Talk:Panasonic AG-HVX200: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:27, 14 August 2006

Would anyone like to post a picture of the camera? Or further still, frame grabs or links to released footage? (anon. edit by User:67.52.163.52)

I could make one, as I own the camera. Framegrabs could be possible, as soon as I get a recording medium for DVCProHD...Pascal Parvex

The RED camera is vaporware... it doesn't exist yet. Before we compare it to the Panasonic AG-HVX200 maybe we should wait until there is an actual camera developed. The RED camera will cost around $20,000, without a lens and without a tape recorder. It is in a completely different class of camera... beyond HD. Tvaughan1 01:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RED's not vaporware (=deceptive), it's just not out yet. I agree they are in a different budget, but since both HVX and RED allow very cost-effective filming (saving lots of money compared to how it would have to be done before those cameras were out), both cameras still appeal to the same crowd, and I think, the mention of RED can stay, if properly phrased. Peter S. 21:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CCD resolution

I thought it was common knowledge that the HVX200 has 960x540 CCDs? A search for 'HVX200 960x540' on Google will give you nearly 500 hits, whereas 'HVX200 1220x1080' gives precisely zero. If I remember correctly, even Panasonic's own brochure on the camera lists the CCD size as 960x540. Mark Grant 16:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to be correct (and reflected in the current article). Peter S. 08:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... Okay maybe I acted to quickly to place the^{[citation needed]} in there. At first Panasonic never said what the sensor resolution was until march 2006 sometime. I heard a rumor that it was Canon that took it apart and discovered the resolution of the sensor. DV.com is a reliable source, right? [1] 1080-line camera limiting resolutions. But I agree with you's. Wuffyz 17:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC) Edit a minute later.[reply]

Yes, I think so. I read about this on dvxuser.com, and I read there that Panasonic themselves confirmed it. Peter S. 08:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the reason that they didn't say at first was because they didn't want people to think the resolution would be low. I tried looking for sample video and it's all been removed. I think it was because Panasonic got mad. They may have thought that anybody with a PAL XL-2 could interpolate the image to 1080p, although pixel shift is a better way than plain interpolation. Wuffyz 12:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the resolution is low: the comparison tests I've seen between prosumer HD cameras put XLH1 (1440x1080 CCDs, I think) > Z1 (960x1080 CCDs?) > HVX200. There are other reasons to prefer the HVX200, but if resolution is all you want, the XLH1 apparently beats it easily. Mark Grant 22:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 :::Yes, I think so. I read about this on dvxuser.com, and I read there that Panasonic themselves confirmed it. [[User:Peter S.|Peter S.]] 08:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 ::::I think the reason that they didn't say at first was because they didn't want people to think the resolution would be low. I tried looking for sample video and it's all been removed. I think it was because Panasonic got mad. They may have thought that anybody with a PAL XL-2 could interpolate the image to 1080p, although pixel shift is a better way than plain interpolation. [[User:Wuffyz|Wuffyz]] 12:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
+::::: Well, the resolution is low: the comparison tests I've seen between prosumer HD cameras put XLH1 (1440x1080 CCDs, I think) > Z1 (960x1080 CCDs?) > HVX200. There are other reasons to prefer the HVX200, but if resolution is all you want, the XLH1 apparently beats it easily. [[User:Mark Grant|Mark Grant]] 22:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)