Yes, but say your delivery format is 720p. You couldn't go anywhere with the JVC, but the dvx100 would look pretty good.
Can I ask what the time frame is to render each frame with S-Spline Pro? PC or MAC.
Ken

s-spline isn't a sharpener - it's a spline based image upsampler that uses some mightly clever algorithms to make a picture enlargement look a lot better than bicubic.

Also, we're still not comparing the same things - the JVC footage is sharpended to death in camera - nothing can save that in post, whereas the DVX is not over-sharpened.

I'm guessing the JVC has the sharpness always on because the picture can't stand the scrutiny without it. To get colour and luminance of a single chip you can't use all the pixels for resolution - something's got to give. Sharpness gives fake resolution, and is a bit of a band aid for lack of real detail. Before any serious comparisons between the JVC and anything else can be made, we need to see what the JVC looks like without sharpening.

Graeme

" I'm guessing the JVC has the sharpness always on because the picture can't stand the scrutiny without it."

I was under the impression that the HD10 does not suffer from over sharpening like the HD1 used in the comparison. And its image holds up. I think 720p is going to give you a sharp looking image even with no sharpness enhancement from the cam.
Ken

Actually, if you can tear your eyes away from the model's face and look at the LED numbers on the slate and the deck in the background you'll see quite a difference in the readability of the numbers between the DVX and the HD1.

I beg to differ on the poo pooing of the single chip. With enough pixels, a single chip does just fine.
See example stills from any digital still camera.
-Les



<<<-- Originally posted by Graeme Nattress : s-spline isn't a sharpener - it's a spline based image upsampler that uses some mightly clever algorithms to make a picture enlargement look a lot better than bicubic.

Also, we're still not comparing the same things - the JVC footage is sharpended to death in camera - nothing can save that in post, whereas the DVX is not over-sharpened.

I'm guessing the JVC has the sharpness always on because the picture can't stand the scrutiny without it. To get colour and luminance of a single chip you can't use all the pixels for resolution - something's got to give. Sharpness gives fake resolution, and is a bit of a band aid for lack of real detail. Before any serious comparisons between the JVC and anything else can be made, we need to see what the JVC looks like without sharpening.

Graeme -->>>

S-spline PRO does have unsharp mask sharpening.
The 'graphic' preset that was used did indeed do sharpening.
The old s-spline did not have USM, maybe you are confusing the two?
-Les



<<<-- Originally posted by Graeme Nattress : s-spline isn't a sharpener - it's a spline based image upsampler that uses some mightly clever algorithms to make a picture enlargement look a lot better than bicubic.

Also, we're still not comparing the same things - the JVC footage is sharpended to death in camera - nothing can save that in post, whereas the DVX is not over-sharpened.

I'm guessing the JVC has the sharpness always on because the picture can't stand the scrutiny without it. To get colour and luminance of a single chip you can't use all the pixels for resolution - something's got to give. Sharpness gives fake resolution, and is a bit of a band aid for lack of real detail. Before any serious comparisons between the JVC and anything else can be made, we need to see what the JVC looks like without sharpening.

Graeme -->>>

Les, you said "No, because you can do the s-spline ( sharpen, really ) to the JVC footage as well."

which makes it sound like S-spline is a sharpening tool, which although it may have some sharpening abilities as part of it's feature set, that's not it's main purpose or ability. It is a very clever upsampler.

As for one-chipedness, yes - if the resolution is high enough you can get away with one chip, but if you want full colour from a single chip of x,y resolution you're only going to get a certain percentage of that resolution as some of the total resolution must be traded in to get colour support.

Graeme

<<<-- Originally posted by Ken Hodson :
Can I ask what the time frame is to render each frame with S-Spline Pro? PC or MAC.
Ken -->>>

On my 2.66GHz P4 WinXP single-processor system, it's about six seconds per frame. Obviously a hyper-threaded or dual-processor system may be able to do better.

<<<-- Originally posted by Dustin Cross : Can someone shoot a colorchart with a DVX and the JVC side by side and both at 30p? I would like to see one frame from each camera. -->>>

Perhaps we will see some comparisons by Scott Billups in the near future
http://www.pixelmonger.com/hg_cam.html

- don

The original premise of the comparision was that the footage was straight out of the two cameras with no intermediate processing other than scaling. S-Spline Pro does sharpening as part of its scaling process, so it's incorrect to say that the DVX footage is straight out of the camera. Apparently that was always the case. It's irrelevant to argue that the JVC is sharpened in camera. What matters is what the footage looks like out of the camera and what you can do with it. We have a mixed comparison here (though probably as good as can be done). I don't mean to criticize the test but it's important to understand the limitations. What we have here is an honest attempt to improve the DVX footage to HD standards compared to JVC out of the camera. Not all the credit for the DVX footage can be attributed to the camera. If this is a cooked comparision we should edit the JVC footage as well.

Any reduction in full color bandwidth caused by the single chip architecture (read the JVC white paper carefully) doesn't mattter when the format substantially reduces color bandwidth anyway. The whole color bandwidth argument is a red herring for formats that subsample chroma. 3CCD designs have advantages other than that.

I seem to have had a post here lost so I'll repeat part of it. I personally believe the DVX color rendition is hypersaturated and exhibits blooming and color fringing. It's white balance is also different than the JVC. While the JVC could use more saturation, I vastly prefer it to the DVX which I consider awful. S-Spline Pro does a nice job faking the extra resolution on the subject, though. The blue wall detail and the chair give away the resolution differences.

<<<-- Originally posted by Graeme Nattress : Les, you said "No, because you can do the s-spline ( sharpen, really ) to the JVC footage as well."

which makes it sound like S-spline is a sharpening tool, which although it may have some sharpening abilities as part of it's feature set, that's not it's main purpose or ability. It is a very clever upsampler.

As for one-chipedness, yes - if the resolution is high enough you can get away with one chip, but if you want full colour from a single chip of x,y resolution you're only going to get a certain percentage of that resolution as some of the total resolution must be traded in to get colour support.

Graeme -->>>

What do you mean faking the extra resolution? if it looks good to the eye then the resolution is there! Those two words are almost an oxymoron. Since the JVC is already in 720P, there is no need to uprez it using S-Spline. I do'nt see the "cooking" of the test as you refered to. As far as I can tell, it was a simple re-size. You can't judge the colors of the DVX purely by this single example shot. There has been PLENTY of impressive full-rez samples of DVX footage online and not so much good full-rez ones of the JVC. If you want to see examples of how DVX handles color look no other than this guy's website:

http://www.phocinema.com/vietnam/index.htm

Those are perhaps some of the best examples of what Digital camcorders can do. But eithercase... you'd be foolish to say a single CCD video camera can produce colors and latitude better than a 3CCD. Also you pointed out that the walls and the chair gives away the differences between the two cams. Yeah, the chair on the JVC is a total blur! However, if you look at the computer monitor in both shots, you'll see almost the same amount of details, with the JVC perhaps a little better (But that's to be expected). Now I'm not proclaiming the S-Spline is a perfect solution, since the rescaling takes so long.. but on the other hand, so does Magic bullet, and alot of people can't live without it. So I guess if your goal is for a HD projection, then its definitely worth it to spend the extra time at the end to do the s-spline up rez. I can't wait to see what other clever algorithms lies ahead for us.

I mean the extra resolution is faked. It's clearly not in the original camera footage because it cannot be. The extra pixels are interpolated from existing data and then sharpening is applied. The resulting footage is much more than what came from the camera.

Yang, you appear to feel like it's proper to compare two cameras by applying unlimited processing to one and none to the other. More power to you, but I certainly won't rely on your judgement for my opinions. If processing were allowed on both, I'm sure the JVC would have showed better, especially in color. I never said processing was bad, I simply pointed out it was unequal.

I watched all the provided footage on a very high res computer monitor at double size. The chair back in the JVC footage is vastly superior to to the DVX. The back wall is noticably different, some much so that some speculated there was a DOF issue. I don't believe so since the computer monitor was similarly fuzzy in both shots. The digital display and the chair are both in the foreground and there's a noticable difference in quality.

My point about the color is that I didn't like it in the demo shot. That opinion is in contrast to others who've said it was better. If I were processing the footage, I'd adjust the saturation in both shots but in opposite directions. I'd also fix the white balance on the DVX. There were color artifacts in the DVX that I didn't like (the right shoulder, for example).

I didn't say "a single CCD video camera can produce colors and latitude better than a 3CCD". I said that believing 3 CCD's is inherently better than 1 is misguided, especially for subsampled chroma formats. I let the engineers decide how to build a camera then judge its performance. This is in contrast to 3CCD fans who summarily dismiss a camera based on a specsheet. I personally believe that the advantage of 3CCD is in sharpness. That's certainly the case in the still world where there are definite analogs.

s-spline pro
 

The dvx footage WAS SHARPENED. The unsharp mask feature was USED in the blowup to 1280 size. How much more clear can that be? I tried it without the UNSHARP MASK sharpen, the results are slim to none as far as getting detail like the JVC cam.


As Craig stated, it's unfair to provide 6 seconds of CPU image processing to each frame of the DVX and none to the JVC. To be fair, the same process should be done to both.
Some might say ' the JVC is at 720p already!'. Well, I say , why limit it to 1280, baby! Bring on 1910.

I did some JVC stills at 1910, and the wonderful s-spline pro can make that look pretty stunning as well.

All that aside, it takes a bunch of work to actually do the S-spline pro uprez-sharpen to the footage. It's not a drop in, turn on plugin. You have to use still frames. It does not work on movie files.
I think S-spline pro, and some of the other advances upres sharpening tools out there are very good tools. Perhaps in the future that will make a NLE plugin as well.

Yes, the sky is still falling on the DV res ( web cam res ) res world. Even if it has 8 chips ;). That's technology.

-Les

Les Dit

why dont you try down-sample your hd1 to sd and sharpen it and compare to dvx to see if the sharpening function does so much different as you claim?

Why would you want to sharpen the downsampled HD footage to compare it to the DVX footage? The HD footage already looks considerably sharper than the DVX footage, at least in this example:

http://66.78.26.9/~fiercely/DVXvsJVC/DVXvsJVC.avi

It does. Sharpening, by its very nature, creates detail that isn't already there. Downsampling, then sharpening, proves nothing.

What we have here is upsampling through interpolation followed by sharpening. The upsampling creates higher potential bandwidth in the format. Sharpening fills it in. The added detail is false detail but is pleasing due to the nature in which it's added. The resulting image has higher frequency content that the original. I guarantee it.

I don't understand why this is controversial. No one said the technique is bad, but you can't compare the performance of two cameras that way. People here want to accept this as proof that the DVX has nearly the resolution of the JVC when it does not. It is proof that you can get good image quality at HD res from the DVX through careful upsampling. It is equally true that you can do it to the JVC, like Les said.

why cant compare this way?
dvx can do HD by just some resizing, and its image quality blows the hd1 in HD away, this is done by some software tweaking.
as for the hd1, you cant get a 1ccd look like a 3ccd by color correcting(software tweaking).

I can't see how you arrived at either conclusion. The DVX didn't do HD at all and the JVC wasn't color corrected, so there's no evidence to support either of your claims. As for image quality, there's no doubt in my mind that the JVC looked better in both resolution and color than the DVX.

To answer your question, you can't compare two cameras "straight out of the camera" by heavily post-processing one but not the other. I think that's plain enough.

For all those that claim that the DVX resolution is as good as the JVC, consider the following:

All the detail in the DVX footage is contained with the DV format. If it is the equal of the JVC, that says that all the JVC's detail could be contained in the DV format even though it's in HD. The logical conclusion is that you could downconvert the JVC to DV resolution, then upconvert that DV footage back to HD without losing any detail. Let's see it.

Anyone with the proper equipment could confirm that this not the case without wasting time on it. The HD format has much higher bandwidth potential than DV, so the JVC must not be using any of that if the DVX fans here are correct.

In my opinion the uprez'ed DVX footage looks good because the talent is very close to the camera. As you can see, no matter what you do you can't pull detail out of a blurry background, no matter what. If you are going to shoot a project where you always have tight shots, this may work, but throw in a wide or long shot and you will see that s-spline isn't going to save your SD resolution.
So far all of the A/B comparisons (Jon's included) have not been done in a way that allows people to see the resolution differance. The focus of the shots have always been a few feet away. Hell my 1chip consummer cam looks great when I shoot close shot.

This is what I would like to see as a definative A/B.
Shoot a person 25-30 feet away, against a wall. This will do away with DOF debates. Center the shot so that the head and foot room of the subject are the same from both cams. Do not worry about width matching unless you are using an anamorphic adaptor. Keep the shots in there origional size. Do not resize or resample. Let us compare a 1280x720 with a 720x480.
And judge!

I think it will be plain to see the resolution advantages of the JVC. No amount of s-spline is going to save the SD footage.
Ken

It's important for the test subject to have detail that challenges both cameras and I think that shooting at a distance will help provide that.

<<<-- Originally posted by Craig Jones : I can't see how you arrived at either conclusion. The DVX didn't do HD at all and the JVC wasn't color corrected, so there's no evidence to support either of your claims. As for image quality, there's no doubt in my mind that the JVC looked better in both resolution and color than the DVX.

To answer your question, you can't compare two cameras "straight out of the camera" by heavily post-processing one but not the other. I think that's plain enough.

For all those that claim that the DVX resolution is as good as the JVC, consider the following:

All the detail in the DVX footage is contained with the DV format. If it is the equal of the JVC, that says that all the JVC's detail could be contained in the DV format even though it's in HD. The logical conclusion is that you could downconvert the JVC to DV resolution, then upconvert that DV footage back to HD without losing any detail. Let's see it.

Anyone with the proper equipment could confirm that this not the case without wasting time on it. The HD format has much higher bandwidth potential than DV, so the JVC must not be using any of that if the DVX fans here are correct. -->>>


as i said, one can get a better video by software tweaking as the other cant no matter what "heavily post-processing" you apply , you cant make a 1ccd to look like a 3ccd. that is the difference.
the color thing maybe subjective, but the advantage of 3ccd over 1ccd is pretty like common sense.

or you can show us your color correcting skill that makes the hd1 look like the dvx, post here, then you can call your 3ccd hd1, and be proud of it. we can then get rid of the expensive 3ccd and go for 1ccd.

Then again, we're debating HDV vs. DV. That's like comparing, say, a 3 CCD DV to a 3 CCD Digibeta...Maybe a bit extreme, yes, but it's essentially two different formats.

heath

Seems like a dangerous thread to post opinions on. I have been staying away until now.

I don't think it matters how much processing you use to upconvert DV to HD, you can still favourably compare to HD source material to the up-res'd image. Using Barry's latest DVX100 to GR-HD1 comparison (the nice S-Spline version), I have high-lighted the obvious issues with both sources. In the end you can only get HD detail (not talking sharpness) if you start with an HD source.

See comparison:-
http://members.cts.com/crash/d/dan/temp/DVX100vsHD1.png

Whoa -- didn't mean to start so much trouble...

My point was, since the DVX was going to be upscaled (and in the first test I used Vegas) I thought it prudent to point out that much, much better upscaling software was available.

Remember, the original post included two clips: DVX and JVC at DV resolution, and DVX and JVC at HD resolution. I posted comparisons of down-rezzing as well as up-rezzing.

Remember, you CANNOT compare the two cameras straight off the tape, because they're very different formats! You've got to change one to match the other in order to compare them.

No other image manipulation was done: no color correction, no contrast, nothing. In one case, you have JVC downrezzed and compared to native DVX, in the other you have DVX uprezzed and compared to native JVC.

Obviously the JVC is going to hold an edge in resolution: you're talking about 864,000 pixels vs. 380,000 pixels! What's interesting here is that, using the proper software for resizing, you can get a much more comparable image from the DVX. The original clip I posted, where I used Vegas for the uprezzing, was simply unacceptable, very very soft. I think just about everyone would agree on this one point: the S-Spline up-rez is much more pleasing than the Vegas up-rez!

Diu,
You are following the sheep. 3ccd 3ccd 3ccd , that's old school buzz word stuff, the stuff people with a marginal grasp of the technology keep repeating like some kind of mantra.
Look, I can show you dozens of examples of a single ccd making a better image than a $100,000 3 chip camera.

Whaa Whaattt ? !!! ( my best Homer Simpson sound bite )

Yea, they are called digital still cameras. Oh my god!

So put aside the 3ccd issue, new things are happening.
3ccd in video cams is going to 'melt away', as readout rates and CCD tech gets cheaper-faster-better.
I'm not saying the JVC has the perfect single chip 720p implementation, but it's going in the right direction.
There are some mpeg2 issues on the JVC, sometimes I can see the flat areas quantize a bit, but on the whole, it's a refreshing image to look at because it *kinda* matches scanned film in detail.
Far less jaggies and other low res artifacts than DV footage.

Diu, did you see what effect the SAME PROCESSING does on some JVC footage? How did you come to the conclusion that " no matter what heavy processing" can't get the JVC looking better?
Look before you leap.
Did you test it?

-Les




<<<-- Originally posted by Diu Hai :
as i said, one can get a better video by software tweaking as the other cant no matter what "heavily post-processing" you apply , you cant make a 1ccd to look like a 3ccd. that is the difference.
the color thing maybe subjective, but the advantage of 3ccd over 1ccd is pretty like common sense.

or you can show us your color correcting skill that makes the hd1 look like the dvx, post here, then you can call your 3ccd hd1, and be proud of it. we can then get rid of the expensive 3ccd and go for 1ccd. -->>>

s-spline pro 'graphic' preset SHARPENS
 

Barry: Please tell the forum that you used the 'graphic' preset on S-spline, AND THAT DOES INDEED DO MORE THAN A RESIZE.

Sorry for the caps, but it DOES AN UNSHARP MASK SHARPEN as well.
Maybe the caps will help people see that :)

If you leave off the sharpen, the effect is slim to none, over a bicubic upres.
That would be a more fair test.

<<<-- Originally posted by Barry Green : Whoa -- didn't mean to start so much trouble...

No other image manipulation was done: no color correction, no contrast, nothing. In one case, you have JVC downrezzed and compared to native DVX, in the other you have DVX uprezzed and compared to native JVC.
-->>>

Les & Barry,

As I just commented (see http://members.cts.com/crash/d/dan/temp/DVX100vsHD1.png), it really doesn't matter whether you do any post processing, it is still possible to tell whether a clip has been upconverted. S-SPline does allow a DV image to have equivalent sharpness, but not equivalent detail.

Stilll, it is a great technique if you need to mix SD material within an HD production. I have been doing slow motion experiments mixing 480p60 with 720p30, the 480p60 could do with some sharpening. Note: The slow motion still looks awesome.

The problem people are upset, thinking that this operation is cheating as a form of comparison. Maybe a fair test for those who question the technique is to upconvert them both 1920x1080 and compare them at that res. :)

David,
Yes, I saw your test pic snippets, they were good and to the point.

I like your "both to 1910 upres" idea as well, I think I mentioned that as well, in one of my rants!

-Les

<<<-- Originally posted by David Newman : Les & Barry,

As I just commented (see http://members.cts.com/crash/d/dan/temp/DVX100vsHD1.png), it really doesn't matter whether you do any post processing, it is still possible to tell whether a clip has been upconverted. S-SPline does allow a DV image to have equivalent sharpness, but not equivalent detail.

Stilll, it is a great technique if you need to mix SD material within an HD production. I have been doing slow motion experiments mixing 480p60 with 720p30, the 480p60 could do with some sharpening. Note: The slow motion still looks awesome.

The problem people are upset, thinking that this operation is cheating as a form of comparison. Maybe a fair test for those who question the technique is to upconvert them both 1920x1080 and compare them at that res. :) -->>>

The hi-res test would be interesting.

David, good choice of sample area. Points 2 and 3 were what really bothered me.

Diu Hai, old prejudices die hard, especially when you use prejudice itself as proof. I'm not predicting the future of 1CCD vs. 3CCD, but they are just design decisions that engineers make. In the still world, resolution and color are king, yet engineers use 1CCD almost universally. Let the engineers do their job and judge the cameras rather than the specs.

What is it specifically about 3CCD that can't be duplicated with 1CCD? I wouldn't want to make the JVC look like the DVX in this test.

Re: s-spline pro 'graphic' preset SHARPENS
 

<<<-- Originally posted by Les Dit : Barry: Please tell the forum that you used the 'graphic' preset on S-spline, AND THAT DOES INDEED DO MORE THAN A RESIZE.
-->>>

I used the "photo" preset. Whether it does other processes or not, I don't know. All I know is that it made an attractive, and fairly competitive, up-rez. Obviously not as detailed as the true HD of the JVC (as easily discerned on the diagonal lines) but not too shabby either.

<<<-- Originally posted by Les Dit : Diu,
You are following the sheep. 3ccd 3ccd 3ccd , that's old school buzz word stuff, the stuff people with a marginal grasp of the technology keep repeating like some kind of mantra.
Look, I can show you dozens of examples of a single ccd making a better image than a $100,000 3 chip camera.

Whaa Whaattt ? !!! ( my best Homer Simpson sound bite )

Yea, they are called digital still cameras. Oh my god!

So put aside the 3ccd issue, new things are happening.
3ccd in video cams is going to 'melt away', as readout rates and CCD tech gets cheaper-faster-better.
I'm not saying the JVC has the perfect single chip 720p implementation, but it's going in the right direction.
There are some mpeg2 issues on the JVC, sometimes I can see the flat areas quantize a bit, but on the whole, it's a refreshing image to look at because it *kinda* matches scanned film in detail.
Far less jaggies and other low res artifacts than DV footage.

Diu, did you see what effect the SAME PROCESSING does on some JVC footage? How did you come to the conclusion that " no matter what heavy processing" can't get the JVC looking better?
Look before you leap.
Did you test it?

-Les

-->>>

put the 3ccd's future blah blah aside for a moment.
just make your 1ccd look like 3ccd, or at least make the color of hd1 comparable to dvx.
oh and remmeber to post it here when your done

<<<-- Originally posted by Craig Jones : <<<-- Originally posted by David Newman : Les & Barry,


Diu Hai, old prejudices die hard, especially when you use prejudice itself as proof. I'm not predicting the future of 1CCD vs. 3CCD, but they are just design decisions that engineers make. In the still world, resolution and color are king, yet engineers use 1CCD almost universally. Let the engineers do their job and judge the cameras rather than the specs.

What is it specifically about 3CCD that can't be duplicated with 1CCD? I wouldn't want to make the JVC look like the DVX in this test. -->>>


what we are arguing is that you said it was not fair because no tweak was done to the hd1, and that is why dvx blows hd1 away. and i asked you to do some tweak to the hd1 so that its color can be comparable to the dvx. if you can tweak hd1 to look like the 3ccd dvx, it wins, or it loses. its that simple.

My conclusion so far:

If you have optimum lighting, you can get stunningly detailed images with the JVC, which are unachievable by any DV camera, but it is technically difficult to get consistently good footage. There may be some issues with colour, but there is some disagreement about this.

It is much easier to get good video footage with the DVX, and, when this is up-rezzed to 1280x720 p using s-spline pro, it looks superficially like HD. Some people prefer the up-rezzed DVX to the native JVC 1280x720.

It is possible that, with image processing software, the subjective quality of the JVC HD footage could be improved further. (and probably the DVX too)

Fair?

Patrick

Diu,
Is the color the biggest issue for you?
Specify what elements of the DVX images were causing you to think the DVX 'blows away' the JVC.
Perhaps you don't care about extra detail?
Perhaps you would prefer to ignore that aspect, I don't know.

BTW, the s-spline 'photo' preset does an unsharp mask of radius 2.5, so yes, it *is* more than just upresing.

Also, it's not about 'wining' or 'losing', jeez, it's a tool, a camera. What is more important is what you use it for.
It's like the still photo consumers, many of them are constantly getting better lenses, bodies, accessories, in the vain hope that somehow it will help their photographs like like the ones they was in a book store of exhibit. It doesn't work that way.
But this is a technical forum, and it's fun to talk tech issues too.

I'll see if I can post a still from that JVC footage that looks very close to the undoctored DVX . I did an experiment before, and it turned out if I did a BLUR of 1.8 pixel radius on the JVC, it knocked out enough of the detail to make it look very similar. I saturated the color a bit to get you those candy coated colors the dvx makes.

Cheers,
-Les




<<<-- Originally posted by Diu Hai : <<<-- Originally posted by

what we are arguing is that you said it was not fair because no tweak was done to the hd1, and that is why dvx blows hd1 away. and i asked you to do some tweak to the hd1 so that its color can be comparable to the dvx. if you can tweak hd1 to look like the 3ccd dvx, it wins, or it loses. its that simple. -->>>

<<<-- Originally posted by Diu Hai : <<<-- Originally posted by Craig Jones : <<<-- Originally posted by David Newman : Les & Barry,


Diu Hai, old prejudices die hard, especially when you use prejudice itself as proof. I'm not predicting the future of 1CCD vs. 3CCD, but they are just design decisions that engineers make. In the still world, resolution and color are king, yet engineers use 1CCD almost universally. Let the engineers do their job and judge the cameras rather than the specs.

What is it specifically about 3CCD that can't be duplicated with 1CCD? I wouldn't want to make the JVC look like the DVX in this test. -->>>


what we are arguing is that you said it was not fair because no tweak was done to the hd1, and that is why dvx blows hd1 away. and i asked you to do some tweak to the hd1 so that its color can be comparable to the dvx. if you can tweak hd1 to look like the 3ccd dvx, it wins, or it loses. its that simple. -->>>

I did not say that, because the DVX does not blow the JVC away. In fact, quite the opposite. You assert that the JVC's color cannot possibly be as good as the DVX simply because no one has has modified it to look the same. The JVC's color is better than the DVX in this clip as far as I'm concerned.

As far as your rules about who wins and who loses, it doesn't matter. You define what's good simply as whatever the DVX produces. As I said before, old prejudices dies hard. The JVC wins this contest and doesn't need to be modified to do so.

Amen to that brother! :)

Troy

In terms of VIDEO a 3CCD system setup will be superior to a 1CCD chip in terms of colour, why beacuse a photosite (pixel) is a transducer it converts the photon that hits it to a small charge, the more the photons the larger the charge, anyway like many transducers the response may not be linear it may be some other non-linear response curve...
ok ok cutting to the chase the pixel represents an aprroxmimate luminance level, this is all very fine if you want to record black and white images but what about the colout? well back in the old days (near the begining of TV) one method was to spin a transparent mult-coloured wheel that had different coloured segments (red, green, blue) in front of the camera lens then on the TV sets it too would have the same wheel and buy spinning the wheel at the same phase (ie when the segment say was red past the camera lens at the same moment in time the wheel in form of the TV would also be red) this was a very crude method NOW back to the present day when using a 1CCD chip in order to get colour information you have to mask/filter off some of the pixels or photosites and you guys know the rest... now this method means that the colour information is only an aprroximation, but WAIT engineerings came up with a much better solution way not split the light into its primary colours and record them individually and thus avoid all the filtering and bayer matrix and pixel shifting issue all together.

Now you get some people who say " my digital camera can make images that are like waaay superior to any video camera and ITS a 1CCD" thats because its DESIGNED to take STILL images. It has many many more pixels then any video cameras so even after considering that not all of these pixels are used effectively (becasue you have to filter/mask some of the pixels to derive colour information) the large pixel count compensates for that, thats the reason why you need such high megapixel count to get good images. And since you are not demanding video the DSP has TIME to gather enough information to make a good image.

Anyway if you dont believe me then why cant a digital camera be used to make video and vise versa, i.e try making a video from a digital still and you will see that it is by now way at any level to compete with even an old analouge camcorder.

And what if you had a digital still camera that had 3CCD's it would diffinately blow away all these single chip digital still cameras(now dont give me all this stuff about using a 3CCD camcorder to take a digital still, because a video camera is designed for VIDEO and a still camera is desgined for a STILL image you get it now)

To conlude:

a 3CCD system is better than a 1CCD sytem period.
Comparing a digital still is a null issue because they are designed for a different purpose(for stills) [hint: thats why they suck when it comes to taking videos]

one last comment about the whole dvx vx hd1

universal law: grabage in garbage out

therefor even if the JVC has a higher resolution format you can not say that it has a superior lens than the DVX,
secondly in terms of colour the dvx has 3CCDs, the JVC may be recording (or trying to) a higer resolution but it has to sacriface a lot of pixels to achieve colour samples, as a result you are goinging to be losing resolution (add the fact you've got a poor lens) then to top if all of HD needs a higer bandwidth and mpeg2 just doesn't cut the musturd beacuse for gods sake during acqasition stage you want to reatin as much data as possible and using mpeg is a lossy process you are just throwing buckets of data away.

(hmm interesting note, if 1CCD was soo good why does CiniAlta use three?)

the JVC cam is like on of those cheapo digtal still cameras that you see advertised in newspapers you the one that are made by some cheapo company that claim to be 4megapixel at only £100 or something like that, then after you buy one and take a picture and compare it with like a 4meagpixel sony or say Kodak you realise how much the Sony/Kodak is superior. Becasue the cheapo camera is not actually 4meagpixel (its hardware interpolated) and the lens is poor quality it may not even have CCDs (most likely cmos).

So When JVC said it had a HD cam at a consumer price, lots of silly people got excited and thought that they had just brought a ciniAlta ...

Look i'm all for HD i would love to have HD but even HD is being replaced takea look at whats happing with Dalsa.

i'm tried of typing.

See if I've summarized Anhar's points correctly:

- 3CCD is better than 1CCD because 3CCD's are better.
- Still imager design is irrelevant because still imagers aren't designed for video.
- Video cameras can't take good stills and still cameras can't take good video.
- People who think still and video technologies are related are fools.
- JVC video is garbage.
- JVC's mpeg2 compression cannot possibly be good, therefore it is garbage.
- JVC's lens in not superior to the DVX, therefore it is poor.
- JVC sacrifices a lot of pixels and its lens is poor.
- DVX's color must be better because it's 3CCD.
- 1CCD can't be good because CineAlta uses 3.
- The JVC doesn't do what it advertises, doesn't have the claimed resolution, and probably doesn't have a real CCD in addition to its tiny lens.


I can see that you've done a thorough objective analysis and have a firm technical grasp of the issues. That the JVC is such a "piece..." doesn't reflect well on the DVX since it was totally outclassed in this comparison.

Just a few interesting facts for you:


- 3CCD cameras may eliminate the Bayer pattern, but not the color filtering. The prism has problems of its own.
- Both cameras here subsample chroma. The JVC format offers nearly as much chroma bandwidth as the DVX has luma bandwidth!
- The Nikon D2h processes in excess of 32Mpixels/second. The DVX does at most 10Mp/s per CCD and the JVC does 30Mp/s. Still cameras have no problem keeping up with video speeds.
- Curious that the DVX at its pixel rates can't do HD. So much for the superiority of 3CCD.
- There are digital video systems with pixel counts in the high MP range.
- The Nikon D100 uses an interline transfer CCD, and architecture DESIGNED for video cameras.
- The optics of video and still cameras work the same way.
- There are very few aspects of imager design that restrict their use to still or video.
- No one who bought a JVC thought they got a CineAlta.

Everything you posted, Anhar, is based on prejudice and heresay. Old prejudices die hard. I suggest you read JVC's discussion on it's 1CCD imager, only this time with an open mind.

Everyone,

Let's stay polite here; we strive to keep this intelligent, informative, and a fun debate.

Just a friendly reminder.

heath

Craig, I agree with most of your major points, but I think you need to add still digital cameras. Optics designed for film still cameras may show anomalies when used on digital still cameras.