DV Info Net

DV Info Net (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/)
-   Canon XL H Series HDV Camcorders (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/canon-xl-h-series-hdv-camcorders/)
-   -   A comparison between the H1 and Z1u tells a lot about The XLH1 res! (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/canon-xl-h-series-hdv-camcorders/58820-comparison-between-h1-z1u-tells-lot-about-xlh1-res.html)

Michael Pappas January 21st, 2006 02:11 PM

A comparison between the H1 and FX1/Z1u tells a lot about The XLH1 res!
 
On this test between the H1 and FX1/Z1u, it tells a lot about the res of the H1. If the FX1/Z1u is about 650, than with the results of this blow up of the H1 vs FX1/Z1u, the H1 is clearly way above 800 lines easily.

The difference between these both shots is far more than just simply 150 lines...

the link

http://www.eidomedia.com/test/out_test.htm




Michael Pappas
Arrfilms@hotmail.com
PappasArts & Arrfilms Main site

CONTACT VIA AOL INSTANT MESSENGER
AT { PAPPASARTS2 }


XLH1 and HVX200 frame grabs and news here:
http://www.pbase.com/Arrfilms

http://www.PappasArts.com
http://www.Myspace.com/PappasArts

Joseph H. Moore January 21st, 2006 02:46 PM

Thanks for that shot. Yeah, that's a not insignificant amount of extra "real" resolution.

Tom Roper January 21st, 2006 03:19 PM

More resolution, more noise, more red/green fringing, weak greens. Disappointing.

http://vsdrives.com/graphics/Resolut...risongrab6.bmp

FX1 on left, H1 on right.

Michael Pappas January 21st, 2006 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Roper
More resolution, more noise, more red/green fringing, weak greens. Disappointing.

http://vsdrives.com/graphics/Resolut...risongrab6.bmp

FX1 on left, H1 on right.


Yeah the FX1/Z1u is an awesome camera too! Canon and Sony see the world of imagery different. Both are awesome.

More room to grow in a professional production with the H1. I think all these HD cameras are a blessing though; who would have thunk three years ago we would be debating resolution on small form professional high-def cameras. Crazy, but a good thing to have many choices like HVX200-XLH1-FX1/Z1u & the HD100...

You can't go wrong either way choosing any one of them.

Michael Pappas
Arrfilms@hotmail.com
PappasArts & Arrfilms Main site

CONTACT VIA AOL INSTANT MESSENGER
AT { PAPPASARTS2 }


XLH1 and HVX200 frame grabs and news here:
http://www.pbase.com/Arrfilms

http://www.PappasArts.com
http://www.Myspace.com/PappasArts

Pete Bauer January 21st, 2006 07:22 PM

Cropped bits from clips with unknown settings and circumstances, without context or explanation don't gain much credibilty with me. Hopefully people won't get too excited about these sorta-tidbits.

A. J. deLange January 23rd, 2006 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joseph H. Moore
Thanks for that shot. Yeah, that's a not insignificant amount of extra "real" resolution.

I'm not sure the extra resolution is real. I've posted the MTF for this camera with a couple of lenses at http://www.pbase.com/image/54796410. The MTF's all clearly show that the image has been electronically sharpened (which contributes not only to the apparent increase in resolution but to apparent noise level). It's also a stretch to call the resolution greater than 800 lpph based on the MTF's. More like 660 - 700 depending on whether you define it in terms of the 50% or 60% response levels.

Kenji Kodama January 31st, 2006 06:09 AM

Comparing XLH1 to HDR-HC1
 
I found this site;

http://enjoy1.bb-east.ne.jp/~pro/HC1H1.html

It says the former part of each file is HC1 in summar, the latter part is XL-H1 in winter.

John Jay January 31st, 2006 10:48 AM

FY('all)I

it should be noted that the Sony has a non switchable noise reduction filter applied to the image which is equivalent to a 2-pixel horizontal blur, the Canon is equivalent when the noise reduction is switched on

Heath McKnight January 31st, 2006 11:18 AM

I'm curious who did this test, how it was done, was it down-converted footage that was zoomed in digitally (I've seen those tests done with Z1 footage in the past and Z1 footage down-converted from camera and zoomed in looked like that vs. Z1 footage cut in HDV and down-converted in the NLE and zoomed in which looked great).

Call me very skeptical. I've seen different results from at least the Z1. Will be trying out the XL H1 soon.

heath

Douglas Spotted Eagle January 31st, 2006 11:38 AM

I'm with Heath, Pete, and the others on this...these "tests" don't say anything. Too many variables. SteadiShot on? Off? Noise filter on/off? etc, etc.
The XL-H1 is my fave out of all the HDV offerings right now, outside the price, but the differences aren't as significant as your shots might show.

Heath McKnight January 31st, 2006 11:49 AM

To my eye, the footage I shot with the Z1 and H1 were comparable (in 60i mode).

heath

Nick Hiltgen January 31st, 2006 01:31 PM

When shannon and I compared the two cmaeras side by side (directly hooked up to a monitor) I would say that the z1u had less resolution. but I think all of that is now kinda worthless as it really comes down to how well the codec or compression for each camera holds up.

Ash Greyson January 31st, 2006 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Roper
More resolution, more noise, more red/green fringing, weak greens. Disappointing.

http://vsdrives.com/graphics/Resolut...risongrab6.bmp

FX1 on left, H1 on right.


LOL... I swear... so if we look at footage blown up 10000% the soft stuff will look better? DUH! You cannot glean anything from "tests" like this. The XLH, like the XL2 is set up to deliver the most resolution out of the box. Want less noise? Turn on NR2. Want better greens? Push the color balance that way a direction. I can tell you by looking that XLH was not optimized.


ash =o)


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:22 AM.

DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2019 The Digital Video Information Network