If you guys don't have the frame grabs to look at, let us please have the numbers you are seeing.

Ok folks, here are frame grabs of all five different shots that were kindly provided by Kaku:
http://home.arcor.de/martin.doppelbauer/ResCharts/
I'm afraid you're not going to like what you see.
Both vertical and horizontal resolution is around 600 lph.

If this is really all there is, then the camera is nowhere near 1080p. In fact it's not even 720p. And the "CCD war", as somebody called it, is over with a big laugh. After seeing those chart my guess is Panasonic re-used the same 720x576 PAL CCDs chips which were already in the HVX100E.

Great, Martin, thanks a bunch for your work. Not that great for people who were expecting so much with HVX200, but I'm still okay with this. Panasonic aimed this one too cheap. I thought they were aming $ 10,000 range at the beginning. Many times I wrote that if anyone makes DV camera with memory option to do 60 frame recording, I would buy it, then there it is. HVX200 is too cheap. I would make good use of this camera along with using higer resolution shots with A1 (and A1 from the same test shows around 700lph at brief).

Any know off the top of their heads the vertical rez of the comparable HDV's (JVC, Canon, Sony) ?

A1 resolution chart shot is added and the post in my blog is here.

Joseph,
I've just added a ResChart of my Sony HDR-FX1 and of the JVC HD100 to http://home.arcor.de/martin.doppelbauer/ResCharts/ . So you can compare these with the HVX200 yourself.

Hey Shannon: I still need a good shot of the XLH1 ;-)

Vertical resolution is:
Canon XLH1 about 800 lph (unconfirmed !) (1080i)
Sony HDR-FX1/Z1 about 700 lph (1080i)
Panasonic HVX200 about 600 lph (1080p)
JVC HD 100 about 500 lph (720p)

Interestingly the FX1 performs somewhat better on diagonal lines (around 750 lph). The HVX200 does not.
Please note that Kaku shot the res-shart a little too small (edges are not visible). So the resolution shows up a little better than it actually is.

We need to take all comparisons with a grain of salt because different people may use different settings and techniques -- in other words, it isn't purely objective science. But definitely helpful and interesting to all of us! FWIW, here's a link to my "straight out of the box" XL H1 tests:

http://www.geosynchrony.com/scratchpad.htm

I did not do a back focus adjustment or any custom settings at all for my rez test, and made the camera's autofocus speak for itself (no manual focusing).

OK...we'll do it when the shootout is underway. I don't own a resolution chart, and I refuse to use a printout.
Yes, I noticed that. He was too close to the chart which gave it a better score then it should have received.

I have received three emails from people telling me I cheated the XL-H1 out of a good score because we had the camera much too far back from the chart. They say it should have been closer to the chart and it would have gotten an even better score then it did: http://www.cinemahill.com/hidef/xlh1...s/IMG_0115.htm (and this is in 24f mode)
---------------------------------------------------

I personally don't think resolution chart scores mean jack in the grand scheme of things...
HOWEVER...
When the Sony HVR-Z1U came out and I was hellbent on defending how good it's final picture was in early 2005, the resolution score was "ALL" that people concentrated on, and that ONLY. People were constantly dogging the CF24/CF30 modes because of it's apparent low score on the resolution chart. THAT'S ALL THAT MATTERED back then. They discouraged people from buying the camera because of those resolution chart scores the Z1U received. it was so unfair....
BUT NOW, ALL OF A SUDDEN...
The rules of the game have changed. Now it's OK to have a low score....WTF???? Oh ok, LOL, so that's how it works huh? Change the rules when it's convienient. *shakin' my head* Now that other highly anticipated cameras are here and are scoring horrible in resolution chart testing....it's "not so important" anymore what grade they get. Now we are back on how good the picture is...the same song I was trying to sing before that somehow went unheard. That's Jacked-Up. It's a cold-blooded world out there.

And honestly...I still think these numbers are off. This is a progressive scan ain't it? Progressive scan is supposed to "IMPROVE" and all that when it comes to the resolution chart, right? Therefore, I think the HVX will score higher then these previous tests are showing when done on a proper resolution chart by someone who does this type of stuff all the time.

- ShannonRawls.com

I haven't looked at all the charts yet, but the approx. 600 lines, which I see on the the HVX, is dissapointing. Reading the chart that was here, probably shot by Shannon (I am not sure), it clearly indicated

H1 resolution

800Hx650V in progressive mode.

800Hx800V in interlaced mode was determined by a rather conservative German magazine.

Forget about me and nick's tests. We were concentrating on 'comparisons' between the f900 and the xl-h1. Not so much on the actual score.

- ShannonRawls.com

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