I'll also add that capture is always going to transfer whatever is on the tape to the hard drive unmodified. If it's recorded on the tape at 1920x1080 then the captured file will be 1920x1080, no matter what the project properties are set for.

The Canon HV20 is an HDV camera, and its native format actually is 1440x1080. This is the best that HDV can offer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDV

Because the HDV pixel aspect ratio makes each pixel slightly rectangular, the 1440x1080 picture will fill an HD tv screen, which is 1920x1080 square pixels.

In consumer formats, only the newer AVCHD cameras can provide a full1920x1080 resolution, but AVCHD (from what I've heard) is pretty tough to edit unless you have a blazingly fast computer or you transcode it to some other format.

I don't know why VMS would be resetting your project properties if it is advertised as being capable of 1920x1080, but you have little to gain by doing so anyway.

You can not set 1920x1080 in the Platinum Edition, version 8 or earlier. However, YOU, don't need it. The HV20 just needs the "HDV 1080/60i" template selected in the project properties, and you will have the right aspect ratio taken care of. The HV20 records in 1440x1080 anyway.

The only problem arises if you want to render out in 1920x1080, in which case you have to either export with an intermediate codec at 1440x1080@1.333 aspect ratio, and then use the freeware utility SUPER to encode a full 1080p video, OR, you need to upgrade to Platinum 9.

Thanks for the replies, with their info I went looking some more. Apparently the deal with the HV20 is that the sensor captures at 1920x1080 but it's compressed down to 1440x1080 for the HD recording on the tape so anything coming off the tape is 1440x1080.

However, it's possible to get a live only 1920x1080 feed out of the HDMI port. Of course that means it has to be recorded externally in real time which isn't trivial.

If you are going to buy the $250 capture HDMI card, then it's not a big deal to pay $50 to upgrade your Platinum, is it there? ;-)

I am upgrading, but not buying the capture card. The bitrate is too high for my laptop even if I could get it attached, and my desktop is a bit too bulky and wired up to be moving around, not to mention the extension cord problem.

Eventually I may upgrade the camera to one that records 1920x1080, but I hate not having a viewfinder which a lot don't. In the meantime, I'm quite happy with the HV20 quality. I'll see if there's any noticeable difference outputting 1920 with 1440 input when I get V9.

Hi Ralph,
I also use the HV30, and was wondering whether I was losing something in quality because of the 1440. The thing (actually there are many!) that I don't understand is if the PAR is 1.33 why would the quality be any less than if you took 1920 with a PAR of 1? Is one PAR better than another? Does the camcorder do some sort of interpolation or guessing to try and fill the screen by stretching the pixels? If so, why wouldn't they just have it shoot at 1920 and take the 'guess' out of it? Cin
PS. I also hate camcorders without viewfinders :O

Cin,

From my simplistic perspective (and I record in 1440x1080 using one of the first flash media AVCHD camcorders), I don't think there is much to gainm, but...

Smaller pixels mean more pixels in the same area which means better resolution.

Picture a rectangle filled 1000 rectangles. Now picture that same rectangle filled with 1330 squares. The difference isn't huge (especially when considering the big jump between 720x480 and 1440x1080). But, you should still expect some gain. The question is it worth editing AVCHD at 1920x1080 when you are happy with 1440x1080?

When it was designed (circa 2003) the HDV format had the basic goal of being able to record a "high definition" picture on mini-DV tape -- i.e. with the same 25 Mbit/sec bandwidth as std definition video. That way the HDV cameras could use the same basic hardware (tape heads, motors, etc.) as existing cameras, and could be backward compatible with std def hardware. I'm sure this approach helped the camera manufactures as well -- sticking to an existing recording system.

I expect the 1440x1080 format choice was purely a matter of bandwidth -- how much info could they record in a 25 mbps compatible format.

Also, I suppose in the consumer/prosumer level cameras of the time, the CCD's weren't 1920x1080 resolution anyway.

Most people probably wouldn't notice the difference between 1920 and 1440 (but then, this is coming from a guy that doesn't even have a hi def TV! or even a "nice" TV). As I understand it, a lot of "hi def" satellite and cable TV transmissions are also only 1440x1080 anyway.

Tim L

According to tests, you need to sit very closely to a TV to see any difference between 720p and 1080p, so yeah, most people will never see a difference between 1920x1080 and 1440x1080.