The 1080P mode vs the 720P mode! - Page 3 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.


Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old February 11th, 2006, 12:19 PM   #31
Major Player
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Phoenix, AZ - USA
Posts: 300
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Smet
It is always better to scale up a raw image (either in a computer or dsp) before compression.
Which is what I think people could do with the JVC or the HVX. Obviously it needs testing, but it might be that a software app crunching numbers all night long could produce a very good uprez. Once you've got enough info (and 720p might be enough) software uprezzing can be pretty amazing.

So it might be better than what's happening in camera in the HVX's case. Or not.
Joel Aaron is offline  
Old February 11th, 2006, 12:33 PM   #32
Major Player
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: NYC
Posts: 658
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joel Aaron
Which is what I think people could do with the JVC or the HVX. Obviously it needs testing, but it might be that a software app crunching numbers all night long could produce a very good uprez. Once you've got enough info (and 720p might be enough) software uprezzing can be pretty amazing.

So it might be better than what's happening in camera in the HVX's case. Or not.
Joel,
Explain this. You can/could uprez the 1080 P with software?
That would be brilliant.

I hate the purely theroretical - But, could this be a firmware update that allows the Linux in the HVX (not the chips) to change thier compression algorythms...?
Shouldn't expect that --I'm just trying to talk myself into this Cam.

better solution might be reelstream for the HVX
http://www.reel-stream.com/
I'm hope I'm not being a pain, because I keep harping on this last point - (...sorry Juan)

cheers everybody,
J
John Benton is offline  
Old February 11th, 2006, 12:38 PM   #33
Hawaiian Shirt Mogul
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: northern cailfornia
Posts: 1,261
i think you'll find that viewing 1080p clips looks best on a 1080p monitor/digital projection ..

720p material looks it's best on a 720p monitor/projection ...

which all comes down to viewing 1080p on a 720p system you might not be able to see the difference between 720p & 1080p material .. on the 1080p down res artifacts & other errors can be introduced = the 720p may look a litter better overall (viewing on 720p) ...

viewing 720p material on a 1080p system might introduce artifacts/errors on the up-res ...

some sysyems up/down -res better then others .. the BEST seem to be hardware 3rd party boxes ( $2500 and up ) that do the up/down res..

IMO if you have a 720p camera then use 720p monitors/digital projection ..
if 1080p then use 1080p monitors/digital projectors ...
Don Donatello is offline  
Old February 11th, 2006, 12:46 PM   #34
Trustee
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posts: 1,727
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Boston
Keep in mind Aaron, that Jan was involved in an automobile accident at Sundance film festival. This is about the same time that the HVX began shipping to customers. I don't know that she 'feels' like posting at this time. She may be on pain medication and doesn't want to post something while under the influence. See the 'Get Well Soon' thread elsewhere on DV-INFO.

-gb-
Greg, well that is definitely something I didn't know and could explain her absence.

Still I hope Panasonic go clear this up for people. Lay it all out and let people forget about it once and for all.
__________________
My Website
Meat Free Media
Aaron Koolen is offline  
Old February 11th, 2006, 12:50 PM   #35
Major Player
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Phoenix, AZ - USA
Posts: 300
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Benton
Joel,
Explain this. You can/could uprez the 1080 P with software?
That would be brilliant.
My assumption is that software like Sorenson Squeeze or Compressor might do it etc.

I sure thought they had hardware suites in LA that could change formats but I haven't done it. I also could have sworn I read in Adam Wilt's book that he really liked the Varicam and had experimented with upconverting. If I'm wrong about that I stand corrected. Thanks for pointing it out.
Joel Aaron is offline  
Old February 11th, 2006, 01:05 PM   #36
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: California
Posts: 147
well, i'm definitely going to test out 1080p/720p next month when i purchase this lcd:

http://www.costco.com/Browse/Product...v=&browse=&s=1
Jaser Stockert is offline  
Old February 11th, 2006, 01:12 PM   #37
Trustee
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,214
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Donatello
i think you'll find that viewing 1080p clips looks best on a 1080p monitor/digital projection ..

720p material looks it's best on a 720p monitor/projection ...

which all comes down to viewing 1080p on a 720p system you might not be able to see the difference between 720p & 1080p material .. on the 1080p down res artifacts & other errors can be introduced = the 720p may look a litter better overall (viewing on 720p) ...

viewing 720p material on a 1080p system might introduce artifacts/errors on the up-res ...

some sysyems up/down -res better then others .. the BEST seem to be hardware 3rd party boxes ( $2500 and up ) that do the up/down res..

IMO if you have a 720p camera then use 720p monitors/digital projection ..
if 1080p then use 1080p monitors/digital projectors ...
Absolutely Don. It's refreshing to read your words. The JVC ProHD is true to it's format (ie full rez 1280x720 CCD's). It will display excellently even on a 50 inch plasma that is 1280x720.

I have taken part in a 35mm film transfer of ProHD with really good results. We found out alot in doing the transfer. Of course 1080p originated material would have been better, but the 1280x720 uprezzed to 1080p with good results. I attribute it to the full rez 1280x720 material we had to start with.
Stephen L. Noe is offline  
Old February 11th, 2006, 02:42 PM   #38
Barry Wan Kenobi
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 3,863
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joel Aaron
I've never seen anyone post ANY footage or audio that the HDV format has ruined...
Ah, sorry, I guess I've been negligent. Let me take care of that right now.

These shots were taken with a Sony FX1, at the "Sirens Of T.I." show on the Las Vegas strip. HDV utterly destroyed any pretension of "high def" resolution in these shots. Look at the palm trees, look at the back of the ship, look just about anywhere and you'll see macroblocking that looks lego-sized if not worse. I doubt there's VHS-caliber resolution in these shots. These are pixel-for-pixel identical lossless grabs from what the HDV camera recorded.

http://www.fiftv.com/FX1/Image1.png
http://www.fiftv.com/FX1/Image2.png
http://www.fiftv.com/FX1/Image3.png
http://www.fiftv.com/FX1/Image4.png
http://www.fiftv.com/FX1/Image5.png
http://www.fiftv.com/FX1/Image6.png
http://www.fiftv.com/FX1/Image7.png
http://www.fiftv.com/FX1/Image8.png

Thanks but no thanks for HDV, I just don't trust it.
Barry Green is offline  
Old February 11th, 2006, 02:53 PM   #39
Barry Wan Kenobi
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 3,863
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Mullen
Since the very definition of HDTV is about resolution -- it IS "a" critical specification. The very fact you continue to talk about "1080p" means you continue to think it is an important issue.
You misunderstand. Resolution is vitally important, at least when it comes to the final image. But you are equating pixel count with resolution, and I think we've demonstrated pretty conclusively that pixel count does not equal resolution. Were it so, the 770x492 DVX/Andromeda would be incapable of showing up the 1280x720 JVC, yet the 770x492 DVX/Andromeda clearly demonstrates notably superior resolution than the JVC does.

Resolution is the defining key statistic in "high def". But what matters is what the final recorded image looks like. Not the # of pixels on the CCD to get to that recorded image.

If you care about the # of pixels, you have to go with the Canon hands down. Since you have not gone with the Canon, then clearly you recognize that the # of pixels is not the paramount deciding factor.

If you care about the ultimate amount of resolved definition on a black & white res chart, then you have to go with the 1440x1080 Canon, or you have to go with the 770x492 DVX/Andromeda. There's no room for the Sony or the JVC or even the Panasonic HVX to play in that game if b&w res chart results are all that you care about.

If you care about what the final image looks like, then you'll be pleased (or chagrined, depending on your particular agenda) to note that the HVX delivers a sharper image than the JVC does, and a sharper image than the Sony does, but not a sharper image than the Canon does.

Quote:
The CCDs yield 550x540 RESOLUTION.
Look at the chart again. The CCDs are delivering about 630 x 740.

Quote:
That number is lower than 720p which yields 700x700.
Look at the chart again. The 720p is yielding 700 x 530.

Quote:
These published data clearly indicate the HVX200 provides a measured resolution -- TVL/ph and TVL -- not "pixels" or "pixel count" -- that does not equal either that measured from 720p or a 1080i/p camcorders.
And yet I just published a chart (or did you not even bother to look at it?) which shows the HVX exceeds the resolution of both a 720p and a 1080i camera.

Quote:
Plainly put, the HVX200 records a slightly better than PAL SD resolution image within either of two HD "wrappers."
Have you ever seen a frame of HVX footage? It's every bit as high-def and higher than the FX1/Z1 and the HD100. That's what the real-world truth is.

You cannot continue to cling to the "numbers war" because it just doesn't work. Pixel count numbers do not equate to resolved image data; you and your PhD should know this. Look again at the final image of 770x492 vs. 1280x720:
http://www.fiftv.com/HVX200/Andromeda-vs-HD100.JPG

Statistics can lie. But these cameras are not here to make "statistics", they're here to make images. The images do not lie.

Quote:
If one believes that 50% of the lines are not simply "lost" then IMHO the only reasonable belief is that the CCDs are 960x576. And, the sensitivity data support this belief. But, you don't have to believe this. It's the test measures that are important -- not my belief about the CCDs.
We are going to agree. I wouldn't mind whatsoever if the CCD count is 960x576, as long as the test measures and the real-world images show that it's a high-def image. Fortunately, they do. At least, higher-def than the Sony and the JVC.
Barry Green is offline  
Old February 11th, 2006, 03:18 PM   #40
Major Player
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: monroe, or
Posts: 572
It feels like we're watching an episode of "Smartest Kid in the Sandbox".

Just waiting for one to call the other one's mother, "lo-res".

Love to stick around and watch the next exchange, but I have to get my fake-HD camcorder (the one that's paid for itself 3 times over in 2 weeks) ready for work....have fun kids, be nice!
Marty Baggen is offline  
Old February 11th, 2006, 03:39 PM   #41
Barry Wan Kenobi
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 3,863
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marty Baggen
but I have to get my fake-HD camcorder (the one that's paid for itself 3 times over in 2 weeks) ready for work....have fun kids, be nice!
Brilliant! That's all that it's about, for those who make a living with their gear. I don't even know which "fake-HD" camera you have. Love the post though!

Next weekend I'm doing a job that will pay off the HVX and the Mac system in full, on its first commercial gig. Evin Grant paid his HVX off in its first weekend shooting a national spot for ProFlowers.com; Jarred used his HVX to shoot pickup/composite shots for the international theatrical release of "Munich" (hmmm... resolution was high enough for that job!) MTV bought something like 25 HD100's, the BBC is using HVX's to shoot the 2006 Turin Olympics, various shows are using the Z1...
Barry Green is offline  
Old February 11th, 2006, 04:29 PM   #42
HDV Cinema
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 4,007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steev Dinkins
So seeing how the HVX200 has more resolution than the JVC HD100, I guess the HD100 is a little less than a little PAL CCD camera.
HD100 measures at 700x700 while the HVX200 measures at 550x540. The HD100 has more measured resolution.
__________________
Switcher's Quick Guide to the Avid Media Composer >>> http://home.mindspring.com/~d-v-c
Steve Mullen is offline  
Old February 11th, 2006, 04:34 PM   #43
HDV Cinema
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 4,007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barry Green

These shots were taken with a Sony FX1, at the "Sirens Of T.I." show on the Las Vegas strip. Thanks but no thanks for HDV, I just don't trust it.
You really mean you don't trust 1080i HDV -- which I agree with.

720p HDV is a totally different animal at 30fps and 16Mbps data rate.
__________________
Switcher's Quick Guide to the Avid Media Composer >>> http://home.mindspring.com/~d-v-c
Steve Mullen is offline  
Old February 11th, 2006, 04:52 PM   #44
HDV Cinema
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 4,007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barry Green
Resolution is the defining key statistic in "high def". But what matters is what the final recorded image looks like. Not the # of pixels on the CCD to get to that recorded image. You cannot continue to cling to the "numbers war" because it just doesn't work. Pixel count numbers do not equate to resolved image data.
Barry -- I specifically said in my post that I was NOT talking about pixel count -- I was talking about measured resolution.

Specifically measures from the ONLY test of 6 HD cameras who's results were INDEPENDENT, taken with the SAME CHARTS, UNBIASED, and generally published.

There is no point in coming along now and posting a chart that "just happens" to show higher measures. You've got to retest all the camcorders.

Why, if the HVX200 can produce these numbers, were YOU not able to get these numbers when other people and other camcorders were around?

Bottom line -- stay to the topic:

1) The only independent measures of the HVX200 show it to have 550x540 resolution while the HD100 measures 700x700 -- exactly as does a Varicam.

2) IF you want to continue talking about 1080p CCDs -- then YOU need to explain why/how a 1080p CCD produces less measured resolution than do 720p CCDs.
__________________
Switcher's Quick Guide to the Avid Media Composer >>> http://home.mindspring.com/~d-v-c
Steve Mullen is offline  
Old February 11th, 2006, 05:10 PM   #45
Major Player
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: NE of London, England
Posts: 788
The HVX and HD100 are basically pretty similar resolution wise. The HVX offers 1080 recording which, if nothing else, makes the compression artifacts smaller. It also increases the recorded chroma resolution.

The only question I have is why did the HVX perform so badly res wise in the shootout? Barry?
Mike Marriage is offline  
Closed Thread

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 09:22 AM.


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