EX and HVX200
 

OK, I am just looking for some input from everyone...I ran into a guy who was rattling off some info regarding how much better the HVX is for shooting fast motion and action sports becuase of the Intra Frame. He said (and I have heard this before) that Long GOP is prone having issues with action sports and fast motion. Now I have been shooting SD forever and have moved to HDV as well and unless I am extrememly careful I do see issues with the FX1 and HDV with Fast motion. However, I would think that with the EX and variable Bit Rate at 35 HQ it would have an advantage over the HVX even in respects to shooting fast motion and Action sports. besides all the obvious 1/2 sensors, 1920, etc. Any advice would be greatly appreciated as I am still wanting the EX especially as I move toward indie film and documentary realm.

Thanks!

Jason

Well, anyone that tells you really doesn't know what he is talking about, first and foremost because...THE CAMERA HASN'T BEEN RELEASED YET! So really, kind of hard for him to tell you the HVX is better. The EX will probably have similar video to the 350 but it has different specs......1920x1080 instead of 1440x1080 as well as CMOS instead of CCD's. And all the reviews of pre release versions of this camera that I have read about (Like Simon's) are very, very positive. I personally think this will do just fine vs. the HVX as it has bigger chips and a real lens......as well as native 1920x1080 instead of the pixel shifting the HVX has.....BUT THAT IS JUST SPECULATION!! Wait until it comes out and find out what people think that bought it....let others be the early adaptors if possible.....then you benefit from their experience.
:-)

All three-chip camcorders (with rare exceptions) have Pixel Shift. This is not a bad thing. It's a very good thing. Pixel Shift is highly beneficial. Please don't misconstrue it as a negative. Thanks in advance,

The person I spoke with did not say the HVX was better than the EX...He just said that the HVX Intra Frame was better than Long GOP for fast motion (Action Sports) This is the Myth that I am trying to verify. I know we won't know how the EX truely works until it ships and people start to use it and so I am going towait for others reviews of the productions model even though it sounds like it is going to be my choice for a Camera. However, is the Intra Frame on the HVX200 better than current models that use Long GOP for fast motion filming (action Sports)? Like say the Z1 or even F355 since they use Long GOP. Simon, if you see this maybe you can chime in on how the preproduction EX was with fast motion...

I can't say what the EX will be like with xdcam EX, but I can tell you long GOP with the Z1 is an absolute nightmare with fast action, high detail.

If things aren't moving around much, the Z1 and its codec produce a nice picture. Shoot a forest, across water, on a sunny day with the wind blowing and you'll see just how awful HDV can be.

So if you're swinging an HDV cam around a lot in a high detail area, you're doomed.

The different codec for the EX is supposed to eliminate this problem, but no one knows until you get it out in the field. Personally, being burned with the Z1, makes me suspicious of any long GOP.

I hear you Jeff, I bought the FX1 when it first came out and once I saw the results of fast movement I was not very happy (which kept me from buying a Z1). Yes HDV looks great when static or slow moving. My hope is with this new camera (the EX) it will be what I have been waiting for but I guess I will have to wait and see what the real reviews show once people get them.

Chris, I know you believe this. But there is a huge difference been a camera that uses pixel-shift to TRY to get enough pixels to fill the recording format -- and one that has has enough pixels to meet the needs of the recording format and uses pixel-shift to gain about 15% more pre-recording samples.

The former is a camera that "under-samples" and the latter is a camera that "over-samples." You'll notice that the company that under-samples now does not specify the resolution of the CCDs they use. Instead, they spec. the size of the CCDs they use. While there are advantages to a large chip -- there is simply no way an SD CCD can yield the same recorded resolution as can a 1920x1080 chip. No amount of pixel-shift can create pixels that are not there.

And, interestingly -- the company that claims pixel-shift works also claims long-GOP doesn't. They are wrong on both counts and it's critical that folks know this.

Jason,
I spent a lot of time on final cut pro users groups before i bought the Canon A1 HDV camcorder. Pretty much everyone tried to put me off buying an HDV cam due to the long GOP issues with motion. The HVX was considered the only cam in town. I ignored their advice because i couldn't justify the switch to P2 and the extortionate price of the things in relation to the shooting time they offered. Generally speaking i'm very happy because the A1 is a lovely camera but i have noticed motion issues with pans and tilts at times. It's definitely better than the Z1 though, as i did a 2 camera shoot a while back and the Canon is far superior in my opinion.
Anyway i'm rambling here because as other posters have pointed out we're not sure what the new Sony will be like, but i think that if its resolved the motion issues, it will leave the HVX far behind.
Also, i wonder what the other companies like canon & JVC etc will be doing to compete with the Sony and PANASONIC solid state cameras. Any ideas?

I spoke to a JVC rep a few weeks ago who said that they were playing a waiting game.

He hinted at solid state, possibly CF or SxS but said he had no solid info himself. So nothing for a while.

I think JVC still has an excellent form factor with the HD100/200 series. I'd love to see it developed... and a little more reliable!

The EX1 is the rare exception. No Pixel Shift.

At NY ProTech Expo earlier this weeks AbelCine had examples of video they shot with the EX1 they now have. The showed examples of shots that would have broken HDV but were find in XDCAM 35mbps. They said they had not been able to break the codec. Fast motion can certainly be action sports but rippling water, swaying leaves or grass are also examples of fast action that can break HDV but hold up at 35mbps XDCAM.

BTW Jason, I wouldn't go near an HDV camera (for my uses anyway) and I'm buying the EX1. I'm not going to say it's impossible to break the codec but I haven't seen it yet.

Last night Sony was showing off the workflow specifically at the "MoPic" meeting. The clips they were using had some "challenging" material in it that would have been just a mess with HDV. Of course Sony's going to show the camera in "its best light" but there are some problems you just can't hide.

Based on just fast motion, the HVX is going to handle it better than the EX 1 for a couple of reasons: 1. DVCProHD codec handles motion better than a long GOP mpeg 2 codec. 2. The EX 1 employs a rolling shutter that has been known to have fits with fast motion.

Gosh it continues to go back to what your uses are. If you're shooting mainly sports, then the HVX 200 might be a better choice; although, I've heard that the JVC prohd and Canon xh models handle sports fairly well also. If most of your shooting is normal or in lowlight conditions, then the EX 1 looks like the champion.

Of course, my comments are based on speculation. To be fair, the camera has to come out, and we have to see video from it. I don't think Panasonic expects the HVX 200 to compete with the EX 1. I'm sure they're coming up with a new model based on their AVC-intra codec. You also have to remember that the HVX 200 is three years old. When you look at it that way, that's fairly amazing that it can still be talked about as a competitor to the EX 1.

So does anyone have an answer to the Sports/fast motion query that was posed then?

So Craig says it doesn't and John says it does?
Where is Tom, dick and Harry when you need them?

Seriously you'd think that a camera like the EX1 would handle anything thrown at it.
Buying a Canon 5D is reccomended for people photographing weddings whereas people taking general shots can go for Canon 20/30/40D.

big difference between stocking up on camera bodies at 1,500 to 2,000 and camcorders for 6-8k though.

Yes. As I mentioned in my above comment, the HVX 200 will handle fast motion better than the EX 1 based on the cameras' specs.

I've now seen the camera 3 or 4 times, handled it for a bit, seen video shot by it from both Sony and AbelCine. It will handle fast motion. It will be much harder to get it to exhibit skewing (rolling shutter) then you're assuming. There's an AD converter for each column of pixels (top to bottom) for example (so Sony says). Both Sony and Abel have addressed these issues in the presentations I saw. This camera is NOT the Sony V1 or only a slightly better version.

There's more going on in the camera than specs and there are things Sony has done in the engineering that make a big difference. By the way, there's plenty F330/350 video out there as proof.

While the Iditarod isn't a football game it was shot with F350 (XDCAM 35mbps) and many of the shots that could have broken the codec, didn't. If what you say were true, shooting fast action at 720p60 slowed to 24p would be a nightmare. It's not. That's not to say the codec can't be broken but I imagine you'd have to push it to an extreme.

Not to mention, XDCAM HD has been approved by Discovery HD as a full 100% acquisition format (using 35Mbps HQ mode).
That really says a lot to me.

Good info guys, yes I am hoping not to have to buy two different cameras, one for action sports and the EX for everything else. We will have to wait and see actual tests with the EX. I am just going to wait until after the first of the year to make my move I guess. I have seen some pretty good fast action taken with the XDCAM's and they did just fine. In fact I was originally saving up for one until the EX was announced as it is much more reasonable for my applications. I can only hope that the EX will do the same and all the HDV issues with these type of shoots is resolved or mitigated enough to have 90%+ usable footage as long as the Cameraman uses it properly

Actually there are no motion "specs" for any camera.

There is a marketing claim and while the HVX was possibly better a few years ago, MPEG-2 encoders have gotten much better so the latest HDV cameras have few, if any, motion artifacts. Likewise, the XDCAM HD encoders have gotten better.

(Moreover, if you shoot 24PN, its EFFECTIVE bit-rate is no greater than HDV's 19Mbps. Something most DV100 folks don't understand.)

What hasn't changed is the HVX continues to use "SD" CCD chips to try and fill a 1440x1080 recording frame. (You may remember that 960x540 rez. CCDs were often used by Panasonic on their PRO SD cameras. As I remember, it supported wide-screen SD.)

EVERY objective test has revealed that pixel-shift never increases MOTION resolution more than 15% over the pixels on the chip. The only way to really increase rez. is to use Interpolation as is done by the EIP in Sony's V1. This is a very sophisticated processor that pixel-shift can not be compared to.

But, even interpolation cannot yield the rez. that native 1920x1080 chips do. This is pure science.

EXACTLY!!!! You said it much better than I, but that was EXACTLY what I was getting at. Thanks for the clarification.

Steve I agree with you on the pixel shifting. Pixel shifting is a great way of boosting detail of a native resolution but not so much for filling in missing detail.

In the past pixel shift has been more used to help boost the look of 720x480 chips. It gives the impression of a higher detailed chip that over samples the image and then gives you the 720x480. Starting with a native resolution that is lower then the standard and trying to fill in the missing pixels is a totally different situation. Not even the XL1 went as low as 360x240. It used something like 540x480 pixels and then pixel shifted. In this case it worked fine because it didn't have as much detail to try to fill back in. 540 pixel shifted to 720 wasn't as big of a jump and the vertical full 480 helped keep it in check as well.

When anybody shoot with a SD camera that had 360x240 pixels that were pixel shifted? Nobody would ever want to do such a thing. At the end of the day while pixel shifting can help 960x540 look like it has a lot more detail it is not perfect and is far from the having the resolving power of a 1920x1080 chip. Personally I always felt Panasonic should pixel shift 1280x720 chips so at least they would start with one of the standards and build from there to pull in more detail for 1080p.

Of course detail isn't everything which is why the HVX200 still looks really good. But if anybody is a pixel junky then a native 1920x1080 chip will always have more detail without a doubt. I sometimes wonder if the EX1 will have too much detail. Be carefull for what some of you wish for. High detail can also sometimes be a curse because it will show bad shooting and problems even more. With the EX1 personally I would like to see how it looks with the electronic sharpness turned totally off.

Bring on the detail!

An image can aways be made soft in post. I agree, it will be interesting on how well the EX1 holds up perceived detail with sharpness off.

I bet it looks great.

I have to disagree with the HVX200. Shutting off detail on the HVX200 had us believing we were out of focus. That's how soft it appears.

And that is how you tell what the true native resolution of a camera is. With a lot of cameras people are shocked at what a raw tap from the chips really looks like. It is amazing how much detail can be pulled back in by adding in some electronic or digital edge sharpening.

The key to high quality images is to start very high so you never notice the softness. That is where shooting 4k from the Red comes in. Red doesn't use any edge enhancement at all either and it kind of looks soft to some people. So shooting at 4k makes sense because a soft image at 4k still has a massive amount of detail in it. I will be very curious to see how much the EX1 actually resolves and how much is added sharpness.

The DVX100 avoided a lot of electronic sharpness by using pixel shift to create a over sampled image that then resulted in some nice natural detail for SD footage. The HVX200 on the other hand has to use electronic sharpness because it has to use that pixel shift to make the image HD. In order to get the same type of look from the HVX200 that you do from the DVX100 the HVX200 would have had to have 1920x1080 chips pixel shifted to process 4k in the DSP. Then the HVX200 would have looked very clean but detailed like the DVX100.

You're right about this. Even the HD100 with its native 1280x720 CCDs looks a tad soft when the sharpness is set to off. Although, it does appear smooth.

It will be interesting to check the EX1 with the edge enhancement set to off.
When capturing 1920x1080P footage, It might have the same "perceived" detail as the HD100 with it's enhancement set to a middle range. This should give you nice detail and clarity without the nasty hard edges. I never like the affect sharpness has on images with a lot of detail such as grass and leaves. These images really can bring out the nasty effect of edge enhancement.

This is the look we are all after.

Soft edges with overall detail.

Film does this combined with very expensive lenses.

This is tough for a video camera but it is getting better all the time.

This is why I am excited about the EX1. Even with the sharpness off it should have enough raw resolving power to still look great. Of course we will have to wait and see just what it looks like but I'm willing to bet it will look better then any other 1080 camera in this price range that is out there right now.

Yes, very true - effectively it increases the mtf for fine detail without the use of artificial enhancement. As such it's a very useful tool.

Worth noting that it's successful use in most cameras has been in the one dimension only - horizontal. The departure in the case of the HVX200 was to use it 2 dimensionally, and from what I gather, there is no great rush to follow that precedent.

Sorry, double-axis Pixel Shift in the HVX200 is not a precedent, not even by a long shot. The process has been around for well over a decade, and the most famous examples of H+V axes Pixel Shift in camcorders (the Panasonic AG-EZ1 and Canon) are now ten years old, and it wasn't anything close to a precedent even then.

Also, double-axis Pixel Shift is more common now than you might think; for example it's used in the popular JVC Everio line of consumer HD camcorders. Panasonic gets an unfair rap about Pixel Shift in the HVX200 primarily because those who criticize it the loudest have no idea how effective it really is, or just how commonly it's used in other three-chip camcorders.

Once again, as long as three-chip camera systems have been around and will continue to be around, Pixel Shift in one form or another will continue to be employed (because it works) with very few exceptions (most notably the JVC Pro HD line). Even the new ClearVid sensors from Sony are using a form of spatial offset at the pixel level, which is creates the same benefits of Pixel Shift under a different name.

The claim that "no amount of pixel-shift can create pixels that are not there" demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of what Pixel Shift is really doing. It certainly isn't attempting to create pixels that don't exist. Instead, the idea behind Pixel Shift, or in Sony's case of ClearVid by orienting a sensor diagonally, is to accomplish one thing and one thing only: not to create more photosites, but to create more sampling points per photosite for the benefit of the camera's A/D converter. And these various processes do it very well: they are fully legitimate ways to boost resolution.

High definition or standard definition makes no difference... the gain in resolution is significant and effective no matter how few or how many pixels are on the chip to begin with. If anything, the process is even more critical at SD resolution than it is for HD. Nobody complained about double-axis Pixel Shift in the Canon XL1, which brought its sub-SD chips up to Standard Definition. It was a non-issue then and it's a non-issue now (just look at how little worry there is about on on our JVC Everio forum).

Maybe this is all better framed for the next Texas shoot out.

Panasonic HVX200 720P60 vs JVC 250 720P60 vs Sony EX1 720P60
To keep things in perspective though, even if JVC and/or Sony "win" it still doesn't mean pixel shift is bad, it's what Panasonic uses to get a bit closer than had they not used the technology. What we may see beyond "win/lose" is how far can pixel shift go against chips in native resolution and up.

We might further add to the test by comparing HVX at 1080P30 vs EX 1080P30

That's simply not true.
Sony brings each under-sampled frames into the EIP. The EIP then performs an INTERPOLATION on these pixels to GENERATE A WHOLE NEW FRAME.

This is an ACTIVE process whereas Pixel-shift is a PASSIVE process.

Don't try to claim interpolation offer the "same benefits of Pixel Shift under a different name." The TX Shoot-out showed huge resolution differences between the HVX and the V1. The MEASURED V1 rez about 800x800. (My math model indicates it is about 775x775 -- which is damn close.)

The HVX measured exactly what my math model predicts: 540x540.

Remember it was my math model's backward prediction of the HVX's pixel resolution that finally forced Panasonic to admit it was using SD chips. There was a VERY good reason they tried for months to hide this fact.

Thomas clearly shows why pixel shift doesn't work in SD. There is a word for DV cameras that had 270K chips. They UNDERSAMPLED. It takes sophisticated technology to CHEAPLY build hi-rez chips PLUS the DSP needed to increase their lower sensitivity. Sony has it. And, once again they have leaped over the competition. (JVC also builds exactly the CCDs they need for 720p.) It's time to accept that 1080i requires FullHD chips.

The next TX shoot-off will show the EX1 to deliver 1000x1000 lines. (My math model predicts 1048x1048.) That is 4X the rez of the HVX!

To hold to your belief in the face of both theory and data only makes it look like you are defending Panasonic and/or Canon.

PS1: I always gave Canon negative marks for picture softness in every review I did. I never bought one either.

PS2: I love my tiny HD7. It's great for a $1,200 HD camcorder! But, it's not a V1.

PS3: Actually, the HD7/V1 difference is as others have posted. By bumping the HD7's SHARPNESS 1 tick I get a nice crisp HD pix that I like. The V1 delivers a very smooth pix which is what most folks want. Because I like crisp -- I often found V1 at full wide soft. The EX1 is likely to be the first $7K HD camcorder that can deliver BOTH smooth pix AND great detail at full wide.

Shrugs, I don't care what you call it, how they claim to use it, or what it is supposed to do. Bottom line the HVX 200 is soft and the 500 is not a heck of a lot better. The resolution was a major fault for me. I wanted an HD camera to take HD pictures, not highly monkied with SD ones.

It was very interesting awhile back to see the post in the HVX forum here from people who had been influential users of the camera admitting in the open forum, as one put it "the camera is on a short leash". Why, because the resolution wasn't up to snuff.

K

Steve, I remember this well.
I realize that companies must retain some confidential engineering deisgns, but I thought something was up when they evaded this question right until the camera was released.

I was on the preorder list for this camera. A coworker ended up getting his and we ran it through the paces. It's easy to get wrapped up with expectations. This stands true for eveything, but we were really let down by
the soft image and low light ability/noise.

At that time, we ended up staying with a couple JVC HD100.
Sure the HD100 had its faults, but we liked the overall image and that's what counts.

I know exactly how pixel shift works.

Is the HVX200 HD? Yes
does pixel shift work to make it HD? Yes
Is it as good as a native 1920x1080 chip? No
Does it really matter? Not really

Look the HVX200 is a great camera but it isn't as good as it could be. I personally think high detail is very overrated and I wish people would see that. Pixel shift is a great way to create HD but it isn't the only way nor is it the best way. Although that depends on your definition on what makes a better image. To detail junkies pixel shift just doesn't cut it. A single chip bayer pattern will give you more detail. To those who like a natural looking organic image the pixel shift works great. The reason I do not like pixel shift has nothing to do with the detail but other image issues which I will not go into because it is based 100% on my opinion and view.

I'm with you here Steve! Not bashing on the HVX, it is what it is, but technology moves on, sorry but a person can't always have the latest and greatest. Shoot, I'm still using a PD-150!

Hmmm.
It sure matters to me.
I see a large difference, at least with the certain "pixel shift" camera we were using.
If one can not, I guess it does not.

It's not that pixels shift is a "bad" thing. Certainly the images look better than from those same cameras had they not employed pixel shift. The better way to look at it is, does pixel shift to a specific resolution look better than something shot at that specific resolution with "native" pixels. The answer is most likely no.

Pixel shift improves the resultant image. Native pixels would improve it more.

Does THAT matter? It will to those who can see the difference.

When the time comes, I hope there's a Texas shoot out between the HVX200 and the EX1 at 720p and 1080p.

I suspect the next hand held 3 chip HD camera from Panasonic will not be using 960x540 chips.

My point exactly.

When it comes down to it the HVX200 will have one advantage and only one advantage and that is 4:2:2 recording to the cards.

Compared to 35mbits the whole I frame only thing doesn't matter as much anymore unless you like shooting strobe lights for a living.

* Low light will be better
* natural detail will be better
* quality will be better
* You get more video per card then with P2.
* You get SDI outputs and not just component outputs.
* You get better depth of field because of the 1/2" chips
* You get better transfer speed not to mention the cards transfer faster then the cards fill up with recorded video.
* The recording format itself has more resolution
* You can use the camera in a HDV type workflow if all your other equpiment is HDV.
* You get a real lens with real controls
* You "may" get 10bit video from live SDI. There are still conflicting reports on this one so until somebody from Cineform or somebody tests it we will not know for sure.
* You get 720p 24p at quality much higher that is virtually as good as Intraframe video because it has so many bits to work with. The thing with 720p is it can be as good as 1440x1080i video btu sadly it never was with DVCPROHD since it only used 960x720 pixels. 720p is already low enough without making it any softer and it really needs to be at 1280x720 to be able to go up against 1080i HD.
* The cards may not be cheaper but you get 3 times the amount of video on the same sized card which equals a huge cost savings. If somebody is used to shooting with 3 16GB P2 cards they could really get by with one SxS card.

Going back to the 4:2:2 thing. Sure the HVX200 records 4:2:2 to the card but if you really are serious about visual effects work chances are you wouldn't record your footage to the cards anyway. In this case the Ex1 with it's 100% digital SDI output and native higher resolution will give you much much better 4:2:2 quality material to work with. So really the 4:2:2 to card becomes more of a budget shooting sort of thing because serious FX work would capture uncompressed anyway.

I beg to differ, it most certainly matters.

Go to the HVX forum and take a look at some post that were made not long ago. There was much dismay from the masses there when a couple of early adopters (who were the reason some of these people referenced as buying their cameras) coughed up the fact that they could NOT use their HVX 200 for a large number of projects they shot. Reason being, poor resolution.

One person who just recently bought a 200 for a project went and got a Cannon H1 because for one the resolution of the 200 wasn't up to the standard needed.

If it works for you great, but there are a lot of situations where it has not worked for people. One side effect of the EX is that it is probably going to force Panasonic to put real chips in the 200 and eventually the 500.

K

Yes, panasonic will have to step it up.
They have a large fan club. If they come up with a "true" high rez cam that offers something other than DVCPRO-HD.

I'm not saying you can not get decent footage from a DVCPRO-HD cam, of course you can. The format can not yeild full 1080P HD.
If that does not bother you, so be it - live with it for as long as you like.

Having said that, their higher end cams such as the HPX500 produce some real nice stuff.

Your contention that one is active and the other passive takes nothing away from my original point, which you know to be true: both processes... Pixel Shift and ClearVid... both produce more sampling points per pixel, and both processes are indeed forms of interpolation which effectively boost the resolution of the image sensors. Sony's marketing emphasizes ClearVid's differences from "conventional spatial offset" (Pixel Shift), but my original point remains clear and valid: it begins with creating more sampling points per individual photosite. Both processes do this -- Pixel Shift and ClearVid. Both interpolate.

If you're referring to the 2006 Texas HD Shootout -- the one everybody knows about, the one which Adam Wilt supervised -- then I have some bad news for you. The V1 most definitely was *not* part of that test. It wasn't even there. I'm the one who produced that event so I know exactly what we had on hand.

It's time to accept that the most popular 1080i HD acquisition formats of the day (Sony HDCAM and XDCAM HD) have produced mountains of stunning program content *without* FullHD chips... thanks in no small part to Pixel Shift.

Nonsense! As I stated before and will happily repeat once again -- and what you also know to be true -- is that Pixel Shift is found in almost every three-chip system in one form or another among *all* manufacturers -- Sony, JVC, Panasonic and Canon -- with exceptions so very rare as to be a cause of concern for product marketing when it's *not* used, such as the notable case of JVC's Pro HD line. JVC wisely chose to note in their Pro HD marketing material that Pixel Shift was not implemented in their CCD block; an excellent example of selling the difference (in other words, it's a feature, not a bug).

Steve, you know as well as I do that Pixel Shift is incoporated by *all* major manufacturers of three-chip camera systems both past and present. Sony's entire HDCAM and XDCAM HD camera lineup, for instance. Formerly in JVC's popular DV500 & DV5000 series camcorders, because they used Sony CCDs. And while JVC avoided it in their Pro HD line, they continue to use it in a big way (double-axis) in their Everio series.

I mentioned those Canon and Pansonic antiques (XL1, GL1, AG-EZ1) because somebody mistakenly referred to the HVX200 as establishing some sort of "precedent" for H+V Pixel Shift, when the fact is that double-axis spatial offset has been in use for more than a decade... and continues on in the JVC Everio camcorders. So obviously I am not "defending" any particular brand over another... just pointing out that double-axis H+V is more common than most folks might realize.

Incorrect, if sensitivity and low-light performance are as crucial as many people here seem to think. If other factors are equal (sensor size, DSP etc.) then a lower pixel count with Pixel Shift will yield greater sensitivity than a higher pixel count without it, since fewer pixels on the same size chip means they're physically larger and therefore gather more light. So-called "native" pixels might improve sharpness, but at the cost of sensitivity which can be just as important.

But of course the DSPs (or EIP, whatever you want to call the processor) are seldom equal and make a *big* difference, as previously pointed out for the Sony V1 as well as Canon's Digic DV II and others. Sharpness and sensitivity are mutually exclusive terms, so it becomes a matter of trade-off. Which would you rather have interpolated... resolution or sensitivity? To some extent you can have a balance of both, thanks to resolution boosters such as Pixel Shift and ClearVid, and amplified brightness from the processor. That's an interpolation as well, and there's nothing wrong with it when it's done right... for example, how many Sony VX2000's and PD150's have wedding videographers purchased over the years specifically because of the artificially enhanced low-light performance of those camcorders?

Perhaps some folks tend to forget that CCD and CMOS image sensors are *analog* devices whose output must be converted to digital, so there's no reason why the pixel count of the sensor must be 1:1 with the pixel count of the recording format (so-called "native," seldom used for good reason). It doesn't matter if it's less, equal or more, because the signal must be converted from analog to digital anyway. The best camcorders within a certain class (HDV), the Sony V1 and Canon XH A1, produce superb 1920 x 1080 images from lower resolution chips, resolution interpolation and sensitivity interpolation: in the V1 it's 960 x 1080 with ClearVid and a state-of-the-art EIP; in the XH A1 it's 1440 x 1080 with H-axis Pixel Shift and Canon's proprietary Digic DV II. It's highly doubtful that "native" pixels would improve the image from either camcorder, but they would definitely take a hit on low light performance.