I remember a vigorous debate about the merits of pixel shifting the FX1/Z1U sensor panels to achieve a higher resolution than it would otherwise get.

Then along came Canon with 1440 x 1080 panels and by most accounts it could point to more resolution.

I bought the Z1U, have been extremely happy with it, but now we're farther along, the Canon has dropped in price and Sony still has 960 panels and I'm looking to upgrade. I would acknowledge that between the V1U or XH-A1, either would be an upgrade over the Z1U, possibly for different reasons. For example, better latitude and absence of smearing are very compelling for the V1U. But sensor panels in the native resolution of the HDV format seem fundamental. So the internal struggle I'm having is from the same "less is more" logic. I'm not expecting anyone to be able to answer that dilemma for me, but I will confess I'm just a bit hung up over an observation made by Steve Mullen that interlaced resolution would possibly be expected to be 25-30% less than progressive, yet the EIA resolution charts cited from the V1U don't seem to bear that out. So what's the answer? Can't be both!

Since Sony quotes 800 TVL for the V1 verses 600 TVL for the Z1 -- one assumes that both are for interlace mode.

Sony "interpolation" explanation left out important details and so does Marvin's "diagonal" explanation.

So all these discussions are premature. Likewise the worries about diagonal "issues" have no data to support them.

I'm testing the V1 now and results plus a full ClearVid explanation will appear in the next issue of the HDV@Work newsletter.

Discussions by people of the "lack of image quality" with no data, no hands-on experience, and no understanding of how the V1 works are silly.

The same is true for lux numbers -- lux is nearly meaningless.

I can tell you that at under a 100W, it images a large room exactly like it appears to the human eye at only 12dB gain.

Couldn't the 800 lines from SONY mean horizontal resolution which we know would be higher than the Z1. I do not think the vertical resolution of the Z1 was ever in question but it was the horizontal that used pixel shift to try and boost the resolution.

As for the 1440x1080 issue well it will be interesting to see how that works out. Many feel as though less resolution means more sensitive chips for low light shooting. A lot of people feel that the Z1 was better in low light then the Canon XL-H1. The Canon may have had more detail but at the expense of sensitivity. Now the low light argument may be out the window due to the fact that SONY has said the V1 is not as sensitive as the Z1 so that may put it on par with the Canon or maybe even less sensitive. There are so many other factors that determine image quality other than resolution and shooting in a dark environment so again do not worry about the number and just wait to see how the camera performs.

This is interesting and valuable information.

Thanks for posting that up.

I'm a newbie, so I'm going to ask a stupid question. :)
Isn't the V1U supposed to be 1080? Why would the
resoultion chart only show 800 lines?

On the low light thing... when/where did Sony say that the V1 isn't as sensitve as the Z1?

Thanks! :)

1080 is the theoretical maximum number of lines of vertical resolution for the 1080i/p formats, whereas 800 lines would be the actual resolution of a recorded image from that camera. Just like not all DV cameras are equally sharp even though they all record the same format, not all HD cameras are equally sharp either (and don't all record the same format).