Uh... Er... no comment...

Heh. Anyway, you're right. This is pointless, but I think the discussion has drifted to these topics because we're all still waiting for our cameras. Hopefully I'll have mine within the next 10 days. A large shipment is supposedly leaving from Panny QC to several of the larger dealers/distrubutors TODAY. :)

It's amazing how worked up some people get over this camera (and other camcorders in this price range). Sheesh...

"It all suggests to me Panasonic knew review measurements were going to be bad -- and felt giving out the real CCD specification would only add fuel to the fire. I think it's now becoming obvious that hiding information from your potential customers and the press is a bad idea."

Steve, you are closer to the truth than most. They marketed something that they simply did not have and made it sound better than it really was and now it is all backfiring. And now wait till folks find out that 8gig cards don't exist in any quantity for the masses. I was told today that two of the largest retailers are being inundated with folks wanting to cancel their HVX order for other cameras now that the cat has started to come out of the bag. Seems to me to be yet another marketing blunder by Panasonic. THey never were good in that department, broadcast or consumer. Their website disguised as a person who "used to work there" defperception.com and their poor handling of it being discovered as a site that was nothing more than astroturfing should have given folks a clue as to their goals.

That said, any of these cameras produces a great picture when given to the right person. In fact they all perform no better than each other just as their SD DV counterparts do.

If that's news, then you obviously haven't been paying attention. 8GB cards weren't even supposed to start shipping until mid/late February, but they are available, just scarce. It will take some time for them to show up in quantity as manufacturing catches up. The question I have about 8GB cards is the price... Here in N. America MSRP is $2199 or whatever it is and the cheapest I've seen it from a retailer is like $2089... So how come I can import them from a Japanese shop for $1795 + about $25 to ship them to me in the USA? There were 3 sellers on eBay yesterday selling 8GB P2 cards from Japan at $1800 or less and a friend of mine picked up his HVX200 in Tokyo last week and only paid the Yen equivalent of $1750 for 8GB cards from a retail store.

Told by who? There's no massive flood of cancellations with B&H or EVS... I'm still at about #100 with EVS and I'm #4 (out of 18) at my local shop. Satan will be skiing to work before I get my HVX from EVS... I pitty the poor souls who are in the 200's.. I might get one this week from the local store's current shipment or I may have to wait for the next shipment, they haven't received a confirmed number of shipped units just yet.

FWIW, I can find 8GB P2 cards easier than I can find an XBOX 360, so it's not like they don't exist.

"If that's news, then you obviously haven't been paying attention. 8GB cards weren't even supposed to start shipping until mid/late February, but they are available, just scarce."

And will be for some time. And then don't expect the next jump to 16gigs anytime soon if at all.

"Told by who? There's no massive flood of cancellations with B&H or EVS..."

By folks at two of the largest retailers. I didn't put EVS on that list.

You ought to read my post. I said just that (not being mass produced any time soon) and added that they will not flood the market even after March.

Originally 8GB cards were supposed to on the market at the same time with hvx. Maybe panny delays 8GB cards as long as they have massive inventory of 4GB cards. Seems to be that in panny's pricing logics are: Europe is subsidizing US prices and whole globe is subsidizing Japanise prices.

We're getting a little off topic with the talk of the cards. If you guys want, I can move these parts over to a new thread, or you can start a new one to talk specifically about the cards.

Thanks,

heath

Back on topic -- I noted this in Adam's comments:

"Sharpness on the Sony was at 5 and on the HVX we used -3 or -4, both to give the same apparent sharpness (as judged from edging artifacts) as the Canon did on its minimum setting."

A week or so ago someone published HVX200 charts and I quickly noted the amount edge outline enhancement. Without debating the issue of how much sharpening is correct -- if other tests were made with different charts (that might increase resolution up to 15% -- as mentioned by Adam) AND if the HVX200's DETAIL were at DEFAULT -- we would expect such tests would indicate much higher resolutions -- very likely the approx. 700 numbers Barry has mentioned.

Such higher numbers could be plugged into my model which in turn would yield higher CCD resolutions. It might even be possible the model would support a 1080-row CCD running at up to 60Hz.

Now here is where logic gets tricky.

If the CCDs really are much more dense -- then why would the camera's DEFAULT DETAIL be higher than Adam, et. al. wanted to accept? The answer is that a lens with low MTF will need enhancement!

My model assumed the limiting factor was CCD resolution. It may be that in the case of the HVX200 -- it is the lens not the CCD. Conversly, the H1 lens may have such good MTF, that even with no enhancement -- it blows the others away.

Bottom-line:

1) If you do not want any edge enhancement then this does NOT change anything. You will have to accept a soft image.

2) But, there are those who feel the total elimination of edge enhancement looking at a chart leads to video that looks too soft. In other words, Panasonic's Default setting may be acceptable in the real world. So if you want an HVX200 -- you may have to accept an "enhanced" image.

While I'd like to pick at that statement a bit, I won't because you're probably right... Just not how you might think. The next generation of P2 cards will most likely be 32GB~64GB in capacity. The 4GB SD chips needed to make 16GB cards are in extremely short supply and manufacture yields are very, very low. Samsung, Siemens and Toshiba are currently working together to bring a new SD fab process online that will yield quantities similar to current 512MB and 1GB chips. Their first chips off the production lines will be 8 and 16 GB. Samsung has been demonstrating 8, 16 and 32GB SD chips over the past few months and saying that 16GB chips will sell for about the same price as current 1GB chips once their production reaches full capacity (figure mid 2007).

And yet that still didn't answer my question. I would count B&H as one of the "largest" retailers and I know that they're not receiving any significant number of cancellations, or at least nothing unexpected with the usual small percent of shuffling about.

Please keep this on topic, as Steve Mullen has (thanks) about resolution. Create a new thread about the card. I'd be happy to do it and drop some of these posts in it! (smile)

heath

Also in interest of keeping this thread on topic, what do we know about the horizontal sampling and encoding of the HVX200 and its resolving power? DVCPROHD encodes at either 960x720 or 1280x1080 - a more horizontally compressed resolution than HDV @ 1440x1080. While DVCPROHD wouldn't play a role directly in viewing the uncompressed camera output via the component interface, would it be possible that the internal sampling/image processing still may be playing a role in setting up the horizontal imaging for DVCPRO encoding? With all these tests and everyone focusing on how many lines this camera can resolve, it seems that nobody has made any mention of horizontal resolution capabilities of the HVX. If there is some horizontal processing and compression going on, could this be having an effect on the perceived vertical resolution?

I imagine within a couple weeks we will know for sure. Someone will rip apart an HVX and run it down to the lab.

My sheer speculation is that Panny has done some serious pixel-shifting and we might find the resolution is quite low. I mean 960 by 780 or therabouts is no reason to not give out the resolution, just say how and why you are doing it.

Is it really just a juiced up dvx? a la reel stream?

Steve, would there be any idea to measure the pixel size with Airy disk phenomena?
Shooting charts and closing the aperture and when the resolving power starts to decrease, calculating the size of Airy disk there?

If anyone is still interested in this topic -- I've posted my "latest" understanding of HOW the HVX200 works -- which seeks to explain why Adam's tests measured such low resolution when folks shooting with the camcorder are getting very high quality images.

Please note I'm not saying Adam's tests were wrong or unfair. His procedure was intended to remove the benefits of pixel-shifting -- and they did. And, they are very useful for indicating the native resolution of the CCDs. (Something we shouldn't have needed to do.) But, they underestimate real-world performance -- as they do for the other camcorders that use Green-shift.

http://www.gyhduser.com/showthread.php?t=341

This article here:
http://www.coax.tv/DefaultJAN17.htm
and part 2 here:
http://www.coax.tv/Default.htm

may give some insight into the impact of DVCProHD compression on image resolution.

& Hopefully the person who will rip apart the HVX first, to find out the inner workings, will be Juan from Reel-stream !

I was in Kyoto for a shoot in mid-January. After the project ended, I took the opportunity of dinner in Osaka (Kadoma) with a Panasonic engineer who I got to know while he was assigned in the U.S. With an HVX on order, I was eager to privately learn the "inside" story about the HVX's HD methodology. The design makes clever use of inexpensive components for a "prosumer" buyer, but actual performance must not infringe Panasonic's more elegant Vericam products. Within a pixel or two, the description provided at dinner exactly matches Steve Mullen's posted description.

Steve's nailed the HVX's reality.

Using this same logic... the Canon's 540 in 24F mode is likely effected the same way correct?

ash =o)

Very interesting because a friend I got to know when I worked in Japan said the exact same thing -- which I brushed off as "too paraniod." But, I can see how Panasonic might be concerned because they watched what the VX1000 did to BetaSP products.

Has anyone got delivery of their PAL unit? A while back I heard that the Euro version is/was proving to be a problem. The rumor in Japan was that the Euro version will be delayed while a "fix" is implemented.

IF that's true, and its always a big IF with rumors, then that MAY give us another insight into how the HVX200 works. Here's why. I assumed that ALL recorded formats are from the 1920x1080 buffer -- including PAL and NTSC. But, maybe PAL and NTSC are taken from the CCDs running in interlace mode. (The dvx100 used switchable CCDs.) Were this to be true -- 540-row CCDs might not yield a high-quality 576-line PAL image for DV, DVCPRO, and DVCPRO50. Hence the "problem" with Euro units.

Frankly, I can't believe Panasonic would not have been smart enough to use 960x576 pixel CCDs. In Region 60 camcorders, 540-rows would be used for HD while only 480-rows would be used for NTSC. Likewise, in Region 50 camcorders, 540-rows would be used for HD while all 576-rows would be used for PAL.

Not only would this be smart -- the use of "widescreen" PAL CCDs would keep CCD cost down.

+++++++

I guess I should have been clear that my model is calculating Effective, not Gross resolution. Thus, the physical CCD would have perhaps 10- to 20-percent more elements.

That's why Adam wobulated all cameras. Any camera that uses green-shift would measure worst-case resolution in the test. My my model estimates both the Sony and Canon to have far more than the measured resolution in real-world situation.

The 24F mode should not be different horizontally than the 60i mode.

Story comes to an end: 960x540
 

Jarred posted this tonight:
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showpost.p...28&postcount=1

Saw it. Steve was money.

Now let's get over it and enjoy the creativity the camera will facilitate. No more pixel wars.

Canon should come clean about 24F IMHO. It's probably a very good 48i real-time deinterlace. Virtual 24p that works great too.

It's all good in the hood.

YOU CAN SKIP THIS POSTING AS I'M IN ERROR. BUT I'M LEAVING IT SO BARRY'S RESPONSE MAKES SENSE.

Questions:

How does the HVX200 get 1080i from the 1080p60 DSP buffer without line flicker or line twitter in the video. (Row-Pair summation seems NOT to be used because vertical resolution doesn't drop!) I've posted how I think it's done, but it was just a wild guess. And, if even my guess is correct -- see my earlier post -- the 1080i video has NO interlace artifacts. Will it look like HD "interlaced video?"


Also -- the question remains as to how NTSC and PAL are generated for DV, DVCPRO, and DVCPRO50.

1) Are both derived from the 1080p60 buffer in the DSP?

If so, then we have the same question about line flicker and twiter. Of course, Row-Pair Summation could be used during the downconversion to SD. However, effective vertical will then be only 435 TVL. Is that enough for PAL?

2) To obtain "real" SD interlaced video, like the DVX100 CCDs, the HVX200 CCDs could be switched to interlace mode. However, my computer model indicates that if interlaced" NTSC and PAL were pulled directly from the CCDs, effective vertical resolution would be only about 435 TVL. And, again I'm not sure this will be OK for PAL.

According to the article, yes. Everything starts at the 1920x1080 DSP buffer, and all other modes are downrezzed/created from that.

Well, that's how many discernible lines PAL currently offers, so it should be. Applying the .75 interlace factor to 576, we get 432 TVL of resolution for interlaced PAL.

Of course it does. In DV 60i mode it looks exactly like any other interlaced DV camera. And in 1080i mode it looks exactly like any other interlaced 1080 camera. I've got an FX1 and an HVX here right now, and in 1080i mode playing back on my interlaced 1080i set they look exactly the same as regards motion and interlacing).

Not according to the article; there basically is no interlace mode on the CCD, it's all progressive all the time. Which is why interlaced mode doesn't get a boost in sensitivity, like the DVX does. But it looks exactly like interlaced mode. The DVX and the HVX, when both set to 4:3 60i, look extremely similar.

Oh, and by the way -- I sent you an e-mail, but I'll say it here too -- congrats on figuring out the pixel count down to the exact number. You did a great job on that!

Barry it was you insisting you had "non-wobulation" numbers that were significantly higher than Adam's numbers that made me realise that BOTH measurements had to be "valid."

Plus, you insisted the HVX200 LOOKED so much better than the worst-case tests. So Panasonic had to have designed a unique CCD + DSP "system." Which is what Jan was saying in her interview.

I enjoyed exchanging e-mails with you, it was interesting to see the process you went through to achieve your conclusions. But I'm really amazed at how well you nailed it. Your descriptions seemed to match all the evidence, but I still wanted to see official factory confirmation -- and that's exactly what we got.

Well done!

I've always used 75% but my model achieves minimum error with a value of 66%. That's one of many problems with any math model -- it can come up with a low overall error over a dozen camcorders -- yet have individual assumptions that don't match reality.

The model predicts NTSC to have 317 -- which actually comes close to the textbook answer of about 330. It estimates 380 for PAL.

So whichever number is "really" right -- 435 is greater than needed -- so the can DSP supply all. Very clever and a lot of number crunching!

You are also correct about interlace. For anyone who I totally confused:

With "real" interlace video -- when there is motion -- each field in a frame is different. We call them interlace artifacts -- and if you are going to film they are bad. But, when we view them on an interlaced display -- these slight differences between fields provide the eye with motion information at 1/60th second -- not 1/30th second intervals. So the artifacts actually help smooth motion.

When the HVX200 captures frames every 1/60th second, it obtains samples at a 60Hz rate. Each 1/60th second half the lines in a frame are discarded and the other half put into a field. So we generate 60i video exactly as we do when we have a camera that uses "interlace scanning."

So what does it all mean?

It means we can quit worrying about it and go shoot now. :)

Green's layman translation is all I need!

heath

Good enough for me! I just need the eagle to land...