The HVX at GV Expo

I assume the 750x700 is a 'live' output test of resolution? if not is this 720p mode or 1080p mode?

question: If 720p DVCPROHD encodes at 920x720 - would there be any point at all at shooting 1080p? if the the chips/lens can only resolve 750x700 would it be just wasted encoding space?

edit : I just searched on this forum and found that the resolution chart of the DVX100 was 500 horizontal lines. Am I expecting too much to think that 500 to 700 isnt exactly a huge leap? All the talk originally was that HD was going to be 3x more resolution than DV. I'm sure I'll wait to see the footage before I make up my mind, but it doesnt seem that significant to me.

And on the subject, what resolution are they really getting out of the Andromeda mod? would this actually be higher effective res than the HVX?
 
true, but i expected more from a 1080p camera. It would seem shooting in 1080p over 720p would offer no advantage (except 30 lines)
 
yeah... it looks more and more that 1080p won't be much more than an uprezed 720p but I am reserving judgement until i see real footage
 
In fact I am mistaken... it woul be 500X500X1,333= 333250

and 700X750X1,7777=933329

then yes... the HVX200 would give 3 times as much resolution than the dvx100
 
Rodrigo said:
In fact I am mistaken... it woul be 500X500X1,333= 333250

and 700X750X1,7777=933329
Click to expand...


well I could only find that the DVX100 was 500 horizontal - i dont know what it is vertical I would guess it would be more than 500.

I have done a search but I cant find what the specs are for DVCPRO50 - what luma grid does this record? I wonder whether projected DVCPRO50 with it's lower compression would look almost as good as 720p?

By the way I didnt entirely understand your calculations, is the 1,3 and 1,7 the pixel aspect ratio? If so, surely this cant be taken into account as this isnt actual recorded pixel information rather the resulted stretched out image? I mean I could take a 400x400 image of 1:1 pixel aspect ratio and stretch it out and display it as800x400, but that doesnt mean it has twice the vertical res, it just means the pixels are now shown wider.
 
The image out of the HDX400 was completely stunning...just beautiful. Real life didn't quite hold up to the HDX image :). Since the HVX is having it's official introduction at DVExpo next week, they didn't have one hooked up in the booth for comparison like every other camera, but if they have a similar setup with all the cams in a row (DVX100b to Varicam) all shooting the same set and output to hi-res monitors, it should be easy to tell where the HVX falls quality-wise.

Luis Caffesse said:
$32,000 1080i (no progressive, no variable frame rates)
Not sure about you, but it's a bit out of my budget class.

Check it out
Click to expand...
 
Thanks for the report, Barry!

Were you shooting in 1080 or 720? Or is a resolution chart definitive regardless of camera mode?

Also, how were the highlights handled? Did you notice an increase in dynamic range? For me, that's almost more important than higher resolution.
 
Does the camera show actual focus distance instead of a scale from 1-100 - if so is it precise enough to pull out a tape measure and then set the focus distance and be assured it is correct?
 
The resolution figures were quoted from Jan, not from my extremely
limited time playing with the camera. I wouldn't put too much emphasis
on a non-comparative test on a crude resolution chart. I think it gives
some *very* general idea. A comprehensive set of MTF curves at every aperture would only begin to detail the *still* resolution performance. And that doesn't even address what I'll call "motion fidelity". Someone clever needs to come up with a quantitative measure of kinetic resolution that directly relates to perceived motion quality. Then we could at least have a reasonable tool to compare codecs.

I can't really say anything illuminating about the dynamic range or image quality considering the conditions of the demonstration. I don't recall if the finder readout was displaying actual distance, but unless there are backfocus issues, I'd sure be using the focus assist.
 
Sumfun said:
Looks like the resolution may not be all that we were hoping for, at least in the horizontal direction.
Click to expand...

I believe that the horizontal number is line PAIRS, meaning that the resolution is very good indeed, and probably from the camera "live". Some folks may be thinking that the 700 by 750 number is actual pixel resolution, which of course would be bloody awful. Somewhere on this site is a recent thread with lengthy discussion of this.

Also I reported in a different thread here a quote from Jan from the Creative Cow site stating, "If we take the picture of the Z1 and put it up against the HVX, we find that the two cameras are very comparable in resolution on a resolution chart." No one commented on this quote, which struck me as odd. This was REAL news direct from the source. I guess endless speculation of theoretical pixel resolution is more fascinating than discussion of new real information regarding said resolution. :)

Anyway as I said earlier this is significant because it means the HVX with a upper limit of 1280 recorded raster is matching the TRUE performance of a camera claiming to actually capture 1440 raster. This speaks the lens/chip/alignment combo of the HVX as being more efficient than the Z1.

Regards,

Jim Arthurs
 
the dark skinned lady in your second photo, i know her, she is a producer at the local gov't tv station. i'm jealous she got to play with the hvx and i didn't.
 
Jim Arthurs said:
Also I reported in a different thread here a quote from Jan from the Creative Cow site stating, "If we take the picture of the Z1 and put it up against the HVX, we find that the two cameras are very comparable in resolution on a resolution chart." No one commented on this quote, which struck me as odd.
Click to expand...


Well, a 1080i signal is nowhere near the qulaity of a 1080p signal. So this comment to me was not a sign of good news. I would have expected the panasonic 1080p mode so significantly outperfom this.

The HVX should have many advantages over the Z1.... it's meant to have a better lens and more advanced CCD's, 1080p v i; its now appearing that the HVX will have slightly less resolution than the Z1 - which just baffles me.

As always we need to see some footage to tell as specs just drive me mad. And I would rather trade lattitude over resolution anyway - but still expected it to outperfom the z1 res wise, and maybe even match the canon.
 
A resolution chart shot in interlace mode should still retain full resolution because there's no motion so progressive scan shouldn't really matter, except that progressive magically has more resolution, but I think that's more an SD thing and has to do with the "thin" and "thick" settings for flicker and whatnot, which aren't issues so much with HD. I'm assuming the comparison is interlace versus interlace then, in which case this would be pretty impressive and all that we can really expect.

Plus, this is 16:9. In squeeze mode, the dvx has far less resolution than in 4:3, even. I'm impressed, thought not overwhelmingly, by these claims.
 
Jim Arthurs said:
I believe that the horizontal number is line PAIRS, meaning that the resolution is very good indeed, and probably from the camera "live". Some folks may be thinking that the 700 by 750 number is actual pixel resolution, which of course would be bloody awful. Somewhere on this site is a recent thread with lengthy discussion of this.
Click to expand...


Unfortunately this is not quite correct. While with photography, resolution is given as "lp" (=vertical pairs of lines with a white line being followed by a black line being followed by a white line, and so forth), video resolution is given by a certain number of lines. To make matters a little bit more complicated, vertical resolution is defined by a certain number of lines that is fixed for each and every video format (NTSC SD 480, PAL SD 576, HD 720 and HD 1080). Horizontal resolution is not measured over the full width of the picture but over a central section only that is as wide a the picture is high or a square if that makes more sense to you. In HD this is a picture with a 9x9 ratio and in SD with a 3x3 ratio.

On the other hand, you are quite right, pixel resolution must not be mixed up with the above mentioned visual resolution. And, horizontal resolution is far less important for sharpness perception then vertical resolution.

Hope this helps, Pe.
 
What??? Are you people retarded??? ;)


It's only slightly lower than the $100K CineAlta F900. Yeah yeah yeah, it's all relative, I know, but sheeeeit, you people being "dissapointed" with these specs is absolutely absurd.

Those specs listed are higher than the Z1, and the Z1 is pretty damned sharp. Add-in all the other advantages the HVX200 has over the Z1 (color, compression, etc...) and you should have a fantastic looking image.

The HVX200 is going to kick some serious ass! You can quote me on that. I'm quite certain that those who are 'disappointed' with this un-official res-chart info will be very happy when they see the actual images this camera acquires.

Don't get hung up on numbers; the actual image is the main thing - numbers can vary dramtically from one test to the next and aren't entirely representative of the captured image.
 
I 2nd what Harlan says with a double sheeeeit!!
Coming from 3/4" to Beta than BetaSP and finally to
the DVX100 you gotta know that most specs don't
mean crap - I mean sheeeeittt. Look at the specs on
JVC or other camera manufacturers. If you bought a
camera on specs alone then you are missing the point.
It's the image man!! If the HVX200 can deliver a look as
good as or better than the DVX than I am in!! Having native
16:9 and be able to shoot DVCPRO 50 would have been great,
but being able to shoot DVCPRO HD for the price we are talking??
Lets see what come out of DV Expo. Sheeeeitt I can't wait!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top