Downloadable HM700 resolution tests at DVinfo.net

Tim Dashwood · April 7th, 2009, 02:11 PM

Here's the resolution tests for the TH17x5BRM lens at 720p and 1080p with MIN, Normal and MAX detail settings. I also tested the old stock 16x5.5 lens for comparison.

http://www.dvinfo.net/media/jvcprohd..._rez_tests.zip
Original Quicktime clips from HM700

Kenn Christenson · April 7th, 2009, 02:57 PM

Thanks a lot, Tim! The tests are great!

David Knaggs · April 7th, 2009, 03:52 PM

Yes, thanks very much Tim. (As always.)

To my eye, the results of spatial offset with the 1080p mode look pretty darned good!

Tim Dashwood · April 7th, 2009, 04:41 PM

Yeah. I think it is fair to say 850 Horizontal lines in 1080p with the 17x5 lens, (Normal detail) and 700+ in 720p.

The stock 16x5.5 lens seems to be a bit less (around 800 lines) but still not too shabby.

I can't wait to get the Canon 14x4.6 in my hands. JVC claims 900+ lines with that lens.

Alex Humphrey · April 7th, 2009, 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim Dashwood

Yeah. I think it is fair to say 850 Horizontal lines in 1080p with the 17x5 lens, (Normal detail) and 700+ in 720p.

The stock 16x5.5 lens seems to be a bit less (around 800 lines) but still not too shabby.

I can't wait to get the Canon 14x4.6 in my hands. JVC claims 900+ lines with that lens.

Real numbers! Your da MAN! Can't wait to get home and check out the video.

Sean Adair · April 8th, 2009, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim Dashwood

Yeah. I think it is fair to say 850 Horizontal lines in 1080p with the 17x5 lens, (Normal detail) and 700+ in 720p.

The stock 16x5.5 lens seems to be a bit less (around 800 lines) but still not too shabby.

I can't wait to get the Canon 14x4.6 in my hands. JVC claims 900+ lines with that lens.

Thanks for sharing these Tim! This looks quite respectable to my untutored eye. I'm not surprised that at the near optimum lens settings that there isn't so much difference between these two lenses. I'd have been tempted to throw the 13x on there at this focal length as a real arbiter of what can be accomplished. I suspect at telephoto and more open that you'd see a wider spread between the 16x & 17x though.
It will certainly be interesting to see if the 14x really has superior performance. Although not entirely subjective, resolution lpi ratings mean more to me when they are comparative from the same testing source.

I can definitely see a larger difference in the 1080 compared to 720 images. This is a most encouraging confirmation of the spatial offset. I couldn't find any charts of yours from the GY-HD series, but overall these look like real clean images to me.

Harry Pallenberg · April 8th, 2009, 03:57 PM

Thanks Tim... looking good!

Kaushik Parmar · April 8th, 2009, 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Harry Pallenberg

Thanks Tim... looking good!

I have downloaded but unfortunetly I am not aboe to see them, I downloaded latest QT player but still not able to play. I have window vista, if some one can help me.

Thanks,
Kaushik

David Petersen · April 8th, 2009, 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kaushik Parmar

I have downloaded but unfortunetly I am not aboe to see them, I downloaded latest QT player but still not able to play. I have window vista, if some one can help me.

Thanks,
Kaushik

Windows info in the first post here:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/jvc-gy-hm...-your-nle.html

Gareth Watkins · April 9th, 2009, 12:22 AM

Hi Kaushik

If you read Tims first review you need to download the Calibrated XD decode ... the demo blocks the centre of the image but you'll get the idea.. and see the edges.

I was actually surprised how little difference Tim's examples differed. I was expecting the 17x to be significantly better than the 16x...perhaps the Canon will be..

cheers
Gareth

Alex Humphrey · April 11th, 2009, 10:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gareth Watkins

I was expecting the 17x to be significantly better than the 16x...perhaps the Canon will be..

cheers
Gareth

Well at 20mm the 16x is right in it's zone. 10-40mm is I think the best range for the 16x and honestly I think it's pretty good. It's the below 10mm and above 40mm that the 16x falls apart. But yes, I would love to twist Tim's arm or bribe him with Ben & Jerries ice cream if he would redo this test at the focal range around 75mm which is where I spend a lot of my time. The 16x I have to stop down to f16 to keep the left and right 1/3rd in focus at the expense of overall contrast and sharpness, but at least center to corner is a good match.

Frederic Segard · March 31st, 2010, 05:22 AM

Any updates on resolution chart testing with the Canon KT14x4.4 lens? And quite possibly the Fujinon Th13x3.5 lens? I'm seriously considering the Fujinon 13x lens over the Canon 14x, but I'm curious about the numbers, and overall differences (other then the obvious wider lens).

April 7th, 2009, 02:11 PM	#1
Tim Dashwood Wrangler Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Toronto, ON, Canada Posts: 3,637	Downloadable HM700 resolution tests Here's the resolution tests for the TH17x5BRM lens at 720p and 1080p with MIN, Normal and MAX detail settings. I also tested the old stock 16x5.5 lens for comparison. http://www.dvinfo.net/media/jvcprohd..._rez_tests.zip Original Quicktime clips from HM700 __________________ Tim Dashwood

April 7th, 2009, 04:41 PM	#4
Tim Dashwood Wrangler Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Toronto, ON, Canada Posts: 3,637	Yeah. I think it is fair to say 850 Horizontal lines in 1080p with the 17x5 lens, (Normal detail) and 700+ in 720p. The stock 16x5.5 lens seems to be a bit less (around 800 lines) but still not too shabby. I can't wait to get the Canon 14x4.6 in my hands. JVC claims 900+ lines with that lens. __________________ Tim Dashwood

April 9th, 2009, 12:22 AM	#10
Gareth Watkins Major Player Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: France Posts: 578	Hi Kaushik If you read Tims first review you need to download the Calibrated XD decode ... the demo blocks the centre of the image but you'll get the idea.. and see the edges. I was actually surprised how little difference Tim's examples differed. I was expecting the 17x to be significantly better than the 16x...perhaps the Canon will be.. cheers Gareth __________________ www.gwenllyn.com

April 7th, 2009, 02:57 PM	#2
Kenn Christenson Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Medford Oregon Posts: 152	Thanks a lot, Tim! The tests are great!

April 7th, 2009, 03:52 PM	#3
David Knaggs Major Player Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 826	Yes, thanks very much Tim. (As always.) To my eye, the results of spatial offset with the 1080p mode look pretty darned good!

April 8th, 2009, 03:57 PM	#7
Harry Pallenberg Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 122	Thanks Tim... looking good!

March 31st, 2010, 05:22 AM	#12
Frederic Segard Major Player Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Montreal, Canada Posts: 209	Any updates on resolution chart testing with the Canon KT14x4.4 lens? And quite possibly the Fujinon Th13x3.5 lens? I'm seriously considering the Fujinon 13x lens over the Canon 14x, but I'm curious about the numbers, and overall differences (other then the obvious wider lens).