Barry_Green
Moderator
I've been thinking about this for a while, so I decided to dig up the resolution charts and compare them...
A lot of people keep asking about a "native 16x9" version of the DVX, and when they'll get a chance to get one.
The question I ask is, "why do you want one?" Is it for higher resolution in 16x9 mode? Because...
... well, I digress. As we know, there are actually two recent prosumer models that claim to be "native 16x9", the XL2 and the FX1/Z1. The XL2 has 4x3 1/3" CCDs, but for 16x9 mode it uses a smaller 16x9-shaped patch of the 4x3 CCD. The FX1 has an actual 16x9-shaped CCD, but it's megapixel resolution which needs to be downsampled to make a standard-def picture.
How do they compare, resolution wise, when shooting a resolution chart in 16x9 mode? (standard-def, of course; there's no point in comparing them as high-def because obviously the FX1 would stomp, and standard-def is the means of distribution available to us today). And, while we're at it, how would a DVX in "squeeze mode" compare against these "native 16x9" cameras?
Take a look:
The FX1 uses a full-surface 1/3" 16:9 CCD, but because it needs to be resampled to get to DV resolution, and because it's interlaced (so suffering from field-blending, the Kell factor, etc., all of which lower vertical resolution), the XL2 thoroughly spanks it for standard-def imaging. In fact, the DVX100A, with its 4:3 chips and "squeeze mode", exhibits about the same resolution as the "native 16:9" of the FX1. (FX1 has 16x9 chips, which gain vertical resolution, but is interlaced, which lowers resolution. DVX is progressive, which gains resolution, but uses squeeze mode, which lowers resolution... net result is they're about the same in 16:9 performance, when considering an SD release, and shooting progressive on the DVX). For HD there's no question, but this comparison was to see what would produce the highest resolution on a standard-def image, such as would be distributed on broadcast or DVD release.
So even though the XL2 uses a subset of its 4:3 chip, the results are pretty darn sharp, the highest-res 16:9 of any prosumer camera. You can clearly make out the "4" and the "6" (which represent markings for 400 lines and 600 lines on the res chart) where the other cameras have only vague blobs. And the XL2 looks like it's resolving about 540 lines, the theoretical limit of DV resolution, whereas the FX1 in HDV (downsampled by firewire to DV) is down around 350, the FX1 in DV mode looks about 370, and the DVX in squeeze mode looks like it's about 340.
I guess the sidebar is: if you really want "native 16x9" resolution like the FX1 has, well... you've already got it! Use Squeeze mode. The DVX in Squeeze is competitive with just about any "native 16x9" prosumer camera out there (PDX10, FX1, etc)... and if you want the DVX to deliver the kind of resolution the XL2's demonstrating in those pictures, you can get about that by using the anamorphic adapter.
It's fun to argue numbers, but pictures speak a whole lot louder.
A lot of people keep asking about a "native 16x9" version of the DVX, and when they'll get a chance to get one.
The question I ask is, "why do you want one?" Is it for higher resolution in 16x9 mode? Because...
... well, I digress. As we know, there are actually two recent prosumer models that claim to be "native 16x9", the XL2 and the FX1/Z1. The XL2 has 4x3 1/3" CCDs, but for 16x9 mode it uses a smaller 16x9-shaped patch of the 4x3 CCD. The FX1 has an actual 16x9-shaped CCD, but it's megapixel resolution which needs to be downsampled to make a standard-def picture.
How do they compare, resolution wise, when shooting a resolution chart in 16x9 mode? (standard-def, of course; there's no point in comparing them as high-def because obviously the FX1 would stomp, and standard-def is the means of distribution available to us today). And, while we're at it, how would a DVX in "squeeze mode" compare against these "native 16x9" cameras?
Take a look:
The FX1 uses a full-surface 1/3" 16:9 CCD, but because it needs to be resampled to get to DV resolution, and because it's interlaced (so suffering from field-blending, the Kell factor, etc., all of which lower vertical resolution), the XL2 thoroughly spanks it for standard-def imaging. In fact, the DVX100A, with its 4:3 chips and "squeeze mode", exhibits about the same resolution as the "native 16:9" of the FX1. (FX1 has 16x9 chips, which gain vertical resolution, but is interlaced, which lowers resolution. DVX is progressive, which gains resolution, but uses squeeze mode, which lowers resolution... net result is they're about the same in 16:9 performance, when considering an SD release, and shooting progressive on the DVX). For HD there's no question, but this comparison was to see what would produce the highest resolution on a standard-def image, such as would be distributed on broadcast or DVD release.
So even though the XL2 uses a subset of its 4:3 chip, the results are pretty darn sharp, the highest-res 16:9 of any prosumer camera. You can clearly make out the "4" and the "6" (which represent markings for 400 lines and 600 lines on the res chart) where the other cameras have only vague blobs. And the XL2 looks like it's resolving about 540 lines, the theoretical limit of DV resolution, whereas the FX1 in HDV (downsampled by firewire to DV) is down around 350, the FX1 in DV mode looks about 370, and the DVX in squeeze mode looks like it's about 340.
I guess the sidebar is: if you really want "native 16x9" resolution like the FX1 has, well... you've already got it! Use Squeeze mode. The DVX in Squeeze is competitive with just about any "native 16x9" prosumer camera out there (PDX10, FX1, etc)... and if you want the DVX to deliver the kind of resolution the XL2's demonstrating in those pictures, you can get about that by using the anamorphic adapter.
It's fun to argue numbers, but pictures speak a whole lot louder.
