Z5 or NX5U
 

Hi folks, my question is, which has better resolution the z5 or the new nx5u

Thanks in advance

They're the same.

Then both are 1920 x 1080 ?

Check the specs on the Sony website. I believe neither is, at the sensor level. The spec sheets for both cite a sensor with a gross pixel count of 1,120,000px, which the Z5 manual specifies as 1440 x 810. In terms of "effective" pixel count, the NX5 has a slight edge at 1,040,000 to the Z5's 1,037,000. EDIT: Sony's Product Detail Page shows the NX5 as 1,037,000 as well.

What happens after that are where they differ but there is not likely any difference in actual resolution. The NX5 records as 1920 x 1080 while the Z5, being HDV, records as 1440 x 1080. But I doubt you'll see the difference.

Hey Adam ! thanks for your information

I have 2 z5 and I'm thinking of buying one of these cameras, but if the resolution between the two is is not obvious whether the advantage of SD memory, I will wait a few months to get the new NX5U..

Franklin..

I'm in no hurry to get rid of my Z5s either.

If you're looking only at sensor-level resolution then you are ignoring what the camera is actually capable of. The sensor is only one of several vital components, all of which affect the camera's actual output. To focus only on the sensors is myopic, because there's much more to it than that.

Recorded resolution is what really matters.

In the long run, though, what Adam says is true of course: most people cannot detect any visual difference between 1920 x 1080 square vs. 1440 x 1080 anamorphic.

That's not resolution per se but file size.

Hey Franklin,

I prefer HDV for several reasons. I own a CASSIE 3GEN HD editing system and burn Blu-ray.

On my Z-5- I use the CF cards and tape as a backup. I prefer working in HDV as the download is faster than real time. My AVCHD material is slower from my Canon camera. To be honest, nobody can tell the difference plus I adjusted my Z-5 to really punch out the colors. I make outstanding Blu-ray discs as well. I also feel safer archiving to a 4 dollar tape in HD than to tie-up my SD cards or lose tham due to the smaller size.

BTW: Hope you enjoyed my video lecture.

Of course Chris is right and I didn't mean to over-simplify the issue. I only wanted to point out that the picture starts out pretty much the same in both cams.

Not quite, the resolution is around 1440x810, but it isn't possible to sensibly quote an AxB figure for sensor as the rows run diagonally across the sensor rather than up/down. It's effectively two identical sets of 960x540 interleaved together in a diamond fashion - so an effective pixel count of 2x960x540.

Best to just call them "1 megapixel sensors" unless you're really into the technicalities - half as many as the EX, twice as many as the HVX170 or HMC150.

Either way, the chips on the two cameras first mentioned are the same resolution, but as Chris says, that's only one factor to think of when doing a comparison.

I think its important to realize that for a lot of these cameras the pixel count is not the sensor count. The DSP creates the pixels from the available sensors by interpolation. The issue then becomes how good is the initial array in allowing the DSP to create effective pixels. I think this is where the Sony array gives the advantage of larger sensors ( low light performance) and an array configuration that allows the DSP to create 1920x1080 pixels. Overlaying a 1920x1080 pixel array on the Sony sensor array will show how the pixels are comprised from a small section out of the center of the sensors plus an interpolated pixel from 4 adjacent sensors positioned at the point where these 4 adjacent sensors meet. This has the advantage of a larger sensor for light gathering but still leaves a lot of data for interpolation.
The 960x540 sensors are all on the center line of the 1920x1080 pixel array. Simplistically the pixels output could be thought of as:- pixels from the center of the sensors equal sensor output divided by 2, interpolated pixels are sum of 1/4 of each of the 4 adjoining sensors outputs divided by 2.
This may not be quite as good as a 1/2" or 2/3" chip but I expect that the lens is starting to have more of an effect at these resolutions!!!!
Ron Evans

my absolutely thumbsuck non pixel peeper impression is that the footage coming out of the NXCAM (when converted to ProRes 422) is somehow finer than that that came out of my earlier HDV cams. A little less noise and the AVCHD def handles movement better than HDV.

Adam

One reason I got the NX5U was that my XR500 was clearly better than the FX1 video a lot of the time and felt that the NX5U would level this difference. I use the XR500 as a full stage fixed unattended cam in the theatre shoots. In side by side, full auto, the XR500 and NX5U are very close with the XR500 maybe a little less noise!!! Both are sharper and less noise than the FX1.

Ron Evans

tape or file. that is the question
 

I have to replace a stolen Z7 and probably going for the Z5 or NX5 (for the 20x lens vs. the Z7). the main thing is I like tape! it's reliable and lasts a really long time (my tapes from the 1980's still play). the there's the CF card as well. I edit on Avid and HDV has a really smooth workflow - no rendering until it's done. I'm not convinced that AVCHD is going to look any better than HDV after editing. I'd love to hear any opinions - getting the insurance $ next week and have jobs coming up so I have to decide... charlie