Native 1080p (DVCPRO HD)?

R

Robert_Niemann

Well-known member
At the Panasonic homepage you can read, that the camera will have a 1/3" 16:9 native progressive 3-CCD imager - does that mean, that the CCDs will have a resolution of 1280 x 1080 respectively 1.382.400 pixels each, at least?
 
I don't think anyone knows for sure yet. From the sounds of the most logical speculation I don't think they will be that dense.
 
!280x720 for 1080p or 960x720 for 720p. When you open up FCP's settings the DVCPRO HD codec defaults to either 960x720 or 1280 x 720. Given the price of the camera i wouldnt be surprised if its native 960x720 and uses pixel shift for the 1280x720. But who knows for sure, no one at Panasonic is really telling us the fine details.
 
960 x 720 isn't an uneducated gues; I'm guessing :-)

Seen the price point I never believed 1920x1080 or even 1440x1080...
 
Lower resolution + pixelshift progressive chips should make for a better image than higher resolution interlaced chips, and not sacrifice any real resolution. See my hdforindies post.

Graeme
 
Graeme_Nattress said:
Lower resolution + pixelshift progressive chips should make for a better image than higher resolution interlaced chips, and not sacrifice any real resolution. See my hdforindies post.

Graeme
Click to expand...

It's always a sacrifice for real resolution. It might be the best compromise, and the best results with too few pixels, but it simply can't beat a true resolution CCD...
 
mezelf27 said:
It's always a sacrifice for real resolution. It might be the best compromise, and the best results with too few pixels, but it simply can't beat a true resolution CCD...
Click to expand...

But if you make that "real" resolution by making your pixels too small, ie, by not moving up to a 23/3" or 1" ccd, then:

a) you get more noise
b) get lower dynamic range
c) get no more real resolution as the lens can't pass enough detail through,

so it's not "best" at all.

Real resolution needs big chips. If you don't have big chips, you're far better off using pixelshift done well. Pixelshift is not "non real" resolution. It's totally real, but you get better dynamic range and lower noise.

Graeme
 
I have a feeling they are going 960 by 720 and don't want to tell anyone because all the whining would start....

I can't believe 1280 by 720 wouldn't produce a better picture.
 
Why would 1280 x 720 produce a better picture? A better picture is more than resolution - it's rez, dynamic range, colour, contrast, noise etc. all together.

960x720 would, with pixelshift produce 1280x1080 which is all you need for DVCproHD 1080p with minimal (negligible) difference in resolution over a 1280x1080 chip, but would have better dynamic range and noise levels.

When Panasonic produce a resolution test chart from the camera you'll believe, as we all will, if everything goes as predicted.

Graeme
 
Does anyone yet know if the 50Hz DVCPROHD 1080i/p uses 1440x1080? There was talk of it? Could the PAL model be sooooo delayed because of a higher spec? There is more bandwidth available to the codec when shooting in 1080i/p after all.
 
Jan alluded to "not really any more resolution in the PAL version versus the NTSC version" in the Q&A session.

Cre8tive
 
Robert_Niemann said:
At the Panasonic homepage you can read, that the camera will have a 1/3" 16:9 native progressive 3-CCD imager - does that mean, that the CCDs will have a resolution of 1280 x 1080 respectively 1.382.400 pixels each, at least?
Click to expand...

16:9 naitive means that the CCDs are actually 16:9 shaped ...and not 4:3 and just using a 16:9 patch in the center to achieve a 16:9 image.

saying that a chipset is "naitive 16:9" has nothing to do with respective resolution or size of the chips.. it simply gives an aspect ration of width to height of the chips physical dimensions.
 
Everyone's so excited about shooting in 1080p with this camera. Yet the CCD is probably only going to have an effective resolution of 960x720. How, exactly, do we get 1920x1080 pixels out of 960x720 without a ton of uprezzing in-camera?

How is pixel shifting not suceptable to temporal differences?
 
960x720 is guesswork. Nobody can say that it will "probably" have any specific resolution, because that hasn't been commented on.

What we can say is that having more than 1280x1080 is pointless because the codec only records 1280x1080. In fact, there is just about no recording format that handles 1920x1080.

And pixel shift is completely immune to temporal differences -- interlacing causes temporal differences, pixel shift is a way of sampling the CCD to generate a higher-resolution image.
 
starway2001@mac.com said:
....the CCD is probably only going to have an effective resolution of 960x720.
Click to expand...

I suspect your are right about the physical size being 960x720. There are alot of articles about pixel shifting and how it interpolates a higher resolution. Google it and you'll find a lot.
 
Well yes, but pixel shifting is not new--DV cameras have been doing it for years (Canon especially). Which is why it's kind of ironic that Canon, for their new HDV camera, said that 1080p was not possible because a native chip would be $100k--did they not even try pixel-shifting a 720 chip to see how it would look? I suspect it had something to do with HDV not supporting 24p as well.

Frankly, whatever the HVX is natively, every single one of us is going to be selling our organs to buy one anyway.
 
rbilsbor said:
Frankly, whatever the HVX is natively, every single one of us is going to be selling our organs to buy one anyway.
Click to expand...

It's people like you that give this board a fanatical reputation!!! :grin:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top