Yeah, I expect closer to 700 since Jan C. said they were getting about 750h x 700v.

I may have flipped those - 700h x 750v

But Jan does work for Panasonic. It sure looks more like 600 on the tests that I have seen.

EDIT:
Actually the test here looks slightly higher. 650-700V but no more that 600 H

I interpreted the result of the test as 800Hx650V in the progressive mode. I am not going by your interpretation, Shanon. The chart does not fill the screen fully so it shows lower resolution than the Canon camera actually has.

I don't believe anyone here or at the other forums believe the HVX200 will beat the XLH1 in rez.

Though, I am hoping the HVX200 is at least 700.

If not, I question if there be a definate difference in its 720 vs 1080 ?

hmmm. things are getting interesting.

Steve

Good Point

just for fun.... HD10 !!!
 

Just for fun, I hand held shot the chart with my JVC HD10 .
It's resolution looks maybe just a little lower than the HVX !
Again, this was hand held, the chart was on an 8.5x11 printout.

HD10 at 720p http://home.earthlink.net/~lesd/hd/jvc-HD10-chart.jpg

JVC HD10 at 1920 size: http://home.earthlink.net/~lesd/hd/j...-1920chart.jpg

and the HVX: http://home.arcor.de/martin.doppelba...rts/0088YP.png

Enjoy! ;)

-Les

The thing is....even if the HVX does only resolve 600 lines, the Canon resolves just under 600 lines in its 24f mode.

Rez of HD 100 looks close to 700lph to my eyes ,am I wrong?
http://home.arcor.de/martin.doppelba...e%20Blende.jpg

I terms of resolution HVX200 may be not good though, but
I thought the quality of image of HVX200 was much much better than Z1, when I compared the HVX200 and Z1 side by side in a store focusing on red flowers. Rez of HVX and Z1 looked like the same to me there.

The Canon in 24F resolves 800Hx650V, per the Shannon shot chart.

Resolution Comparison:

Canon XL H1 from Shannon's chart http://www.cinemahill.com/hidef/xlh1...s/IMG_0115.jpg
800Hx650V progressive
800Hx800V interlaced from German magazine, not from Shanon

Panasonic HVX-200 from Kaku's test http://home.arcor.de/martin.doppelba...rts/0088YP.png
625Hx600V progressive

JVC HD-100 from Martin's chart http://home.arcor.de/martin.doppelba...e%20Blende.jpg
700Hx525V progressive

Sony FX-1 from Martin's chart http://home.arcor.de/martin.doppelba...P_Off%20f4.png
650Hx775V interlaced

I compensated for some factors, like for instance a chart not filling the screen properly.

The Canon is an absolute winner; combined with Wafan HDD or PC based recorder, 35 mm adapter and good quality relay nad 35 mm lenses, it should be an excellent camera for film production with theatrical release.

The Panasonic appears to have CCD's that employ both vertical and horizontal pixel shift, without full pixel count for the format in either direction.

Where can I download the rez chart everyone is using?

Shannon,

Well even if you have cheated it out of res, the camera lines move into the 800 for 24f. So that's awesome either way.

You mean DVX100E? I don't believe it. Still, does anyone know the resolution on DVX?

Come to India while I'm here and we can really give the camera a work-out. :)

The reason to try a color chart is three-fold:

1) to see the REAL difference Green-shift makes for ALL camcorders. I'm still not sure if Canon is claiming it's total pixel count based upon Green-shift.

2) to level the playing field. Since the advantages of Green-shift go away when there is motion--using standard resolution charts allows the marketing department to get away with saying "go measure the camera yourself." Obviously your test will show a bigger number than will actually be achieved in the real world! Thus, the REAL rez. advantages of the HD100 will be cleverly obscured.

3) It will clearly expose those camcorders that use under-sampling CCDs!

Sure, should have been DVX100E. AFAIK it has 720x576 CCDs.
But that was only joking, of course. The HVX200 certainly has higher resolving CCDs.

So to sum it all up:

Both JVC and Pana have about the same picture resolution in the region of 0.66 Megapixels.
Sony's FX1/Z1 are about one third better (0.90 Megapixels) and the Canon XLH1 is one more quarter better than the two Sonys (1.14 Megapixels).

Both Pana and JVC record progressive pictures, but the frame modes of Sony's and Canon's camcorders can do pretty much the same (at least for 25p). They will loose a bit of their resolution but not below the level of the JVC or the Panasonic.

Pricewise the Sony camcorders are by far the cheapest (especially the FX1 - if you can live without xlr audio plugs), JVC is in the middle region, Canon is second and Panasonic is by far the most expensive of the five cameras (if you include all the unavoidable extra costs for P2 cards and harddisk storage).

Of course, picture resolution is just one piece of the puzzle. Lattitude, noise level, color reproduction etc. are other very important factors for overall camera performance. Those issues still have to be compared. But probably not in this thread ;-).

Martin, when the German magazine talked about the Canon having 800Hx800V resolution, was it the interlaced or the progressive mode? Do these two resolutions, according to the magazine, differer?

You can purchase an HVX with two 4gb P2 cards for around $7,000.

Uh-huh, but the camera is all you need. The cost of DV tapes compared to other archive methods? No comparison for the forseeable future.

I don't think that the small price difference between any of these puppies should be the deciding factor. It's all in the image, and sadly, the HVX is falling short. I was really rooting for it – the promise of DVCPROHD was glorious – but the pic the imager feeds the codec just ain't up to snuff. No wonder Panny hid the CCD specs. Right now it seems the only reason I'd consider this camera is the variable frame rate.

All I'm seeing right now is a very un-filmic image from the H1, sure it's pretty, but pretty in a discovery channel hd kinda way. The HVX, as was the DVX vs the XL just has that "look" to put it simply. Sure cost shouldn't matter I mean, if you're gonna spend 7gs what would 2 more hurt? Not much, but for an overall filmic look, it still seems that the HVX is the winner. I also am wondering why so many canon owners refrain from posting 24F footage?

Cool. So does that mean you're deciding against it, off to purchasing something else, and off to somewhere else? ;)

It is extremely confusing...

I see a better resolution from the H1 (from the charts i've seen so far), but i really prefer the overall image rendition of the HVX...

Time to take a coffee break i guess...

yep...

It is misleading to say the HVX looks bad...
It is misleading to say the H1 looks bad...

They both look really good.

But from what i've seen, the HVX has an image i prefer, it looks @#@# full, rich.

But it subjective.

All those numbers, rez...color sampling....etc...

So my final judgment will be made with my eyes !


and i dont understand why posted rez charts from the HVX have a 1882X1040 dimention ???
and another one at 1911X1040 ????

ALL the other charts i can compare to are, or 1920X1080 or 1280X720.

I will really wait for a side by side comparison.

I am seriouly beginning to think that rez is a small (though important) part of the equation.

I'd more or less agree, but given the amount of control that it offers over the image, and the ease of sharing settings, I wouldn't surprised to see that change.

Personally, I plan to shoot as flat as possible (regardless of what camera I settle on) and grade in post, so the most lattitude wins.

Steev,
No it's still in the running. The variable frame rates alone make it a viable contender. I'm just staying open minded until enough real testing has been done on all of them. The only one dead out of the running is the Sony.

There will be no clear overall winner for ALL shooting conditions, because every camera has to do concessions in specific areas to perform better in other areas.

...that's the nature of things.