Quryous wrote on 9/19/2006, 12:41 PM

Although they slipped and put V1E in a few spots, this whole display is about the V1U. It is one of the BEST early layouts of information I have ever seen, and it isn't even finished. The only thing that it leaves me wondering is that it looks like the camcorder sees, captures, processes, and everything else at full 1920 x 1080, and then waters it down to HDV 1440 x 1080 when it writes it to disk or tape. Say it isn't so, Sony! Why can't we have something better than HDV?


Jayster wrote on 9/19/2006, 12:58 PM
As far as I know (which isn't much), 1920x1080 is not a standard HDV format. To store it in that size would require some other format besides HDV. Dropping the file size to 1440x1080 reduced the required bit rate to 25Mbps, exactly the max allowed by HDV. To get a full 1920x1080 would probably require a more lossy compression on the source data to squeeze it into 25 Mbps.

But you can probably capture uncompressed at the full 1920x1080 using a Decklink card or DV rack or something like that.
Spot|DSE wrote on 9/19/2006, 1:31 PM
The camcorder outputs 1440 x 1080 in all modes; that's what HDV is.
more information and downloadable vid from the V1U
BarryGreen wrote on 9/19/2006, 4:42 PM
>>But you can probably capture uncompressed at the full 1920x1080 using a Decklink card or DV rack or something like that<<

DV Rack wouldn't allow for that, it captures HDV.

You may be able to capture uncompressed digitally through the HDMI port by using an HDMI->HDSDI converter tool. Or you could capture uncompressed analog by using an analog HD capture card. In either case it appears that what you'd be capturing would be 1440x1080 @ 4:2:2.
Quryous wrote on 9/19/2006, 7:00 PM
I don't care if it is HDV, or pq schmee, they had it in 1920 x 1080 and at the very last step they watered it down to HDV 1440 x 1080 when it was obviously possible to keep it at full definition and reasonably inexpensive.. I don't WANT HDV if they can make it better! Now, more than ever, it seems to be a temporary, stop-gap format that they invented and we are now stuck with.
BarryGreen wrote on 9/19/2006, 7:05 PM
But many of these cameras operate internally at 1920x1080. The HVX does, I believe the Canon XLH1 does, and the Sony V1U does. I expect the Z1/FX1 do as well but don't know for sure. Internal 1920x1080 processing is nothing new. But there's no way to get that out of the system. The only one that does it so far is the XLH1, it can output a 1920x1080 HD-SDI signal.
x_gogoa wrote on 9/20/2006, 5:16 AM
look for intensity - hdmi capture and preview card.

maybe vegas add support for this card in future or someone
make directshow filter even for playback.

FrigidNDEditing wrote on 9/20/2006, 6:59 AM
Barry, when you say operates internally at 1920x1080, I am assuming you mean with the uprezzed images from the chips right? I was under the impression that the HVX has a pretty small chip that they stretch, or interpolate, or some such method, isn't it a chip that is natively running one of the resolutions in the 500 or so pixels range? Please correct me if I'm wrong here. Thanks.

BarryGreen wrote on 9/20/2006, 10:33 AM
>> I am assuming you mean with the uprezzed images from the chips right? <<

Well, yes, but "uprezzed" is a harsh word that doesn't properly describe the process. But in some manner or other, all of the 1080 cameras do it. None of them has a 1920x1080 chip. They all sample their chips using an algorithm to create 1920x1080 from them. Canon and Panasonic use spatial offset sampling, Sony describes their process in their brochure as "interpolating", they use CMOS chips in a diagonal pixel arrangement and they sample a 1920x1080 signal off their 960x1080 chips.

Does it matter?

There are comparison photos on Sony's website where they show a 960x540 HVX, 1440x1080 Canon, and 960x1080 V1 side-by-side shooting the same subject. For the most part they all look roughly equally detailed, with the Canon showing more noise, and the Sony looking the cleanest (of course, it's in a Sony brochure after all so I wouldn't expect them to show it looking worse). But what I find interesting is that they're showing a pic from one camera that has 3x as many pixels as another, and the pics look about the same (and even if one convinced themselves they were seeing more detail in the H1's shot, it's certainly not 3x as much detail!)