So now when specs and footage?

stephenvv said:
I'm not sure this amounts to much of anything since the Sony HDV are capable of the but many other issues (cited here) have a much bigger effect on image rez than CCD and codec specs. If you could feed the codec "pure resolution", maybe, but the Canon lens, CCD block, scanning method, 24f DSP and most importatly, the 4.1.1 HDV codec will be much bigger factor is what the recorded resolution measures.

The Sony HDV have resolved no where near 1080 lines on res charts tests I've seen.
Click to expand...

I know, I said this is assuming 24f=24p as Canon claim and that the lens is superior, which is just a guess, but given it is Canon and the $9k price tag, it should be.

Charts will show the facts, I am just idly speculating that the Canon will be slightly better just in (luma) res chart terms.
 
Canon = interlaced = eww = I'll wait for something better

(unless of course it is absolutely amazing even with interlacing)
 
Jan_Crittenden said:
Well when we figure out how to get it out of "engineering speak" we will tell you how we did it, probably before we tell you the numbers. From what I understand though it is pretty cool and the initial pictures I am seeing in 1080i look great. I can hardly wait to see the Progressive images.

Best,

Jan
Click to expand...

Even though I started this thread looking for specs, the discussion and comments from Jan are very interesting, in fact more interesting then specs...

I'm getting the vibe than Panny is doing extensive tweaking on the CCD and DSP processing to make this truly a Varicam Jr. What I mean is that they are attempting to tweak 1/3" chipset to maximum performance and get the best possible image out of 1/3" chipset current tech allows.

Very interesting stuff indeed.
 
mmm said:
Sorry, not quite.
Surely you can't beat Canon resolution wise though? I mean, due to the DVCPROHD codec isn't that impossible? I would guess you would have them pipped in latitude etc though.
Click to expand...

Don't know till the show is over. High density pixels can lead to artifacts that have to be filtered out later which can cause a loss of resolution. It is the pictures that count.

As far as the pixel map recorded, I go back to the whole compression idea, compression is a compromise and you use it to optimize as much as possible the data that is coming at it. In PAL the DVCPRO HD codec goes one way and in NTSC it goes another, when at the end of the day and you view it on a monitor, it's 1080 X 1920 or 720 X 1280. End of story.

Later,

Jan
 
mmm said:
Surely you can't beat Canon resolution wise though?
Click to expand...
I should patent this phrase: "It depends."

The codec may have more luma resolution (or may not, depending on how 50i DV100 is implemented). But there's a lot more to it than the codec! If the Canon uses "frame mode" or "CineFrame", then yes the HVX will beat the living daylights out of the Canon as far as resolution, regardless of the codec and regardless of how many pixels are on the chips -- the CineFrame or Frame Mode sampling will lead to lower-res pictures.

If the Canon somehow implements a mode that's every bit as high-res as progressive scan, then it's back in the game -- except for chroma, where the Panasonic will record nearly twice as much chroma resolution. Res is res -- and chroma resolution is res. So no matter how you sum it up, the Panasonic should have the higher-resolution picture (based on the codec).
 
FatBird19 said:
Canon = interlaced = eww = I'll wait for something better

(unless of course it is absolutely amazing even with interlacing)
Click to expand...

C'mon now ...

It does do 24fps (24F). It can be calles 24BS for all I care, as long as its motion rendering is the same as 24P and no resolution lose (that is what they are claiming). The Sony Cinealta uses interlaced chips to achieve its 24Psf ... no one complains about that and its not "true" 24 progressive ... and used in major motion pictures ...

People need to stop being pulled into these marketing terms. As long as 24F delivers the goods, its all good :)
 
the cine alta has progressive CCDs which also happen to be able to scan interlaced.. like the DVX. if the canon can produce a same quality-motion rendering..yada yada as a progressive image ccd from intelaced ccds ..as far as i know, it will be a first.
 
Hey guys, what's the most common HDTV image, 1080 X 1920 or 720 X 1280 or can HDTVs play it all like SD TVs but at lower res. What I mean is SD will show you a higher quality picture (because it's shoot in high res to begin with) but in the end you're still getting a high guality picture at low res. (Meaning you may shoot SD at 600 - 800 lines of resolution but your normal SD television will show it at 250 or 400). So if you shoot at 1080 X 1920 can a 720 X 1280 show your footage but at lower res, is that how it works? I want to shoot at 1080/24p and maybe I'm wrong but everyone seems to be talking about 720/24p. What's the story?

-Nate
 
The story is that it's a mixed bag right now. There aren't that many HDTVs out there (only maybe 10% of the country has any HDTV at all) and the vast majority of them are 720p-native. Almost all LCD and Plasma and DLP TV sets are 720p-native. So if you show 1080 video on them, they scale it to 1280x720.

On the other hand, while there aren't very many networks broadcasting HD yet, the majority of those that are are broadcasting 1080. So Fox, ABC, ESPN are all 720; NBC, CBS, PBS, Discovery, and InHD are all 1080. So at the moment there's more 1080 being broadcast, and it's being broadcast to people who are watching it on 720 sets...
 
One question about pixel shift... does it impact bluescreen/greenscreen photography in a negative fashion? Does anyone actually know?

Other than that I have absolutely no concerns. The Z1 I owned provided measurably higher horizontal resolution than the 960 pixels it had. It may or may not have provided 1440 rez, but certainly 1280 and that's enough "real" rez for the codec .

Regards,

Jim Arthurs
 
(First, a terminology disclaimer: "pixel shift" is not really used to describe the spatial offset system anymore, as it leads people to think that there's interpolation going on. There isn't. So while the technique of aligning CCDs at a 1/2-pixel offset used to be called "pixel shift", they're now moving to the more accurate description of "spatial offset". Means the same thing, but more accurately describes what's happening.)

Spatial offset does appear to impact the ultimate chroma resolution you can get from the system. Using spatial offset, you pick up luma resolution at the expense of ultimately-resolvable chroma resolution. A 1/2-pixel offset would mean that your ultimate chroma resolution is reduced by half. So whereas a native-res chip could deliver 4:4:4 color, a spatial-offset system should theoretically be limited to 4:2:2. Which, as a practical matter, is irrelevant since all the codecs used by these cameras capture at a maximum of 4:2:2 anyway.

So to answer your question: if you're recording on a 4:2:2 or 4:1:1 or 4:2:0 system, then no, spatial offset won't impact it at all. If you're recording on a 4:4:4 system, then yes, spatial offset could have an impact on the ability to get an ultimately clean key.

For the big cameras like the VariCam, which have HD-SDI output, the native pixel resolution makes sense, as it could generate and output 4:4:4 from its native-res chip. But for systems without HD-SDI, which are outputting a maximum of 4:2:2 anyway, spatial offset gives you a legitimate boost in resolution, sensitivity, SNR, and latitude, at essentially no cost (because the added chroma resolution won't be missed, since the codec will throw it away anyway).

With that said, there is a potential scenario where a spatial-offset system could deliver lower resolution, and that would be under single-color lighting. Light a scene with a pure red or pure blue or pure green light, and the spatial-offset system won't be able to discern the additional resolution. So in the case of the Sony, if you have mixed lighting conditions, you can get close to 1440 pixels out of its 960-pixel CCDs. Put it under solid red lighting and you'll get 960 pixels out of its 960-pixel CCDs. It can happen, but it's a fairly rare occurrence and in a business where every feature is a compromise, it seems like a pretty reasonable compromise.
 
"(only maybe 10% of the country has any HDTV at all) "

Let me add something to that. Maybe 10% of TVs are HD capable, but that does not mean they receive HD. Probably a third of that as far as I have read
 
Barry_Green said:
On the other hand, while there aren't very many networks broadcasting HD yet, the majority of those that are are broadcasting 1080. So Fox, ABC, ESPN are all 720; NBC, CBS, PBS, Discovery, and InHD are all 1080. So at the moment there's more 1080 being broadcast, and it's being broadcast to people who are watching it on 720 sets...
Click to expand...

This is good, so I don't have to worry about shooting in 720/24p versus 1080/24p. Great news.

-Nate
 
Some clarification. There is no such thing as you watching 1080p in your home. First off there is no 1080p transmission format and not a single source of HD broadcast is. I don't care what the marketing people tell you. They are trying to push the term 1080p because the profit margins on 720p sets are getting slimmer as prices drop. If there was 1080p broadcasts the 540p that the sets convert to would look might soft and you'd wonder why you spent thousands on a set that looks worse than a 20 year old tube. You ain't really getting what the specs say you should but that doesn't matter because no one is really broadcasting anything that 'high' anyway unless you have an aerial. Thankfully these sets offer high contrast ratios which convinces (trick your brian) into thinking its really as high as the specs say it is. But that "super high 1080/30 picture you are watching is really 540p.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top