specs HVX

Cees Mutsaers

Cees Mutsaers

Veteran
Jan C.-L. do we get the specs before the cam is on the market or only when we unpack the cam and read the manual. I have the feeling that from now and untill the unit is on the market there will be no fundamental changes anymore.

So why does Panasonic not share the specs with us already now. We already know that the resolution of the ccd is lower (fortunately) than the competion so we will not be in a shock. Only freaks who love high pixel count will be disappointed but those people are not potential buyers anyway !!!!
 
Actually You do not know anything about the CCDs. The only thing you know is the picture that it is making. And that is the way it will be for a while. Not sure when or if it will be a published spec. Since it is is immaterial to the task, it is an analog device. If it were CMOS, it would be different, but since it is a CCD, then it doesn't matter. As long as the resolution and performance comes out of the camera, that is the most important part. Its like I said the other day, it isn't the pixel count that counts, its how you make the pixels count.

Best,

Jan
 
In my opinion Jan's statement gives us a hint, that the pixel count of the CCDs is not "very high". Maybe it is even less than at the JVC GY-HD100. My guess: 960 x 720 pixels. But of course Jan is right: It is the pictures, that matters. The people, who think, that you can get the Academie Award only by using the camera with the highest pixel amount, are wrong. And maybe CCDs with "only" 960 x 720 are also a good choice, because then the CCDs have not to be read out in a splitted way like at the HD100. So no risk of a split screen?
 
Robert_Niemann said:
In my opinion Jan's statement gives us a hint, that the pixel count of the CCDs is not "very high". Maybe it is even less than at the JVC GY-HD100. My guess: 960 x 720 pixels.
Click to expand...

Hi Robert, My answer does not give you any such thing. My answer is that too much weight is given to such stuff and the more people pester me about it the more stubborn I become about the need for education. If I said, then no education would be asked for, yeah I know that people are asking for specs and and not education, but as long as I continue to see posts that say "if it is not at least this spec, I am not buying it," then I will continue to be stubborn, as it is an analog signal.

And your numbers are incorrect. Sorry, ;-)

Best,

Jan
 
Jan, I would be very interested of hearing, how the engineers at Panasonic care about the possibility of colour aberration, dead pixels, smear and split screen regarding the HVX200.
 
Hi,

Color aberrations have been minimised as much as is possible. Dead pixels are a no no. and Smear, well you can make the camera smearbut that is because it is an Interline Transfer Chip set, but you have to give it the right conditions. Hey the Canon doesn't have a split screen and it has higher density than the JVC, so what does that mean. The HVX200 will not have a split screen either as I just think that that is not something that people are looking at when they are shooting and it sn't something that they should find in their footge when they get back to the edit suite.

Best,

jan
 
mmm said:
1280x1080?? :evil:

You already stated that it doesn't use 1280x720 or 960x720 CCDs...
Click to expand...

My guess is 16 pixels horizontal and 9 pixels vertical... The reason it can produce all those fabulous images Jan has been showing is MAGIC. :)

I certainly don't care what the CCD pixel count is. The pictures tell me everything I need to know.

Kevin
 
Oh, Jan, it is so good to know, that You and the Panasonic engineers just take care about everything. So the waiting for the HVX200 is getting much easier for me. About the missing split screen at the Canon XL H1: I think, it is missing, because the CCDs are read out in an interlaced way. So there have to been read out only 777.600 pixels at once (1440 x 540), and technically that does not seem to be a problem, while at the HD100 they are 921.600, and that seems to be too much for one time.
 
But from a "I am curious" technical point of view a lot of forum members still want to know the pixel count even more if the image it generates is great :-)))
 
Jan actually if you read the start of the thread carefully I even did not ask for the pixcel count. There is more to a spec than just the pixel count.
 
Cees Mutsaers said:
But from a "I am curious" technical point of view a lot of forum members still want to know the pixel count even more if the image it generates is great :-)))
Click to expand...

Exactly. :thumbsup:

Like I have said before, it won't affect my buying decision.
 
Robert_Niemann said:
About the missing split screen at the Canon XL H1: I think, it is missing, because the CCDs are read out . . . only 777.600 pixels at once (1440 x 540), and technically that does not seem to be a problem, while at the HD100 they are 921.600, and that seems to be too much for one time.
Click to expand...
Doesn't the HD10's CCD have nearly as many pixels as the HD100's? Has anyone checked it for the split-screen effect?
 
mmm said:
1280x1080?? :evil:

You already stated that it doesn't use 1280x720 or 960x720 CCDs...
Click to expand...
At the very most, Jan's statement could be interpreted to mean that the CCD isn't 960 x 720, but she didn't say it wasn't 1,280 x 720. The chip could have a high count or a lower count. It could have, like the JVC HD10's CCD, some oddball count. If it had, say, 976 x 728, of which only 960 x 720 were active, it would have an effective 960 x 760 count without being a 960 x 720 chip. Jan has also said that the chip would use spatial offset (a.k.a. pixel shift), but that too means very little. It could be extreme, or it could be very mild. Jan has stated more than once that some offset is necessary to eliminate the gaps between pixels. Jan, please correct me if I'm misquoting you here.
 
But Jan... what about the Joel Schumaker fans? You know - those people who shoot everything under red green and blue neon lights?! They'll be most worried about resolution loss due to chroma upsampling via pixel shift. And you know how much we all want more films like Joel's.

-Spiff
 
Jan, will you be at the Paris' show ? (Satis - 10/18 - 10/20)
The HVX200 must be exposed.

I find normal to know the technical specs even if the image quality is the most important.
 
Jan, as good and informative as she is, is still a Panasonic representative, and I believe that, based on my PR and marketing experience, she is not saying the numbers because frankly they are not impressive. If they where, it would've been in the brochure updates, the web press releases, magazines, etc. Just look at Canon, sony and jvc marketing. Probably the no release of the numbers has to do with the fact Panasonic doesn't want the camera to be compared in numbers to the HDV cameras, keeping the "superior and in a different league" image...

Just my two cents :) No hard feelings Jan. Really appreciate the support, care and interest you are giving to us costumers... And I'm waiting for the pal model just because of your excelent support!
 
Tzedekh said:
At the very most, Jan's statement could be interpreted to mean that the CCD isn't 960 x 720, but she didn't say it wasn't 1,280 x 720. The chip could have a high count or a lower count.
Click to expand...

She wrote that my guess of 1280x720 was wrong in this post

Yeah, I agree, it could be some oddball size, but I'm only talking effective pixels.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top