Ken Hodson Wrote: "The bottom line is the HD10 is closer to true 720HD resolution, then say the XL1 is to true DV resolution. Yet no one harps that the XL1 isn't a true DV cam!"

Answer to Ken Hodson: Of course XL1 is a true DV, and its horizontal resolution is excellent. HD10's horizontal resolution lies exactly half-way between DV and 720p. Please read the previous moderator's report in Video Systems, which was well referenced in this forum. The ex moderator later on aparently forgot what he discovered and described, very scientifically, in Video Systems.

We should be accurate in our statements. There is no need to exaggurate quality of a camera, claim that HD10's picture quality is close to CineAlta, or that Varicam is better than CineAlta, etc., as Varicam owners claim, just because they can't afford CineAlta. Major motion pictures were made with CineAlta. None with Varicam. There is a very good reason. And the JVC is no Varicam, but falls at best between the DVX and Varicam. If you'd stand on that line connecting quality of Varicam and DVX, at the point where is the JVC, you'd be too close from the DVX and too far from the Varicam. CineAlta will be just as distant from the Varicam as the Varicam is from the DVX. That is what I saw myself.

Christopher Toderman wrote:Excellent, meaning what? The maximum resolution of what miniDV is capable of? That would be 540 horizontal lines. The XL1 plays back 460 lines.

The JVC is 25% off, 1/2 way between SD and the lowest level of HD. I rest my case.

You seem to forget that 25% off HD720 is much less noticeable than 25% off SD. As for the pixel count of both the XL1 and the HD10 the ratio is not 25% less for the HD10, it is 0,91:1 (840,000:921,600), horizontal lines is a bizare way to state definition, especially with progressive scan. The XL1 falls very short 0,72:1 (250,000:345,600), especially in 16:9 stretched. I used the XL1 a lot and the image is good but not very sharp. Compared to the DVX or even the GL2, it lacks a lot of sharpness and you can see that without fancy material. I also tested the HD10 with the Varicam and it is close, so close that we where not able to tell the difference in definition (I did this test with and for people that have been working with HD for years). Test it, you will see how close it is, you really don't need all this "techno babbel", what you see is what you get. All I see is a lot of theory without bothering to test as it was when miniDV came out, the VX1000 was bombarded by techs all over the place telling it was not good, not equivalent, unusable, crap etc... While those people where arguing, some people took the damn thing and made history with it. You either fear it or use it but there is potential, oh yes...

Resolution does not double as image size doubles. Resolution is usually measured as line pairs per millimeter. It is a linear scale. Doubling the pixels will only result in 1.4x improvement in resolution.

You are right of course Jeff but I still don't see the point of such a scale if it is not seen with the same screen size each time. A lot of HD is now seen on LCD screens or computer screens with pixel ratios, not line counts. Even the upconverters and digital/analog converters offer the out to SVGA/RGB/YUV option now.

Answer to Eric Bilodeau:

I wanted to rest my case but I have to answer this. After that, please state whatever you want. I will not get involved in this fruitless stuff. XL1 is a 3-chip camera, with the pixels offset, so it could have a full resolution of the DV format. If it does not has nothing to do with the chips. There are other problems with the JVC CCD besides not having enough pixels. It was very well explained in Video Ststems. The horizontal resolution is full 25% diminished. The deficiency is a lot worse than that of the XL1 percentagewise. The XL1 is close to the approx 500 lines of the DVX format. The JVC is way off. I have seen images from both the JVC and the Varicam. As I said, if it can be compared to anything, it is closer to the DVX in progressive, and very distant from the Varicam. Although the horizontal resolution falls at a midpoint between the two, it has too many other defficiencies compared to the DVX. Resolution is not everything. I rest my case forever on this camera. If anyone thinks that the images are similar to the Varicam, or even CineAlta, all power to you. Just relize that when you go to a stereo showroom, the dealers have a way to place the speakers and do other tricks that you choose the ones that the dealer makes most profit on. So if any tests show that this camera has an image that is similar to Varicam, buy it and enjoy it. Good luck.

Have you really USED the camera?

have you *seen* the existing DVX vs JVC clip, the one with the blond 'lady' in front of the video equipment?

The DV just plain looks out of focus when viewed against the JVC.
There is just no comparing the two. I had to do a blur 1.9 on the JVC image to get it as blurry as the DVX image.
I've shown that test clip to any number of people and the reaction is always "Wow!"

I think we should expect a lot of chatter from standard DV 3 chip users that are maybe a little annoyed that there is a new kid on the block. ( and he doesn't wear Coke bottle eye glasses !!! )
I know the JVC has it's problems, but all around it makes up for it with it's sharp image. And I'll know *I'll* be annoyed when Sony comes out with a HDV after I get my JVC !

-Les

I'll be the first to admit defeat. I own a JVC GY-DV500 which is one of the 3 chip 1/2" DV cameras that beats the XL1, etc. and I now own 2 HD10's and they are blowing my DV500 away in most situations. I still find myself using the dv500 for low light situations and since it has a 20x lens on it I can get better reach but overall the HD10 is much better. I have done my own side by comparison and don't need anymore convincing. The previous post about diffusion on the HD10 helping is true. Try throwing a Promist .5 or 1 infront of the camera and watch the hot spots practicaly disappear, it was amazing. As everyone is saying, this isn't a Varicam but there will always be people trying to make one camera look like the other. Sometimes they are called pioneers, sometimes they are crazy. Just thought I would put in my 2 cents on the issue, not to offend anyone if for some reason I have.

-Mark

Remember, it's working around the limitations.

What angered me about the HD10, other than the controls, was that my mentality is Dogme95/Documentary/ENG style of shooting. You can't really (or shouldn't) do that. I have seen the HD10 shooting a Puddle of Mudd concert handheld and with concert lighting (ie, bad) and it looked GREAT, but I wouldn't recommend it.

I've gotten away with shooting dogme 95 on the XL-1, but when we shot on sticks with great lighting, it ALWAYS looked top knotch. And that's the same with the HD10!

heath

On the DVX v JVC clip (SD version) it's easy to take the DVX section and apply an un-sharp mask filter to it and make it look as sharp as the JVC. As a HD camera, the JVC has both greater resolution and appears sharper than the DVX is as a DV camera. To really compare the cameras properly we need to see what the JVC looks like without the awful sharpness. I couldn't see anything in the way of edge enhancement sharpness on the DVX clip. There's a big difference between sharpness and resolution, and I'd like to be comparing the resolution of the cameras, not the edge enhancement!

Also, I think any annoyment on the part of current DV users is not that technology moves along, but that in the case of the JVC (which is of course the first of it's kind and it will improve) is that the camera is a case of one step forwards (improved resolution) and two steps back (only 30p, poor controls, only 1 chip, etc.).

Remember that most criticism we have to put up with as DV users is, although pointed at the DV format, should really be directed at the camera and the user instead. DV as a format is capable of great things, and is certainly the equal, if not better than some of the old analogue broadcast formats, but is often let down by lack of care in it's operation or a poor front end. That's not the fault of the DV format!

I think every DV user would really like to see what the HDV format is capable of when coupled to a camera worthy of the higher definition format!

Graeme

Sound cool, Mark! How about some test clips?

heath

<<<-- Originally posted by Mark Jervis : I'll be the first to admit defeat. I own a JVC GY-DV500 which is one of the 3 chip 1/2" DV cameras that beats the XL1, etc. and I now own 2 HD10's and they are blowing my DV500 away in most situations. I still find myself using the dv500 for low light situations and since it has a 20x lens on it I can get better reach but overall the HD10 is much better. I have done my own side by comparison and don't need anymore convincing. The previous post about diffusion on the HD10 helping is true. Try throwing a Promist .5 or 1 infront of the camera and watch the hot spots practicaly disappear, it was amazing. As everyone is saying, this isn't a Varicam but there will always be people trying to make one camera look like the other. Sometimes they are called pioneers, sometimes they are crazy. Just thought I would put in my 2 cents on the issue, not to offend anyone if for some reason I have.

-Mark -->>>

Unsharp on the SD version may help, but SD, even if it originated from scanned 65mm 15 perf IMAX film, is still blurry. For me , SD = $100 web cam look. It's true. A $100 quick cam pro will pretty much equal a DV cam on DV tape.
-Les

Both JVC HDV cameras have different edge enhancement, my tests of the DVX compared to the HD10 showed less edge enhancement on the HD10 (but I had a ND filter on, so it was not the camera "as is") in most cases than on the DVX. But the HD1 has one of the worse edge enhancement ratio I have ever seen. Again, this camera is NOT AT ALL perfect, my opinion is based on tests I made, remember that the tests available (the blonde girl) are made with a HD1, they would not have shown all those edge artefacts with the HD10 (there would have been some but much less).

I'm going out tomorrow to get some test shots around the city (old historic disctrict) and will post some side by shots in the next few days.

-Mark

your posts will be very valuable since you own HD10s and the test available shows images from the HD1.

Les - SD does not look blurry unless you are viewing it too big. HD does not look blurry unless you're viewing it too big.

As Eric points out the HD1 suffers from some pretty severe edge enhancement that, although to some eyes makes it look sharp, to others just makes it look bad. Sharpness is no excuse or compensation for resolution.

I would certainly like to see a truer comparison of resolution between a decent DV camera (with sharpness off) and the HD10 (with sharpness off) so that we can actually compare them without being swayed by bad looking electronic edge enhancement. Perhaps another thing - I don't know if it's possible, but could a shot be recorded on an HDV camcorder and simultaneously be be recorded to a DV deck digitally, or does the down-convert not come out of the firewire port like that?

Cool, Mark! Look forward to seeing them!

heath

<<<-- Originally posted by Graeme Nattress : Les - SD does not look blurry unless you are viewing it too big. HD does not look blurry unless you're viewing it too big. -->>>

Wouldn't that hurt theatrical release (on the HD projectors we hear about)?

Also, Jon said the image looked FANTASTIC from the HD10 on a 32 inch HDTV.

heath

HD suffers less than SD from upconversions because there is more informations to work with but an upconversion is an upconversion, you have to "create" more definition, thus filling gaps with virtual information.

There's a natural viewing size for all film or video. If you screen 16mm too large it looks bad, just as if you screen 35mm and try to get it to fill an IMAX screen, the Imax will make the 35mm look blurry in comparison.

All that moving to a higher resolution DV->HDV->HD->whatever gets you is the ability to view the image larger without it looking bad. It does not however mean that just because you can't blow your DV or HDV up too much that they're inherently blurry - you've just blown them up too much, or you're not viewing them for far enough away.

There's a theatre near me that has Odyssey (like Imax) and they run 35 mm in there. Of course, it looks like watching a letterboxed movie on a 4:3 TV, but the movies look great! Probably not as large...

heath (777)

Full playback resolution of miniDV 540 horizontal lines. The XL1 plays back 460 lines. Of, course it has almost everything to do with the chips. Please, get your facts straight, C.T.

I'm willing to accept the argument that when viewed too big, DV will look blury. Right on. It basically translates to line pairs per mm on the viewing screen. Also the distance of the screen from the observer.
But ultimately it's all about matching closer to the human visual system. That can resolve way more than any video system, in observed line pairs per mm of what you are looking at. So the closer you come to that, the 'better' the image will look.
The JVC is more pleasing to look at for lay people because it is another step towards what our everyday vision lets us see.
Put more bluntly, the JVC holds up much better resolution wise than the DV. Soon DV quality will only be accepted for streaming online quality.
As far as edge enhancing , it's not magic. You can't bring out high frequency detail that wasn't there beforehand by sharpening frames. You can only enhance ( exaggerate ) details that are there to start. The blonde girls hair strands for example. The edges of the hairs were a bit over defined, but the individual hairs are there. The DV version has no such single hair detail, and you can't sharpen it to see them again.
I challenge anyone to try, at 1280 size, to bring back the detail.
But I think I'm flogging a dead horse, I think most technical people understand that.
-Les