New HVX Test - 750 lines!

ullanta

ullanta

Veteran
Hey guys, this has already sorta been mentioned in some thread, but I thought it deserved a bit of it's own thread to add to the confusion and hullabaloo.

In a 4 camera test performed today, it seems, the HVX was clocked at 750 lines of horizontal resolution, better than HD100 (725) and closer to the XL-H1 (800).

You can read all about it here: http://www.cinemek.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=339

I don't claim this answers anything. It just casts us into more of a wonderland of doubt.

This world is illusion.

-Barry
 
Ullanta,

the world is not illusion, but it is a bit illusory to test the resolution of digital videocameras with the trumpets of a res chart. It worked with old TV cameras but hey......

Piero
 
We need more info about that. Not just a nick behind an important info like that! No more rumors, please! A $10,000 purchase is not a toy purchase and there is some jobs, lifes, etc. that need for the right decision on the table. And if there is good info around here, there is also many different sources -- reliable and non-reliable ones (period)

That's why I ask for more info regarding any test or announcement. We need it! This is not a game nor even a childish one.

Nevertheless, thx anyway for the info and good will!
 
Didn't BarryG say at one point that the resolution of one of the pre-release HVXs seemed to be about 650, or am I just on crak?
 
Something like that...so, plus 15%?!...that's why I'm asking for reliability regarding any test announcement...for Christ's sake!
 
I have seen easily 630 out of it by anyone's interpretation, and if you are very generous (and squint just right) you could make a case for 720 to 750. So is Justin squinting, or calling it off at the first sign of blur? It all depends on what standard they were using to measure by. It also depends on the chart used -- Adam said that his old 1972 chart is much more generous to the products than the DSC charts we were using; he would routinely get 10% higher ratings (or more) when using his chart -- so what chart did they use?

Adam cuts off his res numbers at the first sign of aliasing -- which is fine, but it seems quite conservative to me because there's still a lot of resolved detail deeper into the numbers. Maybe not 100% cleanly resolved, but still detail (hence delving into the notion of MTF). Some people will call the number at the point where it turns into complete mush -- so as long as they can discern any black/white discrepancy at all, they count that as valid; by that standard you'll get numbers a hundred or maybe two hundred lines higher than what Adam would rate it at. So the interpretation is the thing; what counts is that one applies the exact same interpretation to the various units. You can't take Adam's interpretation of the Z1 and then compare that against Justin's interpretation of the HVX -- they may rate the charts very differently, rendering a comparison useless.

The only way to do it is to have one guy apply equal criteria to the same chart shot by the different cameras.
 
Thanks Barry for the enlightenment with criteria as usual as all info that comes from you! So, do you have any info regarding that noticed test? This Justin is the same Justyn dvxuser.com member?
 
The world is illusion, Piero, Poke it and see!

Yes to all. Agreement with all. More info, yes! Less rumors, yes! But if everyone's reeling to port from six-way-shootout 1, I don't see any harm in keeping 'em from going overboard with a gust towards starboard from four-way-shootout 2.

What interests me is that the consensus of that underspecified test with unnamed representatives of four companies was that HVX resolution edged out HD100 resolution in a side-by-side comparison. Now we're back to where we should be - not making snap judgements - we know better that we don't know anything, especially from chart-testing....

So hold tight, maties! We may yet see the shore. Arrrr!
 
ullanta,

a bit off topic,
the world was represented as an illusion by Metaphysics, but it was discarded at the end of the 19th century both by scientists and Phylosophers.....
Ok, excuse me for that ;-)

Piero
 
Ah, Piero, discarded?

Metaphysics is a field alive and well. Approaches to metaphysics are numerous. Real scientists know better than ever about the illusory nature of the world. The world was recognized as illusion long before western philosophy blossomed, and will be seen so for as long as illusion persists. Really wanna discuss it? I'll meet you in the Cafe...

However, regardless of your general approach to metaphysics, you must know that DVXUser is an illusion, and we are all in your head (or at least your computer)?
 
I think it is pretty clear to say we can dismiss this post over at cinemek as a load of crap. The "new member" doesn't tell us anything we don't want to hear.

Where were these tests carried out? Who did the tests? Under what conditions?

I just don't belive a word of it, and he/she has come undone by slagging off the Sony, when the recent testing done by Barry and Adam Wilt scored the Sony highly with the rest (the resolution pics don't lie)

A garbage post IMO.

I will wait for further, more informed tests under proper guidelines and varying conditions with experienced trusted posters before believing this. The post sounds like a frustrated HVX fan who is disappointed with the inital findings by Adam Wilt that are posted at DV.com.

Let's just wait and see.
 
Steve Shovlar said:
I will wait for further, more informed tests under proper guidelines and varying conditions with experienced trusted posters before believing this. The post sounds like a frustrated HVX fan who is disappointed with the inital findings by Adam Wilt that are posted at DV.com.
Click to expand...

Oh, don't tell me you've never heard of "New Member". Don't you think he sounds experienced?
 
For grins, I shot a 1956 chart with my HVX, as Juan Pertierr had requested.
http://www.fiftv.com/HVX200/1956-1080p.jpg

It's got some odd scaling in it that I wonder if it's related to RayLight; I'm going to try importing it on the FCP system when I have a chance. So I don't know that I would look at the horizontal res figures (which look like with some squinting you'd get 575 out of) but the vertical would be unaffected (since there's no subsampling going on on the vertical) so the vertical should be worth looking at. And the vertical looks like well over 600, and with a strong tailwind and a liberal dose of malt whiskey you could make a case for 700, maybe 730 if someone was really, really pushing it. I myself would probably call it around 670.

This is for informational/fun purposes only. This is a home printout at 1200DPI of an EIA1956.pdf test chart downloaded from John Beale's site, so it is in no way in competition with the $4,000 Ambi Combi-2. But, it could help explain "New Member" seeing 750, because an argument could be made (and it would be quite an argument) that there's four lines of detail discernible at 730 on this chart. If this is what they were using, well... maybe. Plus discrepancies in framing, etc can contribute to different readings.

So, enjoy, mock, revel in, or whatever your preference is. Here's just another data point to consider, for what it's worth.


1956-Chart-Extraction-1.jpg
 
Actually, Barry, if I photoshop that image just right, it's perfectly clear that there are very close to 800 lines of resolution:

Chart.jpg


And you can see that it has a lot of purty 4:2:2 color, now, too!
 
Ullanta,

your Photoshop experiment is illuminating!
And I think that what you call the purty 4:2:2 color is part of the equation!

On another side, I'm actually a professional scientist with a little bit of education in Phylosophy, but actually my cafè is too far from yours

Piero
 
halo

halo

evinsky brought up an interesting point on another thread. Slap me if this sounds off, but we all know the dvx/hvx have very different handling of highlights than other cameras. As the whites approach 100% (or perhaps only when they hit 100-- i dont know?) they halo into the surrounding colors, am I right? If not slap me. So could these different readings, as evinsky thought, be related to exposure and this haloing of the whites at different exposures?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top