Resolution chart results? at DVinfo.net

Go Back   DV Info Net > Sony XAVC / XDCAM / NXCAM / AVCHD / HDV / DV Camera Systems > Sony HDV and DV Camera Systems > Sony HVR-V1 / HDR-FX7

Sony HVR-V1 / HDR-FX7
Pro and consumer versions of this Sony 3-CMOS HDV camcorder.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old October 3rd, 2006, 09:21 AM   #1
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 2,488
Resolution chart results?

Has anyone tested the new cameras with resolution charts yet so we can assess the actual resolution in TV lines per inch of recorded HDV material? What I've seen so far from sample images didn't look much different from earlier Sony HDV cameras.
Kevin Shaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 3rd, 2006, 09:44 AM   #2
Major Player
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 204
Umm, TV lines per inch of recorded HDV material? I can't say that measure makes sense for me.

Sony are claiming a measured resolution of over 800 lines for the V1, but be aware that horizontal and vertical measurements are not an indicator of total performance with a clearvid camera. You cannot compare them like for like with a non clearvid camera.

So far noone seems to be able and willing to measure the diagonal resolution, which for clearvid may be more a more accurate objective measure of performance.
Marvin Emms is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 3rd, 2006, 10:17 AM   #3
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Stockton, UT
Posts: 5,648
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Shaw
Has anyone tested the new cameras with resolution charts yet so we can assess the actual resolution in TV lines per inch of recorded HDV material? What I've seen so far from sample images didn't look much different from earlier Sony HDV cameras.
Yes, both Sony, myself, and at least one other, have shot standard EIA charts and found identical results of approximately 800 lines. I believe Boyd may have posted a shot of a screen grab that was shown at the press conference.
__________________
Douglas Spotted Eagle/Spot
Author, producer, composer
Certified Sony Vegas Trainer
http://www.vasst.com
Douglas Spotted Eagle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 3rd, 2006, 10:24 AM   #4
Major Player
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 350
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin Emms
Umm, TV lines per inch of recorded HDV material? I can't say that measure makes sense for me.
I think he's asking what is the resolution of the footage after it's been recorded to tape as opposed to live from the camera head.

Spot, is that 800 lines live from the camera head or measured after recording on tape?
Tim Le is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 3rd, 2006, 11:12 AM   #5
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 2,488
Sorry, I guess the correct term is just "TV lines." I think Spot answered my question with the 800 lines figure, which would put it on par with the Canon HDV cameras.
Kevin Shaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 3rd, 2006, 12:38 PM   #6
Trustee
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Denver, Colorado
Posts: 1,866
I may be out of my league for saying it, but as a prospective buyer, the resolution of the V1U CMOS panels is my biggest reservation about it.

800 lines would be good but are you going to get that with interlaced or only progressive? Sony describes the process of creating one sample from four surrounding sample, separating detail from chroma to interpolate a progressive image 1920 x 1080, before downsampling to output as 1440 HDV. But for interlaced resolution, is this really better than just using native 1440 sensors?

I acknowledge creativity isn't the highest priority of my workflow. I choose to remain tethered to a speedy distribution format that HD-DVD represents in the here and now (for now). 24p has to be rendered to support HD-DVD, but 1440 x 1080i60 has existing native support.

Could it be that sophisticated interpolations are better than actual pixels? I have my doubts. Debate has raged about the merits of upscaling, then when native processing gets compared, the myth is debunked.
Tom Roper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 3rd, 2006, 12:47 PM   #7
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Stockton, UT
Posts: 5,648
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Roper

Could it be that sophisticated interpolations are better than actual pixels? I have my doubts. Debate has raged about the merits of upscaling, then when native processing gets compared, the myth is debunked.

You lost me here....Could you explain what you mean? When comparing for example, images coming from a 960 x 540 sensor block upsampled to 1920 x 1080, there is not a close comparison to an image captured on a 1440 x 1080 sensor outputting the same 1920 x 1080, or images captured with a 960 x 1080 sensor outputting 1920 x 1080 (both of which are actually 1440 x 1080 with PAR of 1.333). Sharpness of image and contrast are quite identifiable.
__________________
Douglas Spotted Eagle/Spot
Author, producer, composer
Certified Sony Vegas Trainer
http://www.vasst.com
Douglas Spotted Eagle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 3rd, 2006, 01:06 PM   #8
HDV Cinema
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 4,007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Douglas Spotted Eagle
Yes, both Sony, myself, and at least one other, have shot standard EIA charts and found identical results of approximately 800 lines. I believe Boyd may have posted a shot of a screen grab that was shown at the press conference.
Was this 60i or 24p?
__________________
Switcher's Quick Guide to the Avid Media Composer >>> http://home.mindspring.com/~d-v-c
Steve Mullen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 3rd, 2006, 01:17 PM   #9
Trustee
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Posts: 1,719
I would tend to think interlaced and progressive would have the same amount of lines of resolution due to the fact that the interlaced is created from a 1920x1080 60p source. The encoder just alternates every other line from the 60p but that 60p should have the same resolution as 30p or 24p. Now the only thing that may reduce the interlaced is any flicker filtering that is done to the 60p first to reduce any interlaced flickering.
Thomas Smet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 3rd, 2006, 01:18 PM   #10
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Stockton, UT
Posts: 5,648
Both 60i and 24p were sampled.
__________________
Douglas Spotted Eagle/Spot
Author, producer, composer
Certified Sony Vegas Trainer
http://www.vasst.com
Douglas Spotted Eagle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 3rd, 2006, 02:55 PM   #11
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 2,488
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin Emms
As I said, you cannot make a valid comparison against a non clearvid camera using this number.
Why not? What's different about an image from a clearvid sensor which would make you question the results of a standard resolution chart test?

I've been holding off saying this because I wanted a simple answer to the technical question first, but part of my concern here is the claim that the new Sony HDV cameras are "true 1080p." I gave Panasonic fans heck for using the term "true HD" to describe the HVX200, so I figure it's only fair to question any similar hype over the new Sonys. In my book a "true 1080p" camera would be one with a 1920x1080 sensor which can record and play back 1920x1080 pixels without connecting to a computer and without using interpolation or other trickery, and the new Sonys don't do that. If I wanted "true 1080p" I'd save up for the Silicon Imaging SI-1920 or "Red," not mess around with some new way to squeeze more data out of thin air. Show me a recorded image with 1000+ lines of discernible detail and then we can talk about "true 1080p," until then can we maybe not use terms like that? It's distracting.
Kevin Shaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 3rd, 2006, 03:33 PM   #12
Trustee
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Posts: 1,719
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Shaw
Why not? What's different about an image from a clearvid sensor which would make you question the results of a standard resolution chart test?

I've been holding off saying this because I wanted a simple answer to the technical question first, but part of my concern here is the claim that the new Sony HDV cameras are "true 1080p." I gave Panasonic fans heck for using the term "true HD" to describe the HVX200, so I figure it's only fair to question any similar hype over the new Sonys. In my book a "true 1080p" camera would be one with a 1920x1080 sensor which can record and play back 1920x1080 pixels without connecting to a computer and without using interpolation or other trickery, and the new Sonys don't do that. If I wanted "true 1080p" I'd save up for the Silicon Imaging SI-1920 or "Red," not mess around with some new way to squeeze more data out of thin air. Show me a recorded image with 1000+ lines of discernible detail and then we can talk about "true 1080p," until then can we maybe not use terms like that? It's distracting.
Well I guess the Cinealta F900 isn't a real HD camera then right? I mean since the HDCAM format only records 1440x1080 pixels.

True 1080p HDV means that it is the first HDV camera to have a true sampled 1080p vertical pixels. Every HDV camera up till now has some form of interpolation to get to 1080p. So in that sense you can call this a true 1080p camera.
Thomas Smet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 3rd, 2006, 04:23 PM   #13
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,414
I'm just guessing here a little... but if you research the way Hewlett Packard
gets " True 1080P " on the HD TV's,they have invented the method called
" Wobulation "... this should not be confused with " Native 1080 " resolution.

here is the explanation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wobulation


Sony has figured out a way to modulate the pixels on this camera to get
the resolution doubled for the HD resolution.... this is the reason Sony
went to the CMOS as they have indicated one of the reasons is with their new controller is that they can now control each pixel. They would obviously need to control the pixels the same as the wobulation requires single pixel control...

Again, this is speculation on my part.... but this line taken from the Sony site somewhat supports at least some of my speculation...

" The signals from the four surrounding photodiodes are used to reproduce one more signal with the Enhanced Imaging Processorô."

Last edited by Douglas Spotted Eagle; October 3rd, 2006 at 04:38 PM. Reason: please do not copy/paste content from other websites.
Ray Bell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 3rd, 2006, 06:46 PM   #14
Trustee
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Posts: 1,719
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin Emms
"What's different about an image from a clearvid sensor which would make you question the results of a standard resolution chart test?"

A standard pixel array has a higher diagonal resolution than horizontal or vertical. Clearvid is a standard pixel array turned 45 degrees, so the measured horizontal and vertical resolution increases and the diagonal resolution is reduced.

800lines for a high def camera is nothing short of impressive, but if you have a Clearvid at 800 lines and an ordinary camera at 800 lines, the ordinary camera has a higher diagonal resolution than the clearvid, and a much larger total resolution.

So you can't compare like for like with just this data.

If you look at the comparisons on the Sony site, [they're all] close ups of pictures with vertical and horizontal detail (windows, bricks, all square on), but no close ups of the diagonals. .
What about the other samples we have seen from DSE? Those have some diagonals in them don't they? Couldn't the same also be said about a bayer pattern since in the diagonal direction a line either has every green pixel as a real pixel or every pixel in that diagonal line is an interpolated pixel?

Last edited by Douglas Spotted Eagle; October 3rd, 2006 at 08:00 PM. Reason: copy of inappropriate commentary
Thomas Smet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 3rd, 2006, 08:03 PM   #15
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Stockton, UT
Posts: 5,648
Marvin, attacks or commentary about any manufacturer hiding something is inappropriate.

No one from any company or anywhere else is hiding something. The answer simply is, manufacturers and shooters of any product likely aren't going to worry about the minutaie that you are implying someone is intentionally hiding.
As asked before, are you in the business because you can apply slide rules, math, fuzzy logic, and intense discussion, or are you in the business of being creative and capturing great pictures and telling interesting stories with frame sequences?

Any further posts of speculation or intimation that a manufacturer is "hiding" anything such as these last few will be immediately removed to either Area 51 or a moderators room.
__________________
Douglas Spotted Eagle/Spot
Author, producer, composer
Certified Sony Vegas Trainer
http://www.vasst.com
Douglas Spotted Eagle 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 > Sony XAVC / XDCAM / NXCAM / AVCHD / HDV / DV Camera Systems > Sony HDV and DV Camera Systems > Sony HVR-V1 / HDR-FX7

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 



Google
 

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:43 AM.


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