HD camcorder fraud

Sony claim the HDR-FX7E is 1080i high definition but when you look at the
pixel resolution of the sensor it's not even standard definition and they
want nearly two grand for it!

http://www.dabs.com/productview.aspx...94953606,50417

Camcorder Sensor Resolution 1.12 Mpix

For SD you need 1.24 megapixels

For 1280x720 HD you need 2.76 megapixels

For 1920x1080 HD you need 6.22 megapixels

So how on **** can Sony claim this camera is HD when it's not even SD?

And it's not just Sony.

Panasonic are in on the HD camcorder con too.

They claim the HDC-SD1 is 1080i HD

http://www.dabs.com/productview.aspx...94953606,50300

But the Camcorder Sensor Resolution is only 1.7 Mpix which is not even
960x720 HD 4:3 aspect ratio resolution which is 2.07 Mpix.

And the HD camcorder con doesn't stop there.

Cannon claim the £2,289.99 XH A1 HDV1080i is HD but once again it's not.

Camcorder Sensor Resolution 1.67 Mpix

JVC are in on the con too.

GZ-HD7

Camcorder Effective Still Resolution 2.1 Megapixel

NOT HD!

Samsung is the ONLY brand that actually supports 1080 HD properly and all
for 1/4 of the cost of the above. £465.99.

http://www.dabs.com/productlist.aspx...ctedI d=11249

Camcorder Sensor Resolution 6.4 Mpix, 1080p

Even the cheepo £275.99 Sanyo VPC-HD700 supports 720p at 4.08 Mpix but not
the Sony, Panasonic and JVC top models.

http://www.dabs.com/productview.aspx...94953606,50407

How are these companies allowed to get away with this FRAUD?!

"Agamemnon" wrote in message
...
Sony claim the HDR-FX7E is 1080i high definition but when you look at the
pixel resolution of the sensor it's not even standard definition and they
want nearly two grand for it!

http://www.dabs.com/productview.aspx...94953606,50417

Camcorder Sensor Resolution 1.12 Mpix

For SD you need 1.24 megapixels

For 1280x720 HD you need 2.76 megapixels

For 1920x1080 HD you need 6.22 megapixels

Or if the camera is using 3 CCDs and 4:2:2 colour sub-sampling 4.15
megapixels, or 3.11 megapixels with 4:2:0 sub-sampling.


So how on **** can Sony claim this camera is HD when it's not even SD?

And it's not just Sony.

Panasonic are in on the HD camcorder con too.

They claim the HDC-SD1 is 1080i HD

http://www.dabs.com/productview.aspx...94953606,50300

But the Camcorder Sensor Resolution is only 1.7 Mpix which is not even
960x720 HD 4:3 aspect ratio resolution which is 2.07 Mpix.

And the HD camcorder con doesn't stop there.

Cannon claim the £2,289.99 XH A1 HDV1080i is HD but once again it's not.

Camcorder Sensor Resolution 1.67 Mpix

JVC are in on the con too.

GZ-HD7

Camcorder Effective Still Resolution 2.1 Megapixel

NOT HD!

Samsung is the ONLY brand that actually supports 1080 HD properly and all
for 1/4 of the cost of the above. £465.99.

http://www.dabs.com/productlist.aspx...ctedI d=11249

Camcorder Sensor Resolution 6.4 Mpix, 1080p

Even the cheepo £275.99 Sanyo VPC-HD700 supports 720p at 4.08 Mpix but not
the Sony, Panasonic and JVC top models.

http://www.dabs.com/productview.aspx...94953606,50407

How are these companies allowed to get away with this FRAUD?!

Agamemnon wrote:
How are these companies allowed to get away with this FRAUD?!


Dunno. You tell us, while I try and find what the 'K' key does in
thunderbird....

--
Adrian C

"Agamemnon The TROLL" wrote in message
...
Sony claim the HDR-FX7E is 1080i high definition but when you look at the
pixel resolution of the sensor it's not even standard definition and they
want nearly two grand for it!

How are these companies allowed to get away with this FRAUD?!
Learn what the difference is between 720p, 1080p, 1080i, non-interlaced and
also interlaced. Then think about how stupid you have just made yourself
look. No need for your foul language in the newsgroup. It certainly does
demonstrate your lack of intelligence!

"Rob" wrote in message
...

"Agamemnon The TROLL" wrote in message
...
Sony claim the HDR-FX7E is 1080i high definition but when you look at the
pixel resolution of the sensor it's not even standard definition and they
want nearly two grand for it!

How are these companies allowed to get away with this FRAUD?!
Learn what the difference is between 720p, 1080p, 1080i, non-interlaced
and
also interlaced. Then think about how stupid you have just made yourself
look. No need for your foul language in the newsgroup. It certainly does
demonstrate your lack of intelligence!

FOOL! You clearly don't know what 720p, 1080p, 1080i are.

Actually, Rob, would you explain it to me? I've just done a quick tap on a
calculator:

1280 * 720 = 921,600 pixels (within the 1.12Mpix claimed)

1920 * 1080 = 2,073,600 pixels (exceeds the 1.12Mpix claimed)

I don't see how interlacing alters anything: it's a technique for reducing
the transmission bandwidth, isn't it? Surely nothing to do with the
resolution of the source.

Agamemnon's original calculations assume three sensor pixels for each "real"
pixel. In fact the Sony uses three separate sensors, each of 1.12Mpix, so
we can use the figures I calculated above.

So it seems to me that the Sony couldn't actually produce a 1920 * 1080
picture, suggesting Agamemnon is right.

I'm not taking sides he just a layman who's keen to learn something.

SteveT

"Steve Thackery" wrote in message
...
Actually, Rob, would you explain it to me? I've just done a quick tap on
a calculator:

1280 * 720 = 921,600 pixels (within the 1.12Mpix claimed)

So its only HD Black and White then is it?


1920 * 1080 = 2,073,600 pixels (exceeds the 1.12Mpix claimed)


So its only HD Black and White then is it?

I don't see how interlacing alters anything: it's a technique for reducing
the transmission bandwidth, isn't it? Surely nothing to do with the
resolution of the source.

Agamemnon's original calculations assume three sensor pixels for each
"real" pixel. In fact the Sony uses three separate sensors, each of
1.12Mpix, so we can use the figures I calculated above.

The figure given is for all three sensors combined since the above is also
more or less the pixel resolution given for stills. Colour stills, ie. all
the sensors combined would use 6.22 megapixels if it was HD. My digital
stills camera has 6.1 megapixels and its 3 years old.


So it seems to me that the Sony couldn't actually produce a 1920 * 1080
picture, suggesting Agamemnon is right.

I'm not taking sides he just a layman who's keen to learn something.

SteveT

The figure given is for all three sensors combined since the above is also
more or less the pixel resolution given for stills. Colour stills, ie. all
the sensors combined would use 6.22 megapixels if it was HD. My digital
stills camera has 6.1 megapixels and its 3 years old.

Would you be able to adopt a more civil tone when talking to people?

Anyway, back to the point. Your "6.1 megapixel" camera produces pictures of
around 3000 * 2000 pixels, right? In other words, each of those 6.1 million
pixels is a *full colour* pixel.

The specs for the Sony seem perfectly clear: it has three CCD sensors, one
for each colour, and each having a resolution of 1.12 megapixel. Thus the
picture produced has 1.12 *full colour* pixels.

That exceeds the requirements for 1280 * 720 pictures, but not for 1920 *
1080 pictures. I suspect the latter is interpolated.

SteveT

"Steve Thackery" wrote in message
...
The figure given is for all three sensors combined since the above is
also more or less the pixel resolution given for stills. Colour stills,
ie. all the sensors combined would use 6.22 megapixels if it was HD. My
digital stills camera has 6.1 megapixels and its 3 years old.

Would you be able to adopt a more civil tone when talking to people?

Anyway, back to the point. Your "6.1 megapixel" camera produces pictures
of around 3000 * 2000 pixels, right? In other words, each of those 6.1
million pixels is a *full colour* pixel.

NOPE! The CCD contains 6.1 million effective pixels.

The maximum resolution of the stored images is 2816x2112 = 5.95 million, and
is achieved by interpolation. The actual CCD itself contains 6,370,000
pixels gross and 6,070,000 pixels effective resolution thus the image
resolution is about 2048x1536 assuming a similar arrangement to 4:2:2 is
being used or about 2272x1704 if a similar arrangement to 4:2:0 is used.


The specs for the Sony seem perfectly clear: it has three CCD sensors, one
for each colour, and each having a resolution of 1.12 megapixel. Thus the
picture produced has 1.12 *full colour* pixels.

That is not the usual way resolution is counted. If there are three CCDs
each would have 0.37 million pixels, assuming a 4:4:4 colour space. If you
assume 4:2:2 then the luminance CCD would carry 0.56 million pixels and the
blue CCD and red CCD 0.26 million pixels each. That's 768x720 resolution.


That exceeds the requirements for 1280 * 720 pictures, but not for 1920 *

No it does not. You are only getting 768x720 resolution which means the
image has to be multiplied by 1.25 lengthwise to get 4:3 ratio and to get a
1280x720 16:9 ratio picture you would have to multiply the length by 4/3.

1080 pictures. I suspect the latter is interpolated.

SteveT

The specs for the Sony seem perfectly clear: it has three CCD sensors,
one for each colour, and each having a resolution of 1.12 megapixel.
Thus the picture produced has 1.12 *full colour* pixels.

That is not the usual way resolution is counted. If there are three CCDs
each would have 0.37 million pixels, assuming a 4:4:4 colour space. If you
assume 4:2:2 then the luminance CCD would carry 0.56 million pixels and
the blue CCD and red CCD 0.26 million pixels each. That's 768x720
resolution.

Your argument revolves around your assertion that the sensors in the Sony
are actually 0.37 million pixels each, rather than 1.12 megapixels each.

If you are wrong, the Sony can indeed claim to be HD (1280 * 720, that is).

How sure are you?

(Incidentally, it wouldn't surprise me if you are right: achieving HD by
upscaling a low-def sensor shouldn't be allowed, but is the sort of thing
that happens in a price-sensitive market where "HD" is the latest
must-have.)

SteveT