The HVX at GV Expo

yeah, i cant believe these specs...i mean...what a let down. i was really hoping this cam would perform..and it doesnt seem like it will...so lame..shame on you panasonic...people who preorderd should call emidiatly and tell them to take their name off the list.

(im like 130ish in line at EVS for a preoreder, maybe with enough bashing of this cam i can get people to give up on it, bail out, so's i can get my cam sooner...see where im going with this?...im fricken kidding so chill...:) )
 
harlan said:
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.
Click to expand...
:thumbup:
 
well like I said I'll hold off judgement until I see the actual image. I think I speak for most people who are trying to understand what's going on technically simply because we have no image to look at yet - its all we can go on; but should only be taken as a guide right now.

by the way Harlan, as far as I know the Z1 rates at 800x800 on a res chart (somehwere else I read 1200x800 or something) so the HVX certinaly doesnt seem to outperform this on paper....

However a real world res of 750x700 would seem to suggest that the 1080p mode is redundant - or is there some technical garb thats going totally over my head? If the 720p mode records all this info anyway, why would you need anything higher.
 
Rodrigo said:
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
Click to expand...
[¡Hola Rodrigo!] I think you aren't!...
Darkline said:
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.
Click to expand...
...but is there any (REAL) techie member in order to confirm both quotes?
Darkline said:
By the way I didnt entirely understand your calculations, is the 1,3 and 1,7 the pixel aspect ratio?
Click to expand...
4:3 and 16:9 native CCD, DVX and HVX, respectively.
 
Emanuel, my point was that as far as i know a CCD has rows and lines of pixels; complicating things by inserting aspect ratios of the CCDS doesnt change the amount of pixels it has. A 500x500 image from a 16:9 chipset will just have a different aspect ratio to the 500x500 image from a 4:3 camera, but they will have the same resolution. It doesnt mean it has more pixel count simply because its 16:9 - its the same pixel information just displayed differently.

Anyway, I could be wrong - but this is why I said I did not understand the calculations. surely a 700x700 image is 490000 effective pixel count regardless of whether its a 16:9 or a 4:3 ccd.
 
Darkline said:
A 500x500 image from a 16:9 chipset will just have a different aspect ratio to the 500x500 image from a 4:3 camera, but they will have the same resolution. It doesnt mean it has more pixel count simply because its 16:9 - its the same pixel information just displayed differently.

Anyway, I could be wrong - but this is why I said I did not understand the calculations. surely a 700x700 image is 490000 effective pixel count regardless of whether its a 16:9 or a 4:3 ccd.
Click to expand...
Thanks for your answer, so if there is anyone that would like to share his/her POV or simply info with all the community concerning this interesting point, we appreciate it...

Thanks in advance!
 
Sumfun said:
Thanks for the post Barry. And I think that's the first picture of Jan that I've seen too. Is that her in the first picture? Nice lenses! (just kidding) :thumbsup:

Looks like the resolution may not be all that we were hoping for, at least in the horizontal direction. Well, I guess her slide did say that they wanted a balance of resolution, low light and dynamic range. Can't wait to see what that balance looks like on the big screen.
Click to expand...


Have you seen a chart from any of the other HDV cameras? The resolution stated on this camera has all of them beat that we have measured and frankly that is all that are currently shipping.

Best,

Jan
 
Thanks Jan.
I was actually hoping some would cancel their pre-order panicking over this :)
I guess I'm going to stay 73 or so in the list.
This camera is sounding better and better!
Steve
 
I for one am not impressed!

Well with my picture from the show. Geesh, someone could have told me to brush my hair. I feel like I have been punked, but I didn't get to hang out with Ashton.

The camera was great. I do wish that there was a way to control how big and where on screen the focus assist box is, as well as being able to have the focus assist box on ONLY for an external monitor. that way the camera guy could aim and the guy behind him with the remote focus box could watch the monitor and focus.

Also the lack of a quality 6 pin firewire is such a shame. I hope Panny doesn't charge too much for fixing a broken 4 pin port.

The picture looks real good. But I think all of you waiting on EVS should cancel your orders, not that I would want to butt ahead in line or anything silly like that.

Oh Jan mentioned something about an anouncement at DV expo.. hmm I wonder what that could be?????

Jan also mentioned that Auto focus will work in Progressive mode, which could come in handy.

Oh Jan, i was thinking, it would make a lot of sense to make the software on the Camera Flashable! That way Panny could make tweaks and add features, and the thing already has all the USB/Firewire connectors to do it. I really hope thats how the camera will be made.

Ben
 
Policar said:
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.
Click to expand...
HD suffers from the same flicker issue as SD, which is why 1080i doesn't look any better than 720p on comparable material. 1080p is definitely sharper than 1080i. However, ultimate image sharpness is dependent on the laws of physics and how much real-world resolution is getting passed down the line to the encoder.
 
700x750 or whatever was observed has little to do with actual pixel resolution. I just know someone's now going to say "what good is that -- DV stores 720x480, so it's *more* resolution on the horizontal!" Sigh.

Wait to see what it actually looks like, especially compared to the others.
 
Barry_Green said:
700x750 or whatever was observed has little to do with actual pixel resolution.
Click to expand...
Well-observed point! Good hope!

Barry_Green said:
Wait to see what it actually looks like, especially compared to the others.
Click to expand...
:thumbup:
 
Well I am really interested to see the quality difference between the HVX200 and the HDX400 with both shooting 1080i. I have a project down under in Oz around March/April '06 time frame. I'd be happy to pay the rent on an HDX400 if the 2/3" CCDs produced a better image, which I strongly suspect they will.
 
Jan_Crittenden said:
Have you seen a chart from any of the other HDV cameras? The resolution stated on this camera has all of them beat that we have measured and frankly that is all that are currently shipping.

Best,

Jan
Click to expand...

I've seen a couple statements saying that the XL-H1 delivered 800x800 on a res chart.
 
Jan_Crittenden said:
Have you seen a chart from any of the other HDV cameras? The resolution stated on this camera has all of them beat that we have measured and frankly that is all that are currently shipping.

Best,

Jan
Click to expand...

I didn't have much time to search, but I did find a French website that tested the resolution of the HD100 as 800H x 700V, and the resolution of the Z1 as 700H x 800V. With the HVX resolution at 700H x 750V, I don't think that you can say the HVX has them beat. If you have different data, please show us.

But resolution certainly isn't everything, so I will patiently wait for the HVX to come out so that we can see side-by-side picture comparisons. And I do think that many of the features on the HVX are far superior to the other 1/3" HD cameras.

http://www.repaire.net/site/tournage/compar_Z1Sony_HD100JVC/comparatif_Z1_Sony_&_GYHD100_JVC.php

(If you can't read French - which is most of us- just go to the middle of the page and look at the resolution charts).
 
too many different figures, too many different charts / circumstances...

The best way would be to have ONE test-set and ONE single test chart and then test camera A, B and C on the very same day! - The comparision should not be across different sources.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top