It's happening now! Join me with Rez chart shooting on ichat/Online lab

Les Dit · January 6th, 2006, 03:46 PM

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

Alexander Nikishin · January 6th, 2006, 08:59 PM

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

Kenji Kodama · January 6th, 2006, 09:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martin Doppelbauer

I've just added a ResChart of my Sony HDR-FX1 and of the JVC HD100 . So you can compare these with the HVX200 yourself.

JVC HD 100 about 500 lph (720p)

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Les Dit

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 !

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.

Petr Marusek · January 6th, 2006, 11:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alexander Nikishin

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

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.

Tom Roper · January 7th, 2006, 01:26 AM

Where can I download the rez chart everyone is using?

Michael Pappas · January 7th, 2006, 02:04 AM

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shannon Rawls

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)
-
- ShannonRawls.com

Petr Marusek · January 7th, 2006, 02:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martin Doppelbauer

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.

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

Steve Mullen · January 7th, 2006, 07:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kaku Ito

Steve,
I wish you were there when we were doing the test. I can do other test when we can and please supervise us at that time.

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!

Martin Doppelbauer · January 7th, 2006, 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Petr Marusek

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

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

Martin Doppelbauer · January 7th, 2006, 10:33 AM

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 ;-).

Petr Marusek · January 7th, 2006, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martin Doppelbauer

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.

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?

Alexander Nikishin · January 7th, 2006, 07:57 PM

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

Joseph H. Moore · January 7th, 2006, 08:07 PM

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.

Alexander Nikishin · January 7th, 2006, 08:16 PM

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?

Steev Dinkins · January 7th, 2006, 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joseph H. Moore

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.

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

January 6th, 2006, 03:46 PM	#46
Les Dit Major Player Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Southern Cal-ee-for-Ni-ya Posts: 608	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

January 6th, 2006, 08:59 PM	#47
Alexander Nikishin Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Long Beach, California Posts: 47	The thing is....even if the HVX does only resolve 600 lines, the Canon resolves just under 600 lines in its 24f mode.

January 7th, 2006, 01:26 AM	#50
Tom Roper Trustee Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Denver, Colorado Posts: 1,891	Where can I download the rez chart everyone is using?

January 7th, 2006, 10:33 AM	#55
Martin Doppelbauer Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Karlsruhe, Germany Posts: 80	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 ;-).

January 7th, 2006, 07:57 PM	#57
Alexander Nikishin Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Long Beach, California Posts: 47	You can purchase an HVX with two 4gb P2 cards for around $7,000.

January 7th, 2006, 08:07 PM	#58
Joseph H. Moore Major Player Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 362	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.

January 7th, 2006, 08:16 PM	#59
Alexander Nikishin Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Long Beach, California Posts: 47	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?