Jump to content


Photo

Resolution Questionable?


  • Please log in to reply
5 replies to this topic

#1 J Lund

J Lund
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 15 posts
  • Student
  • Savannah, GA

Posted 25 April 2006 - 08:35 PM

Recently I have read certain articles comparing the Varicam, CineAlta, HVX-200, H1, etc. It appeared and was speculated that the HVX-200 resolution was questionably less than the 1080 as well the 720. It seemed as if the 1080 res was closer to something around 800 and the the 720 was closer to 500... Anyone seen any realtime footage tests comparing such cameras.
I had just shot a 20min short on 2 HVX cameras, one with a micro35 adapter with Nikon lenses... looked great. However, I hadn't seen it on HD projection, and thus far have only seen most of it via P2 card and Final Cut dailies.
I am currently in the market for this camera, finding it quite cheap as of late; so I must ask: Has anyone compared footage? Anyone heard such rumors? Is it true? Is Panasonic really decieving their users and those loyal to the company?
  • 0

#2 David Beier

David Beier
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 21 posts

Posted 20 May 2006 - 10:35 PM

Pansonic has already released information. The HVX200 has 960 x 540 CCDs and then uses spatial offset to achieve a theoretical resoltion of 1920 x 1080. In practive howerver, it doesn't end up being quite this much.

As far as comparison with other cameras goes, you really shouldn't even be comparing these with the Varicam and CineAlta since they cost over 10 times as much.

The main competitors of the HVX200 are the XLH1 and the HD100.

This is what I've gathered from people lots of research and people I know who use these cameras:

Resoltion wise, the XLH1 is the clear winner. It's just sharper and quite impressive. The HVX200 and HD100 are actually about the same as far as detail level. The HD100 appears a bit sharper because the camera automatically applies MUCH more edge enhancment (fake resolution through upping contrast around edges). With edge enhancment removed, the cameras have the same level of sharpness so if you want the HVX200 to have the digitally sharp look of the HD100, just do it in post. The XLH1's higher resolution though is genuine.

While the HVX200 doesn't wow in resoltion, it is superior in a number of other ways that I personally consider more important (though sadly the HD craze means that all anyone cares about is resolution). The HVX200 records in DVCPro HD instead of HDV like the others.

The HVX200 has 4:2:2 color space compared to the others 4:2:0 which means the others compress the color twice as much. The HVX200 also uses pure frames which means far less motion artifacts. Finally, and I admit this is totally subjective, the HVX200 has a much more film-like gamma curve that I think looks far better.
  • 0

#3 Vincent Pascoe

Vincent Pascoe
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 15 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 26 May 2006 - 12:42 AM

Each camera has there own Benifits.
Hvx also shoots and Playbacks variable framerates @720P from 2FPS to 60FPS. and the whole P2 card thing (no digitizeing in AVID) to me beats the 1.5 time it takes me to digitize HDV footage. for shorts,some comercails and Features I feel HVX is great.

HLX1
Althou not uncompressed as some say the SDI-out is a Studio Camera Killer 4:2:2 (8-bit? I herd some people say?) non-HDV signal is hard to beat. and yes side by side to the HVX it's Image is hands down sharper.



VP
  • 0

#4 Phil Rhodes

Phil Rhodes
  • Sustaining Members
  • 11944 posts
  • Other

Posted 26 May 2006 - 01:43 AM

Hi,

The HD100 has (according to JVC) true 1280x720 CCDs, and in my experience it clearly outresolves the HVX - in terms of chip resolution. The manual lens probably isn't as good as the servo one on the HVX for reasons I've discussed in the past, but I found the HD100 image vastly more compelling even with optical softness.

I also noticed that the HVX is quite indescribably noisy.

The XLH1 is an incredibly impressive camera for the money - if only it did proper progressive scan, but even given than shortcoming, I'd still be very interested in using it.

Phil
  • 0

#5 Vincent Pascoe

Vincent Pascoe
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 15 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 28 May 2006 - 02:36 AM

about the JVC's resuloution...

look at

http://www.dvxuser.c...ead.php?t=50288

Hi,

I also noticed that the HVX is quite indescribably noisy.

The XLH1 is an incredibly impressive camera for the money - if only it did proper progressive scan, but even given than shortcoming, I'd still be very interested in using it.

Phil


I was suprised to see noise in the SD-I of the XLH1...I don't think its worth $3000 more then the JVC or HVX.

all 3 cameras can produce good Images for under $10,000...all are beter than Mini-DV days. any would be fine to shoot with.

VP
  • 0

#6 peter orland

peter orland
  • Guests

Posted 28 May 2006 - 03:04 AM

all 3 cameras can produce good Images for under $10,000...all are beter than Mini-DV days. any would be fine to shoot with.


I'll second that.
  • 0


Aerial Filmworks

Technodolly

Broadcast Solutions Inc

CineTape

CineLab

Rig Wheels Passport

Tai Audio

Abel Cine

Visual Products

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Metropolis Post

Wooden Camera

Willys Widgets

Glidecam

The Slider

FJS International, LLC

rebotnix Technologies

Opal

Ritter Battery

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Paralinx LLC

Metropolis Post

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Glidecam

CineLab

rebotnix Technologies

Aerial Filmworks

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

FJS International, LLC

The Slider

Ritter Battery

Abel Cine

Visual Products

Opal

CineTape

Rig Wheels Passport

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Paralinx LLC

Wooden Camera

Willys Widgets

Tai Audio

Technodolly