secound is the best format to shoot in. Contrary to popular opinion 720p is not extended definition but full high definition that outresolves 1080i. Filmakers who want the sharpest picture will choose 1080p at 24 frames per secound. The reason why Sony promotes the 1080i format does not have anything to do with picture quality but it is due to the fact that the 1080i format sells more cameras because consumers think they are getting full high definition. As soon as the 1080i format is renamed 540i sales of 1080i
cameras will drop overnight and everyone will buy a 720p or 1080p camera.

Proponents of 1080i point out the fact that the interlace scanning has been the legacy of television broadcasting for decades. The fact is that interlace scanning is not only a wash today but it was a wash 50 years ago and it never should have been invented. Had the NTSC originally chosen a progressive scanning format they would have had better picture quality even if they had to lower the resolution to fit the then available bandwidth. So all this stuff about that we have to wait for 1080p60 to make the switch to progressive is absolute nonsense.
 
harddrive said:
In a 3chip design they are optically in the same place (via the beam splitter) and hence each can't add extra resolution information relative to the other.
Click to expand...

Not to belabor the point but the fact is that the red and the blue chips in the HVX design are not in the same place. They are offset by half a pixel. It is a patented process by Matsushi*ta.

Best,

Jan
 
Last edited:
I tell you what - we oughta be able to say Matsushita around here without being censored! What kind of bullshit is this!!!! LOL!
 
Jan_Crittenden said:
Not to belabor the point but the fact is that the red and the blue chips in the HVX design are not in the same place. They are offset by half a pixel. It is a patented process by Matsushi*a.
Click to expand...
Jan - my understanding was that the RED and BLUE pixels were (optically) in the same place, whilst the GREEN pixels were offset from this by the half pixel shift.

If what you say is true, it begs the question of relative positioning of the green pixels. Are they then co-incident with the red or blue pixels? (Neither of which sounds like sensible design - whereas offsetting green from red/blue does.)
 
The red and Blue are offset from the green. The red and blue cover the same space which is over the registers (non-photo-sensitive areas) of the green. They are physically offset by half a pixel to the horizontal and the vertical.

Hope this helps,

Jan
 
Honestly, I work with a director who bought the V1U and trashes my HVX200 every chance he gets, talking about the 960x540 chip and how small the pixel count is and how it isn't "true" HD, but when it comes to talking to people like this about what cameras are doing, they don't listen. They're not going to listen. They don't want to hear it.

What counts, IMO, is the final image. It's about people going out and shooting and delivering a beautiful final image. The HVX, with its wide variety of shooting modes and abilities, is my camera of choice and the camera of choice for many others. The value of the camera is inherent to the people who've purchased it.

The best camera is the one that delivers the best images, and when folks out on the iditarod are packing an HVX, when someone on a cruise ship brings out his HVX, or someone in a helicopter or just a cameraman who happens to be in the right place at the right time, it isn't even the pixel count in the image, it's the content.
 
I get so tired of people talking out of their arses! I know several people who still say, "it's digital" so it's better. So is my cell phone camera but it sucks! :)

You'll never change their mind or their mouths. Just smile, be polite, and shoot better content then they can. :beer:
 
yea i always pull out my TREO-700 and show people that is has a 1.3 Megapixel imager on it. Then i tell them, its more complicated than you can understand, and show them the 1080P footage on my 60" Sony XRD HDTV.... you will never hear anothe word about hte HVX not being true 1080 again.
 
I create podcasts for a company that is requiring me to get a Sony EX1 because it shoots "true" 1920x1080. They say the HVX is "up-rezzed" So I know from this conversation and many others that my camera shoots 1080p, but it makes no difference when the people paying the bills think otherwise. I also know the limitations with the EX1's rolling shutter and compression scheme. But what do I do?

Tony
 
Perhaps they would prefer the 200A over the 200? The 200A has an improved CCD block with better res. Also, its system downconverts all signals from 1080/60p. (Not quite sure how they get 24p from 60p, but from what I've heard, it looks good...)

However, if that company was referring to the format instead of the imagers, then if I'm not mistaken, XDCAM EX and AVC-HD are the only codecs that encode true 1920x1080 priced under $15000. DVCPRO HD uses 1280x1080 and HDV uses 1440x1080. However, there's only one prosumer cam that supports AVC-HD, the HMC70, and it doesn't even touch the EX1 in terms of professionality. If the company was willing to wait, the HMC150 will be released in October, and that supports AVC-HD 1920x1080/24pn. Being Panasonic cams, both the aforementioned models use CCDs, not CMOS.
 
The notion that a podcaster is snooty about the HVX's resolution is a little too ironic to ignore. What's next... a "clean socks only" policy on a dirt bike racing team?
 
Hi,

I think that they are sadly mistaken about using the word up-rezzed, the picture coming off of the CCDs is analog and it is quntized at 1080. Frandly they are in for a little insult because the recompression from the MEPG2 long GOP to the Long GOP of H.264 or flash may not be as pretty as the recompression from an I frame only. For examples of how good the HVX can look, www.panasonic.com/nab, these were all shot in 720. Also take a look at the www.iditarod.com site, all of those were shot with DVCPRO HD as well.

Also take a look at this article about a podcasd being done with three HVXs. http://www.studiodaily.com/main/searchlist/9615.html

Hope this helps,

Jan
 
This screenshot is taken from a random shot off HVX200 raw DVCPRO HD 1080i/24pA. apple+shift+4 a little part of it... no i did not whip the camera

Yes, I'm aware everything is blurry and it's a horrible shot, but that's not the point. The point is, there are all these arguments about 1080i/24pA is actually 1080p for progressive, not interlaced, but why is this shot getting interlaced?

Picture1.png


Thanks,
 
weixiang623 said:
This screenshot is taken from a random shot off HVX200 raw DVCPRO HD 1080i/24pA. apple+shift+4 a little part of it... no i did not whip the camera

Yes, I'm aware everything is blurry and it's a horrible shot, but that's not the point. The point is, there are all these arguments about 1080i/24pA is actually 1080p for progressive, not interlaced, but why is this shot getting interlaced?

Picture1.png


Thanks,
Click to expand...

Did you extract the 24 Progressive frames? Looks like the frame you chose was one of the non-24P frames or the 2:3 pulldown. Try again with another frame out of the sequence. If they all look like this then the camera was not set up properly for progressive capture.

Best,

jan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top