Are they gonna bring out a HD110?

[Antony Quintin]

I am seriously thinking of getting a HD100, but a few points are putting me off:

1) That it only shoots 720 and not 1080

and if I buy a HD100, are they going to bring out a HD110 in a few months that does do 1080?????

[Tim Dashwood]

Originally Posted by Antony Quintin

I am seriously thinking of getting a HD100, but a few points are putting me off:

1) That it only shoots 720 and not 1080

This isn't really a hinderance, considering the other 1080 capable cameras in the price range don't exceed the resolving power of the HD100 when they are in 1080F mode. You can always uprez 720P to 1080P and probably still achieve the same resolution (if not better) as the HVX200 or XLH1 in 1080F mode. Read Adam Wilt's 4-way shootout article on DV.com for more info.

Originally Posted by Antony Quintin

and if I buy a HD100, are they going to bring out a HD110 in a few months that does do 1080?????

Who knows???? If you are really worried about that, then just wait until NAB (8 weeks) and find out.

[Antony Quintin]

thanks again Tim

[Antony Quintin]

Great review 2!

So the image of the HD100 seemed to hold its quality!

[Tony Goodman]

Originally Posted by Tim Dashwood

You can always uprez 720P to 1080P and probably still achieve the same resolution (if not better) as the HVX200 or XLH1 in 1080F mode.

I am really sorry to ask this again but what can you gain by increasing pixels in an already defined image?

As I understand it 'uprezzing' just splits single pixels into multiple pixels and does nothing to improve image definition. So you could end up with a 1080p from 720p, or a 720p from a 480p resolution but for what reason if the image looks the same?

What am I missing?

Tony

[Stephen L. Noe]

[QUOTE=Tony Goodman]

Originally Posted by Tim Dashwood

. You can always uprez 720P to 1080P and probably still achieve the same resolution (if not better) as the HVX200 or XLH1 in 1080F mode.

I am really sorry to ask this again but what can you gain by increasing pixels in an already defined image?

As I understand it 'uprezzing' just splits single pixels into multiple pixels and does nothing to improve image definition. So you could end up with a 1080p from 720p, or a 720p from a 480p resolution but for what reason if the image looks the same?

What am I missing?

Tony

If you're doing a film transfer the images will be scaled to 1080p for the transfer. If there is more detail in the shot it will uprez well. If it's soft or the rez is not sharp enough it will show in spades. The HD-100's 720p holds up well to the 1080p uprez required for film transfer. It's no Cinealta but at least as good as Varicam. If you're delivering HDTV then 720p or 1080i is the way to go.

[Tim Dashwood]

Originally Posted by Tony Goodman

I am really sorry to ask this again but what can you gain by increasing pixels in an already defined image?

As I understand it 'uprezzing' just splits single pixels into multiple pixels and does nothing to improve image definition. So you could end up with a 1080p from 720p, or a 720p from a 480p resolution but for what reason if the image looks the same?

What am I missing?

Stephen has a good point about uprez for current filmout workflows.

However, I was attempting to be coy about the fact that Panasonic and Sony will sell lots of cameras to unsuspecting customers who think they are getting a much higher resolution with 1080"P", "1080F," or "CF", when the 4-way test proves that those cameras are simply using pixel shifting and upscaling to create 1080 out of 540. Even the Canon XLH1 does this to some extent in 1080F mode (although obviously much better than the HVX200 and Z1.)
I think if JVC was smarter about marketing they would simply add an "uprez" circuit so they could include "1080P" in the spec sheet.

IMHO, the only advantage to uprezzing is "client perception."

[Tony Goodman]

Originally Posted by Tim Dashwood

IMHO, the only advantage to uprezzing is "client perception."

Tim

So good to have this confirmed by someone with your cudos!

Cheers

Tony