1/3″ vs. 2/3″

[John Sharaf]

Michael,

There are really two differences; the main distinction obviously is the size of the imager, but the effect of this is that the depth of field is much greater on the smaller imager with a lens of comperable field of view. To many the “film-look” is distinguished because it’s imager is so large that even in normal or wide shots there are planes of focus. The skillful cinematographer uses this to advantage to direct the viewers attention to particular things in the frame.

The effect of selective focus can be controlled by iris, focal length and stageing, but the user of a smaller imager is severly limited in range.

The second difference which is manifest on the screen by the comparison of 1/3″ and 2/3″ imagers is that the larger imager has space for many more pixels. The Varicam for example has more than one million pixels on each of its three chips, whereas the HVX200 has ??? pixels on each chip. You’ll notice that Panasonic refrains from quoting a number both in literature and in person, because the number of pixels does not approach what many would consider to be HD resolution (on a pixel basis – 1280×720=921600) but through clever use of offset pixel structure (which of course has been used for years on SD cameras too) they have created a camera that looks remarkably sharp. One day we may know how many pixels there are, and I sustect it will be under 200K per chip. Also because of the native progressive scan, all pixels are in use for every field, whereas in an interlace camera (like the Sony HDV) only half the pixels are in play each field.

As you note, the differences in lens quality is significant, and this is because consumers will not endulge the great expence required to manufacture a high quality HD lens, whereas professionals insist on the best. You’ll see examples soon of HD lenses actually costing more than the cameras they’re put on, until economies of scale bring even those prices down as manufacturers begin to deliver quantities of thousands of units to every TV station in the nation.

[Jan Crittenden livingston]

[john sharaf] “One day we may know how many pixels there are, and I sustect it will be under 200K per chip.”

Oh please John, this is just a silly guess. Frankly we use more than that on the DVX100B. I suppose the factory will eventually release the spec, but as the camera stands right now on a resolution chart it is on par with all of the other small HD cameras.

Best,

Jan

Jan Crittenden Livingston
Product Manager, DVCPRO, DVCPRO50, AG-DVX100
Panasonic Broadcast & TV Systems

[John Sharaf]

Jan,

You’re right, silly guess; DVX has about 400K! Don’t get me wrong though, I’m duely impressed with the HVX picture and can’t wait to receive my order of two units to start.

The question remains however, how many pixels can you possibly crunch together in a 1/3″ space?

JS

[Accountclosedduetopolicyviolations]

…and Digital processing…

Comming back to Pana 200 and Marketing of that camera.
1)Release date ….29th of December.
2)No details about CCD.
Very,very strange kind of Marketing…what have they got to hide??
jiri vrozina

[David Battistella]

This is what the DVX 100 chips are capable of when the codec is bypassed

https://www.reel-stream.com/magik_test.php/rs_1207cc.tif?type(png)

here is the linking page

https://www.reel-stream.com/gallery_individual.php?gallery_type=0&image_id=185

The chips are capable of far larger frame sizes than the codec allows for.

David

Merry Christmas

[Gunleik Groven]

How do you bypass the codec?

Gunleik

[David Battistella]

They modufy the camera so that you can get the signal in a RAW format before it gets processed to tape. In this set up you would have to use a laptop or MAc mini to record the picture, but that is how panasonic suggests you record from the HVX when there are several hours of materail to record.

David

Merry Christmas