pixel count confusion
 

I'm confused on when I look at the resolution spec charts. The XL1 for example has an ranges from 250,000 to 270,000 pixels per each CCD the Panasonic DVX-100A has 410,000 pixels per each CCD. Does this mean the Pannasonic has a higher resolution than the Canon or is it just a bunch of technical confusion.

Also,

I'd like to arrange a shoot test in the field between the Canon GL2, the Canon XL1s, the PD-170, and the Panasonic DVX-100A. I have contacts who have these camera's. Can anybody tell me on ways to accurately compare the cameras if I bring them all together. I can post my results after the test.

Thanks,

Michael

Yes, the DVX100A has a slightly higher resolution than the XL1S. But the pixel count of the CCD's is not really the core issue. Video cameras' resolution is measured in lines of horizontal resolution. Remember, their target venue is a television. Denser CCD's do make a difference, but they're not the last word.

If you really want to do a series of pseudo-scientific tests you'll need some test charts and waveform monitor (and someone who can read it).

These cameras have been compared endlessly here and elsewhere. I'd bet that as much tape has been spent on comparing these cameras than on actually USING the cameras. It would take you days to wade through the "groundbreaking objective comparison" threads here. The most popular circuit here seems to be buy 'em, "test" 'em, sell 'em.

Have fun!

XL1 plays back 460 lines, PD170 plays back 500 lines (tested/DV Mag.)---the GL2 most likely around 500 (not tested) and Panasonic's claim of playback should be accurate, since Pana actually runs wave-form monitor tests on their 3 chip cams and sometimes posts the results and will give them to you if you ask Pana technical. As Ken says, "lines" don't give you the total picture, just more resolution; and miniDV's maximum playback capabilty cannot be over 540 horizontal lines---but more CCD pixels coupled with a high quality lens will capture more detail, which will reflect in the quality of the playback. A cam that can play back a lowly 400 lines, but with good color saturation, can beat out playback of a cam with 500 lines of playback with poor color saturation. If it were up to me in deciding between the 2, I'd go for the 400 line cam. The XL1 has great color saturation, by the way.

but saturation can be added in post, sharpness cannot, right?

Right, to some extent. But capturing with more accurate color saturation adds or aids to the visual quality thus it captures better detail (color detail). I recall shooting some test footage with the DV601 Pana 1-chip and later, Sony's 1-chip TRV30. The Sony does way over 500 lines, much higher res than the 601, but the 601's footage was a way more realistic or "nice." Note: this Pana only has a Pana lens while this Sony has a Zeiss. :-))

Sharpness can most certainly be added in post. All NLE's have filters to adjust the sharpness of the video. The use of filters adds to the rendering time and each scene will vary in the amount and type of sharpening.