Even if you use the component output, the resolution you'll see will be about 60% because this camera has it's maximum definition strength vertically, much more than horizontally.

About the screen size I agree partially because there are two factors:
1. The display resolution and quality
2. The watching distance vs the screen size.

With my 23" 16/10 wide Apple Cinema monitor I can judge even between the best of the best HD material BUT to see the full definition I have to watch at a distance of a horizontal screen size maximum. So to see (and enjoy) the full definition of HD we should buy larger displays or watch from a shorter distance.

Now I don't think that HDV is close to HD (like HDCAM) but it's far from SD and it's at least satisfying.

Would you wear slightly blurred glasses to smooth out reality?
Take a look at these two clips, you might change your opinion...
I hope you can watch at full res. (for the first one use VLC media player)

http://demod.dvico.com/hdtv/hdtv_demo.tp

http://download.microsoft.com/downlo...ction_1080.exe

.

I have a Sony wega 30' hdtv. The day that my Fx1 arrived, I shot some outdoor footage, and palyed it back via component cables through the Sony.
The picture, detail and clarity was amazing!
Bruce S. Yarock

I agree that it is the size of the set. I have 17", 32" and 60" HDTVs and even on the 32" the HDV is not hugely better than uprezzed SD. But on the 60" set, the difference becomes quite noticeable.

Cool videos. As I said in the post you responded to, I half away agree with Ash... obviously, if I bought an HDV camera, I see the benefits. My comment was a bit fecitious.

To properly view 480i/p, you'll need around a 27 inch TV. To properly view 720p, you'll need around a 45 to 50 inch HDTV. To properly view 1080i/p, you'll need a 60 to 70 inch HDTV.

Yes, HD does offer significant image quality over SD.

DV has 345,600 pixels, colorspace is 4:1:1.

720p HDV has 921,600 pixels, colorspace is 4:2:0.

1080i HDV has 1,555,200 pixels, colorspace is 4:2:0.

Visit:

www.hdvinfo.net

http://vasst.com/?v=HDV/hdv-FAQnew.htm

for more.

hwm

Heath, you'll have to fix up that VASST link you pointed to as there are quite a few errors, especially in the answer to the first question.

ALL the formats are YCbCr colour space. 4:1:1 etc is a chroma sub-sampling notation, not a colour space!

Counting pixels != resolution. Interlaced video has approximately only 70% of the vertical resolution of an equivalent progressive format.

The size of the TV is irrelevent - it's viewing distance and pixel pitch, and resolution that makes the difference. I have no problem viewing HD 1080p on a 23" display.....

Graeme

Being slightly pedantic, NTSC DV has 345,600pixels.
PAL DV has 414,720 pixels.

But your point is a good one.

At the higher end of the TV size, it does begin to matter.

Once you get over about a 60" HDTV, you can begin to tell the difference between 720 and 1080. Of course, the price difference is dramatic, much more dramatic than the difference in the image if you ask me.

However, in a smaller TV than 60", I believe it would be a waste of money to go 1080 instead of 720.

I have been shopping with my FX1 in hand, and it is a prety tough call. I have the money, but the room in the new house does not support a big enough TV to matter.

Stu, you're right (and not the least bit pedantic)! DV NTSC (720 x 480i) has x pixels, DV PAL (720 x 576i) has more and better color sampling, too.

Remember everyone, NTSC and PAL are a thing of the past. It's now just HDV 720p30 or 25, or 1080i60 or 50. The dimensions are the same between the 25 and 30 and 50 and 60, as is color sampling (709).

heath

Yes, all HD is REC 709 colour space. That helps a lot, as does common frame sizes. Frame rates are what differs around the world, and it's such a shame they couldn't have standardized on 25 & 50, given PAL dominates the world's television :-)

For DV, PAL is 4:2:0 and NTSC is 4:1:1 and both are equally bad, in that for every 4 luma samples, there is 1 chroma sample for Cb and 1 for Cr. However, 4:2:0 is terrible to work with on interlaced video whereas 4:1:1 is not. PAL, as broadcast has limited vertical chroma resolution though, so 4:2:0 was chosen to be a better match to that aspect of PAL video. Strangely, PAL DVCPro is 4:1:1, probably because 4:2:0 is so terrible on interlace.

Graeme

Graeme,

You rock, man. I wish I had half your brains!

heath

I wish I had half my brains too. Most of my better forum posts are produced by a small shell script I wrote some time back. It's amazing how clever a little computer program can make you look.

:-)

Anyway, it's not clever at all to remember millions of useless facts about video....

Graeme

Something's wrong.

I have an HVR-A1 and an HC1, both of them connected through a component (red, green, blue) lead to a 42". Not only look much better than SD DV, they also make DVDs look bad. The same is true on my calibrated 21 inch edit monitors.

It's not a subtle difference. The DVD player is also connected through RGB, and outputs progressive. It is the best output I have seen from a DVD player, ever. Yet the HD cams smoke it.

Even the recordings from the cams, rendered out as 720p WMV and played back from the computer look much better than DVDs.

Nothing wrong--just high quality video not compressed down to SD.

heath