We shot resolution charts, using the very finest res charts we could get -- a $1,000 ChromaDuMonde from DSC Labs, and a $4,000 Ambi Combi-2 back-lit chart that supported up to 1200 lines of res, generously loaned by BandPro. These were no home-printout charts, these were the finest charts on the market. Adam had us test both static and slight-motion shots; static res is the most familiar, and least informative way to do it, because it's rather dependent on where the lines happen to line up with the pixels on the CCD. Adding just the slightest bit of motion lets you see what's real resolution and what's aliasing. And the motion tests revealed some very interesting aspects of how the cameras produce the resolution they get. The pixel-shift Sony and HVX were quite interesting to watch, and the 24F of the Canon really didn't like vertical motion in the chart! Only the JVC performed relatively immune to motion.
---
In sensitivity, the Panasonic was significantly faster than any of the 1/3" cameras. About 2/3 of a stop faster than the Canon; the JVC and Sony were within striking distance of the Canon. The Panasonic was the hands-down sensitivity champ.
In noise performance, the Sony was easily the winner. It was noisier than the 2/3" cameras, but noticeably cleaner than the other 1/3" cameras. The XLH1 and Panasonic pretty much tied, in a six-of-one, half-dozen-of-the-other way. The two both demonstrated a comparable amount of noise, but the noise was of a very different texture. The Canon showed a sharper, more electronic sort of noise; presumably because the Canon's detail circuit is always engaged, it appeared to be sharpening the edges of the noise. The Panasonic had a muddier and smearier noise. The Canon seemed to be more luma noise, the Panasonic seemed more chroma noise. The jury was split on which was better or noisier; overall we did agree that neither was notably superior to the other, they are about the same. The JVC trailed in noise performance, its noise was more noticeable and of the sharpened edge-enhanced-style.
In resolution, there were some surprising results. First, the JVC is just plain sharper than the Sony. Doesn't matter that the JVC's 720 and the Sony's 1080, the JVC just plain shows more detail than the Sony. The Sony had lower horizontal resolution, and in terms of turning down the detail, the Sony showed outright alarming blurring at detail level zero. It was so soft we went back in and cranked the detail up to five just to put it back on relatively even footing with the others. The Canon was the hands-down winner in terms of horizontal resolution. The Panasonic will need some playback evaluation to be sure of what the transition point was between aliasing and resolved lines; I don't want to commit to any numbers based on the live footage, I think it's more appropriate to view the played-back-footage in an NLE where we can magnify and see exactly what's going on. Rough guess would be maybe 15% more horizontal for the Canon, but that's off-the-cuff. As far as vertical resolution, the 60i Sony and JVC did quite well, the Canon in 24F mode had some noticeable aliasing; we questioned whether the 24F mode isn't actually anything more sophisticated than simple field-doubling, like the Sony CF25 & CF30 modes. None of the 1/3" cameras could resolve to the standard set by the 2/3" big cameras.
In terms of dynamic range, all but the Sony displayed comparable performance, the sony lagged some. The JVC was perhaps the biggest surprise; its highlight handling was better than the Panasonic, which was better than the Canon. In terms of shadow detail, the Canon held a little more detail in the shadows than the Panasonic did. The Sony trailed in dynamic range.
Well, so much for charts and figures and noise and whatnot -- how did the pictures look? When you put it all together and put color and gamma and resolution and everything all at once and viewed a scene, how did they look? They all looked pretty darn good. Each of them, on their own, shooting the same scene, resolved a high-definition image. None leapt off the screen as compared to the others; even the Sony, which trailed so much in the chart testing, really put together a very nice-looking picture. They all acquitted themselves quite well.
We went in and did a two-stop-over test on the JVC, Canon and Panasonic to test highlight handling. In that test the Canon was first to blow out; the Panasonic held highlights better, but we were surprised to find the JVC performing better in highlight performance than both of the others. While the JVC had noticeably more and coarser noise than either of the others, it certainly provided a nice deep dynamic range and the best highlight handling of the group.
Again, this is all based on the viewing of the live output. This doesn't take into account the effects that the recording format will have! That might change some perceptions a little or even a lot; this doesn't take into account the subsampling of three of the four cameras' recording formats, and doesn't take into account the chroma subsampling of HDV. Once we review the camera original footage, we'll issue an update.
