It's happening now! Join me with Rez chart shooting on ichat/Online lab - Page 4 at DVinfo.net

Go Back   DV Info Net > Panasonic P2HD / AVCCAM / AVCHD / DV Camera Systems > Panasonic P2HD / DVCPRO HD Camcorders

Panasonic P2HD / DVCPRO HD Camcorders
All AG-HPX and AJ-PX Series camcorders and P2 / P2HD hardware.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old January 6th, 2006, 03:46 PM   #46
Major Player
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Southern Cal-ee-for-Ni-ya
Posts: 608
just for fun.... HD10 !!!

Just for fun, I hand held shot the chart with my JVC HD10 .
It's resolution looks maybe just a little lower than the HVX !
Again, this was hand held, the chart was on an 8.5x11 printout.

HD10 at 720p http://home.earthlink.net/~lesd/hd/jvc-HD10-chart.jpg

JVC HD10 at 1920 size: http://home.earthlink.net/~lesd/hd/j...-1920chart.jpg

and the HVX: http://home.arcor.de/martin.doppelba...rts/0088YP.png

Enjoy! ;)

-Les
Les Dit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 6th, 2006, 08:59 PM   #47
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Long Beach, California
Posts: 47
The thing is....even if the HVX does only resolve 600 lines, the Canon resolves just under 600 lines in its 24f mode.
Alexander Nikishin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 6th, 2006, 09:09 PM   #48
New Boot
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: tokyo
Posts: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martin Doppelbauer
I've just added a ResChart of my Sony HDR-FX1 and of the JVC HD100 . So you can compare these with the HVX200 yourself.

JVC HD 100 about 500 lph (720p)
Rez of HD 100 looks close to 700lph to my eyes ,am I wrong?
http://home.arcor.de/martin.doppelba...e%20Blende.jpg

Quote:
Originally Posted by Les Dit
Just for fun, I hand held shot the chart with my JVC HD10 .
It's resolution looks maybe just a little lower than the HVX !
I terms of resolution HVX200 may be not good though, but
I thought the quality of image of HVX200 was much much better than Z1, when I compared the HVX200 and Z1 side by side in a store focusing on red flowers. Rez of HVX and Z1 looked like the same to me there.
Kenji Kodama is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 6th, 2006, 11:02 PM   #49
Major Player
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander Nikishin
The thing is....even if the HVX does only resolve 600 lines, the Canon resolves just under 600 lines in its 24f mode.
The Canon in 24F resolves 800Hx650V, per the Shannon shot chart.

Resolution Comparison:

Canon XL H1 from Shannon's chart http://www.cinemahill.com/hidef/xlh1...s/IMG_0115.jpg
800Hx650V progressive
800Hx800V interlaced from German magazine, not from Shanon

Panasonic HVX-200 from Kaku's test http://home.arcor.de/martin.doppelba...rts/0088YP.png
625Hx600V progressive

JVC HD-100 from Martin's chart http://home.arcor.de/martin.doppelba...e%20Blende.jpg
700Hx525V progressive

Sony FX-1 from Martin's chart http://home.arcor.de/martin.doppelba...P_Off%20f4.png
650Hx775V interlaced

I compensated for some factors, like for instance a chart not filling the screen properly.

The Canon is an absolute winner; combined with Wafan HDD or PC based recorder, 35 mm adapter and good quality relay nad 35 mm lenses, it should be an excellent camera for film production with theatrical release.

The Panasonic appears to have CCD's that employ both vertical and horizontal pixel shift, without full pixel count for the format in either direction.
Petr Marusek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 7th, 2006, 01:26 AM   #50
Trustee
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Denver, Colorado
Posts: 1,866
Where can I download the rez chart everyone is using?
Tom Roper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 7th, 2006, 02:04 AM   #51
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: California
Posts: 667
Shannon,

Well even if you have cheated it out of res, the camera lines move into the 800 for 24f. So that's awesome either way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shannon Rawls
I have received three emails from people telling me I cheated the XL-H1 out of a good score because we had the camera much too far back from the chart. They say it should have been closer to the chart and it would have gotten an even better score then it did: http://www.cinemahill.com/hidef/xlh1...s/IMG_0115.htm (and this is in 24f mode)
-
- ShannonRawls.com
Michael Pappas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 7th, 2006, 02:14 AM   #52
Major Player
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martin Doppelbauer
Ok folks, here are frame grabs of all five different shots that were kindly provided by Kaku:
http://home.arcor.de/martin.doppelbauer/ResCharts/
I'm afraid you're not going to like what you see.
Both vertical and horizontal resolution is around 600 lph.

If this is really all there is, then the camera is nowhere near 1080p. In fact it's not even 720p. And the "CCD war", as somebody called it, is over with a big laugh. After seeing those chart my guess is Panasonic re-used the same 720x576 PAL CCDs chips which were already in the HVX100E.
You mean DVX100E? I don't believe it. Still, does anyone know the resolution on DVX?
Petr Marusek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 7th, 2006, 07:35 AM   #53
HDV Cinema
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 4,007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaku Ito
Steve,
I wish you were there when we were doing the test. I can do other test when we can and please supervise us at that time.
Come to India while I'm here and we can really give the camera a work-out. :)

The reason to try a color chart is three-fold:

1) to see the REAL difference Green-shift makes for ALL camcorders. I'm still not sure if Canon is claiming it's total pixel count based upon Green-shift.

2) to level the playing field. Since the advantages of Green-shift go away when there is motion--using standard resolution charts allows the marketing department to get away with saying "go measure the camera yourself." Obviously your test will show a bigger number than will actually be achieved in the real world! Thus, the REAL rez. advantages of the HD100 will be cleverly obscured.

3) It will clearly expose those camcorders that use under-sampling CCDs!
__________________
Switcher's Quick Guide to the Avid Media Composer >>> http://home.mindspring.com/~d-v-c
Steve Mullen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 7th, 2006, 10:06 AM   #54
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Karlsruhe, Germany
Posts: 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by Petr Marusek
You mean DVX100E? I don't believe it. Still, does anyone know the resolution on DVX?
Sure, should have been DVX100E. AFAIK it has 720x576 CCDs.
But that was only joking, of course. The HVX200 certainly has higher resolving CCDs.
Martin Doppelbauer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 7th, 2006, 10:33 AM   #55
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Karlsruhe, Germany
Posts: 80
So to sum it all up:

Both JVC and Pana have about the same picture resolution in the region of 0.66 Megapixels.
Sony's FX1/Z1 are about one third better (0.90 Megapixels) and the Canon XLH1 is one more quarter better than the two Sonys (1.14 Megapixels).

Both Pana and JVC record progressive pictures, but the frame modes of Sony's and Canon's camcorders can do pretty much the same (at least for 25p). They will loose a bit of their resolution but not below the level of the JVC or the Panasonic.

Pricewise the Sony camcorders are by far the cheapest (especially the FX1 - if you can live without xlr audio plugs), JVC is in the middle region, Canon is second and Panasonic is by far the most expensive of the five cameras (if you include all the unavoidable extra costs for P2 cards and harddisk storage).

Of course, picture resolution is just one piece of the puzzle. Lattitude, noise level, color reproduction etc. are other very important factors for overall camera performance. Those issues still have to be compared. But probably not in this thread ;-).
Martin Doppelbauer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 7th, 2006, 11:02 AM   #56
Major Player
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martin Doppelbauer
So to sum it all up:

Both JVC and Pana have about the same picture resolution in the region of 0.66 Megapixels.
Sony's FX1/Z1 are about one third better (0.90 Megapixels) and the Canon XLH1 is one more quarter better than the two Sonys (1.14 Megapixels).

Both Pana and JVC record progressive pictures, but the frame modes of Sony's and Canon's camcorders can do pretty much the same (at least for 25p). They will loose a bit of their resolution but not below the level of the JVC or the Panasonic.
Martin, when the German magazine talked about the Canon having 800Hx800V resolution, was it the interlaced or the progressive mode? Do these two resolutions, according to the magazine, differer?
Petr Marusek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 7th, 2006, 07:57 PM   #57
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Long Beach, California
Posts: 47
You can purchase an HVX with two 4gb P2 cards for around $7,000.
Alexander Nikishin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 7th, 2006, 08:07 PM   #58
Major Player
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 357
Uh-huh, but the camera is all you need. The cost of DV tapes compared to other archive methods? No comparison for the forseeable future.

I don't think that the small price difference between any of these puppies should be the deciding factor. It's all in the image, and sadly, the HVX is falling short. I was really rooting for it the promise of DVCPROHD was glorious but the pic the imager feeds the codec just ain't up to snuff. No wonder Panny hid the CCD specs. Right now it seems the only reason I'd consider this camera is the variable frame rate.
Joseph H. Moore is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 7th, 2006, 08:16 PM   #59
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Long Beach, California
Posts: 47
All I'm seeing right now is a very un-filmic image from the H1, sure it's pretty, but pretty in a discovery channel hd kinda way. The HVX, as was the DVX vs the XL just has that "look" to put it simply. Sure cost shouldn't matter I mean, if you're gonna spend 7gs what would 2 more hurt? Not much, but for an overall filmic look, it still seems that the HVX is the winner. I also am wondering why so many canon owners refrain from posting 24F footage?
Alexander Nikishin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 7th, 2006, 08:22 PM   #60
Major Player
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 613
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph H. Moore
It's all in the image, and sadly, the HVX is falling short. I was really rooting for it the promise of DVCPROHD was glorious but the pic the imager feeds the codec just ain't up to snuff. No wonder Panny hid the CCD specs. Right now it seems the only reason I'd consider this camera is the variable frame rate.
Cool. So does that mean you're deciding against it, off to purchasing something else, and off to somewhere else? ;)
__________________
www.holyzoo.com
Steev Dinkins is offline   Reply
Reply

DV Info Net refers all where-to-buy and where-to-rent questions exclusively to these trusted full line dealers and rental houses...

Professional Video
(800) 833-4801
Portland, OR

B&H Photo Video
(866) 521-7381
New York, NY

Z.G.C.
(973) 335-4460
Mountain Lakes, NJ

Abel Cine Tech
(888) 700-4416
N.Y. NY & L.A. CA

Precision Camera
(800) 677-1023
Austin, TX

DV Info Net also encourages you to support local businesses and buy from an authorized dealer in your neighborhood.
  You are here: DV Info Net > Panasonic P2HD / AVCCAM / AVCHD / DV Camera Systems > Panasonic P2HD / DVCPRO HD Camcorders

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 



Google
 

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:48 AM.


DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2017 The Digital Video Information Network