Pixel Count of CCDs for the last time maybe?

Jarheck said:
Thats interesting, and makes sense, just have never heard it before and the magazine article made it sound like it was something new and revolutionary.
Click to expand...
I think that the manufacturers have been hiding this fact, because they have justified the price of 3ccd cams with "so expensive ccd block". It is not so easy to justify the price if the block is expensive because it needs to be moving and it needs to be moving because that way the lens can be cheaper.

Am I right that canon XL's lenses do not have moving focus parts?
How about when there's EOS lenses attached to XL?
Does it focus with ccd then or rotates the lense's focusing part?
And JVC is the only that uses non shifting block in a cheaper cam?
 
For those who might be interested, Steve Mullen has a different view on the Native Resolution than I have:

http://www.gyhduser.com/showthread.php?t=341


While I believe that it's 960h x 720v, Steve feels that it's 960h x 540v. We are coming at this using different models, so it should come as no surprise that our results differ. Much of what we say, might seem like a lot of technical bla, bla, bla, :) but it does show that there is more than a few things to consider when trying to come up with an answer.


Now if anyone wants to shoot a resolution chart with and without a filter that only passes green light, we might have a better idea what the native resolution is... Just what an engineer needs, more data. :D


Bob Diaz
 
BobDiaz said:
While I believe that it's 960h x 720v, Steve feels that it's 960h x 540v.
Click to expand...

You originally suggested 960 x 540 in December. Luis Caffesse replied, "Hmm, 960x540? I suppose that means they could be using the same exact chips that are in the XL2" (here). Jan Crittenden in turn responded, "Unbelievable. It is not the Canon chipset! and the numbers suggested are not correct" (here). So, unless Jan's wrong, it's not 960 x 540, either.
 
My opinion is HVX uses cropped pal sensors. Good enough for 600x650 lines or slightly more (pal could be 770 instead of 720 horizontal etc like on the DVX). That's what I see in the charts.
 
Tzedekh said:
You originally suggested 960 x 540 in December. Luis Caffesse replied, "Hmm, 960x540? I suppose that means they could be using the same exact chips that are in the XL2" (here). Jan Crittenden in turn responded, "Unbelievable. It is not the Canon chipset! and the numbers suggested are not correct" (here). So, unless Jan's wrong, it's not 960 x 540, either.
Click to expand...


Steve and I have different views on what the Native Resoluation is; that's OK, because it's our best guesses. I may have a different view on the number, but I respect Steve's viewpoint and logic. In reading his postings, I can view the question from another perspective.

I also do NOT believe that Jan would lie to us about the specification when she says it is not ... This means that: (a) It is not exactly 960x720 (or 960x540) and is a bit higher by 2 to 20 pixels. The extra pixels are not recorded, but are used in the image processimg. _OR_ (b) Steve and I are WAY off the mark: I do think that 960h x 810v is possible too, but the lower number seems more likely and maybe we're both wrong and the number is 960h x 1080v. Whatever it is, the image still looks good.

Kodak makes (or made) a #58 filter that blocks most of the red and blue light, while allowing just the green light to pass. If the Native CCD is 960x540, I would expect the vertical resolution to drop to less than 500 lines. IF the Native resolution is 960x720 or higher, the vertical resolution would be above 500 lines. I have a 3" #58 square filter, but don't have a camera to run the test.



Bob Diaz
 
More about this HOT TOPIC is coming in 10days at

NORDAHL HDTV REPORT wrotes:

"...But what is the native pixel matrix of the Panasonic HVX200?

Although Panasonic has not publicly announced the native pixel matrix, we believe we know the spec. We will further discuss and analyze the native pixel matrix of the HVX200 in Part 3 of this series..."

http://www.coax.tv/Default.htm

Than we could know more about HVX200 from the "NEUTRAL" PROFESSIONAL!!!

Terribly sorry about Barry, Jan, Steve and Bob Diaz etc... but...that's exactly what WE NEED!!!

AN INDEPENDENT OPINION FROM THE HIGH END BROADCAST PROFESSIONAL!!!


SJUSER
----------------

http://www.sanjinjukic.com/index_m2_tests.html

http://www.sanjinjukic.com/index_panasonicHD_P2.html
 
Last edited:
sanjin said:
More about this HOT TOPIC is coming in 10days at

Terribly sorry about Barry, Jan, Steve and Bob Diaz etc... but...that's exactly what WE NEED!!!

AN INDEPENDENT OPINION FROM THE HIGH END BROADCAST PROFESSIONAL!!!
Click to expand...

Actually Sanjin, you may actually find out from us, the manufacturer.

Best,

Jan
 
Jan_Crittenden said:
Actually Sanjin, you may actually find out from us, the manufacturer.

Best,

Jan
Click to expand...

Jan, thanks for your answer, but I am still confused.

Tore B. Nordahl wrote:

"...Because the DVCPRO-HD progressive format limits the bandwidth to 960x720 from the full 1280x720 (see Part 1 of this Series), and because the HVX-200 does not have a HD-SDI output (only Canon does), it does not make sense for Panasonic to have full count 1280x720 CCDs as the recorded image quality on the P2 memory cards will be limited to the DVCPRO-HD progressive format’s reduced luminance bandwidth of 960x720 anyway!..."
More at
http://www.coax.tv/Default.htm

WHO IS WRIGHT AND WHO IS WRONG?

or

TO BE OR NOT TO BE?

Probably a right answer about that is coming soon from the third party?!


SJUSER
----------------

http://www.sanjinjukic.com/index_m2_tests.html

http://www.sanjinjukic.com/index_panasonicHD_P2.html
 
Last edited:
Jan_Crittenden said:
Actually Sanjin, you may actually find out from us, the manufacturer.
Click to expand...
Oh, Jan, you tease! It's good to hear from you, and I hope you are very much on the mend.

I agree that it may be time for Panasonic to disclose the CCD's pixel count and a more detailed description of how it achieves its image quality -- and then put the incessant speculation (I'm as guilty as the next guy) to rest.
 
Yes. All we have now is: No comment. It's not important. We won't tell you:) And engineering lessons (CCDs are analog etc).

If the resolution is small, Panasonic will have problems for not releasing this earlier. Before preorders and all that. They had something to hide and that never helped a company.

If the resolution is high, Panasonic will become laughing stock for their engineering, for getting so low resolution out of a high resolution progressive CCD. A product using the NTSC SD sensors of the previous model (DVX Andromeda) is close in resolution.

Lose-lose situation. If they had released the specs immediately, they would minimise losses. And they could explain the benefits (big pixels, sensitivity), justify the selection of the CCD and turn the low resolution issue into a competitive advantage.
 
Maybe somebody should tell Nordahl that hvx200 has also 1080 mode with 2 different resolutions recorded.
 
i swear i'll kill a HVX if you guys dont drop this subject.....

WHO CARES!

People arent gonna look at the CCD matrix Block and say, damn i like the way it renders color and wow its acting is good.

Sorry its just thats its been the same discussion for like 9 months.
 
Nordahls count

Nordahls count

According to Nordahls recent article in the Swedish magazine "Monitor" "N" claims the resolution to be 960x560 pixels on each of the three ccd´s. He also claims Panasonic released the spec upon time of release of the HVX. These are his words not mine.
I mean ccd´s are analog so it doesnt matter what pixelcount are.:)

In my opinion i think that as long as I get nice SD downconverted from 720p at various framerates, my wishes are fullfilled.

Johan
 
Here is my idea. Take a normal SD sensor of 720 x 480 and turn it 90 degrees. OK now you have 480 x 720. Then you pixel shift the 480 to 960 and you have, yes, 960 x 720. At least this way the vertical res is actually a real 720 and going by the charts that were posted earlier the HVX does have better vertical res than horizontal so that would make sense.

This way the old imagers could be used in a new way. Actually I think this is very clever if thats what was done.

This also gets you to the native res of DVCProHD of 960 x 720 very cleanly because only the horizonal has to be pixel shifted.


Cheers,
JS
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top