I think it is a twist of words:

"Our product produces a FILE with the attributes of 1920x1080" (upscaled or blended whatever)

not

"Our system can record on a total of 1920x1080 actual full colored pixels, then producing a file of 1920x1080"

I'd seen mentioned the actual resolution of Canon T3i is more like 600 than 1080. Seems a tad extreme, but I have not tested it myself.

On Foveon:

"[I]which I understand has quite a bit of catching up to do in terms of absorption losses and noise.[/I]"

While the concept is appealing, your assessment about catching up appears to be true of frame rate for video, too.

[B]Basic Specifications[/B]
Parameter Specification
Total Pixels 14.5M, 2688 x 1792 x 3
Effective Pixels 14.1M, 2652 x 1768 x 3
Pixel Pitch 7.8ìm
Effective Area 20.7mm x 13.8mm
Effective Diagonal 24.9mm
Aspect Ratio 3:2
Frame Rate Full Array (14M): 5 fps

You might want to review the specs on the Black Magic Cinema Camera to see if it might better fit your quest.

if i recall, i while ago i saw a documentary about video, explaining Nyquist theorem:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist%E2%80%93Shannon_sampling_theorem

it said to have a video with "full" definition for every pixel let's say, you need to capture at 2x the resolution.

due to evolution in lenses/sensors, i believe to have a "real full-hd" you will need to capture video between 3k or 4k, and down-sample with a good resizer (like lanczos) to obtain maximum definition "possible" in a full-hd video. (or the camera do this process internally)

My friend Jim Abernethy now has the new Canon EOS-1D C 4K DSLR with 8-bit 4:2:2 1080p ... which can also shoot video at 60 fps instead of 30 p if desired.... He has it in a housing with lights, and is shooting shark videos in the Bahamas with it this week..... I will have to see if I can get you guys some footage to look at, but clearly it would not be a youtube or vimeo upload. I am wondering if I could use my Sorrenson Account ??

With RED delivering "5K" now, I kinda wonder what those numbers REALLY equate to?

Don't get me wrong, I think everything LOOKS great these days, even my DSLR. but am disappointed in the marketing spin used to lure me in to filming in "HD". Had I known, I would have kept my pennies and saved for the upcoming prosumer 4k stuff.

First you need to think about the lens.

Bob.

Regardless of lens, Canon is still pixel fudging to make it work.
Take a still shot set at 1920x1080, then same from a video frame, and 1/3 of the resolution is missing because of how they manage moving pixel capture.

DanV, would be cool to see some of the raw files or even a still frame from them.
Youtube does 4k and "Original" size these days (with their compression probably), but, alas, I doubt I can even playback much above HD. 4k works in VLC just barely - at least on my machines.
Have him take a still shot at the same resolution as the video frame, and compare.

Yes, we're not quite there for 4k playback yet, but I'd like to be able to shoot an HONEST HD

Been eyeing that JVC 4K camcorder.... wonder if it is a liar too?

You're using a lot of provocative language over technology that is not new and whose nomenclature is widely accepted, even if this is your first peek under the hood. RGB channel resolutions and bit depths are not exactly a new revelation here.

That being the case, what combination of existing technology and marketing conformity do you suggest should take its place?

So should manufacturers ship prosumer camcorders with 8K sensors for under a grand, but call it only 2K, is that it? I should live so long.

Eh, things do change. Remember the days when you'd buy a 15" monitor, but could clearly measure that the visible opening was only 13.6"? After a class-action suit and the threat of much more legal entanglements, manufacturers finally started advertising '15" diagonal/13.5" viewable'. Now only the viewable size is mentioned. (I was even offered to get in on the settlement and get $7 per monitor if i submitted all the purchase receipts over the past 36 months and pay the $45 processing fee!) People don't seem to care anymore.

On the other hand, hard drive manufacturers were once, briefly, required to list the formatted capacity of drives rather than the unformatted. That seems to have gone by the wayside again and they're all back to unformatted. When's the last time you heard anyone complain that their 2TB drive only holds 1.8TB? People really don't seem to care about that one anymore either.

Image resolution will probably face a class-action suit of it's own someday, and a lot of people will be very confused and not many will really care.

I don't think that many even know or notice.

If a 4k camera can't really shoot 4k looking video, I don't want it to be called a true 4k, no.
If I built a 720 camera and upscaled it inside to output 4k file resolutions, should I be able to sell it as a 4k? I don't think so. With Canon selling a camera claiming to produce HD video from a sensor definitely big enough to cover it, only to end up pixel wrangling it to less than HD, I feel I was defrauded. "Here, buy this Vette! It's a Yugo but it says Vette right on it!" hahahhaha

I know I won't change the ingrained system, but it hurts if ya don't try. ;)

"How can we trust any of their specs if there is not a way to prove it like take a picture of a pixel graph chart or similar"

Here's a thought:

Pick the best camera and gear you can afford this year, make the best video you know how to this year and entertain the largest number of people you can reach this year.

Next year, rinse and repeat.

It's unlikely that most of the people on the forum are using the same gear they did when they started using Vegas Pro. What's possible changes continuously, as we should. The industry and the devices we use will always be a compromise to chip yields, price-points, tastes and preferences, corporate influence to standards bodies, phase of the moon, tsunamis, market segmentation, consumer capture, etc.

Don't criticise the product you can hold in you hand for not being perfect.

Next thing I put in my hands I will fully test personally first, not go off track record, published specs, and many personal recommendations. :) Thought I was buying HD, not almost HD

so the topic asks, which cameras have real resolutions? any?

You're essentially looking for a camera in which the output file resolution is the dominant limiting factor in image quality. While this would usually not be considered a reasonable design, you might have a chance of finding such a camera in a dumbed-down little sister of a higher-priced version. Have a look at Canon's 1D X. Rumour has it it's basically identical to the 1D C but is limited to a 1080p output.

I have "tested" every camera that I have. I put "tested" in quotes because I'm not a pro and only did the best I could with what I had available. I printed a standard resolution chart at as high a ppi as feasible on a large a piece of paper as my (wife's) printer would do (11"x13"), hung it on a wall, and took video of it.

My reading of my results is that the Sony EX1 resolves all 1080 lines (i.e., is full resolution 1920x1080). My Canon 5D Mark III appears to resolve about 800 to 850 lines and my Canon 600D/T3i appears to resolve around 750 lines.
http://vimeo.com/39536799

Interestingly, many people perceived the Nikon D800 to have more resolution than the 5D Mark III. In my tests, it appears to have about the same resolution.
http://vimeo.com/46242792

I don't have, nor know anyone who does have a GH2 or GH3.

I agree with you. "Full HD" isn't quite Full HD.

Thanks, Jason, that is awesome! on my same camera too. I do love my T3i camera, just wish I'd known when I got it, I might have changed my mind.

Lesson to other camera shoppers out there. I thought 1080 was 1080 was 1080 and focused on features, usability, other's recommendations etc.

BTW I decided to ignore the pros and go with SHARP set at 3.... what did you find the best sharp point at?

Like you, I found Sharpness set at 3 was my favorite. I tested a lot to come to that conclusion. The main reason was that I didn't like the footage when sharpened in post.

However, that all changed when the Magic Lantern guys managed to increase the recording bitrate. When recording at higher bitrates, setting the sharpness in camera at zero and then sharpening in post (using Vegas Pro Sharpen anywhere from 0.00 to 0.50) is better for me most of the time. The higher bit rate produces a file that is much more friendly to sharpening. Sharpening EX1's MPEG2 footage in post (even at 0.00) is aweful! My conclusion, albeit one not rooted in a deep technical understanding, is that the codec can affect the amount of post sharpening that you can do without the image really looking bad or breaking down.

Also, you say that you might not have bought the T3i. I have become happier and happier with the T3i (mostly because of the Magic Lantern folks). Check out the trick you can do with the T3i to avoid moire (video on my Vimeo page) without even using Magic Lantern. Just use the 3x zoom. You cannot avoid moire on most (any?) other DSLRs in this price range.

"My" 5D Mark III is really my wife's camera. It is a better camera in every way. But, I still don't mind using my T3i when we're out shooting. And, I really prefer its image over the EX1 in most situations, damn the resolution. I do find uses for my EX1 just about every time I'm about to put it up for sale. But that is mostly a useability issue, not an image preference issue.

Image quality isn't just resolution and I've found very few situations in which resolution (at the differences we're talking about here) matters at all. No one has ever suggested that an image from my DSLRs has suffered from low resolution. In fact, other than us pixel peepers, no one notices. Moire gets noticed.

"First you need to think about the lens."

So often the voice of wisdom is the one that goes unnoticed.

good glass is important, but even the best lens won't increase the amount of accepted resolution from the bayer pattern the sensor uses to piece together a video image - which is proven less than 1080. My "1080" "HD" camera will never really film above 750 or so pixels. That is false advertising in my book.

granted, canon has to use this rolling shutter causing effect to splice together high speed video, but that doesn't make their claim truthful. The specs state 1080, but if I tried to film something with 990 lines, it would fail.

agreed, Jason, I too use Magic Lantern for its phenomenal additions. I have not tried the increased bitrate yet, but read how it makes for better imagery for the in camera compression.

I know about the 3x zoom trick but have not used it as I am sort of just starting to get filiming, haven't really do a bunch yet.

One other thing that REALLY grinds my gears is that the little LCD does NOT show how bad the moire is while you are filming it. I know that is too much to ask of a lil 2.5" screen, but man is that annoying to shoot great stuff, get back and find it riddled with Moire. I see mosaic engineering now has their More cutting filter, but $300 is a lot that could be saved for future, better camera purchases.

Again, I am happy with the output from my T3i and am keeping it - even bought the 10mm and 50 1.4 lens for it and love it - but that doesn't excuse the false specs they posted.

"This Ferrari does 0-60 in 2.9 seconds. Ok, really it's 5 but no one will really notice anyway." ;)

"My "1080" "HD" camera will never really film above 750 or so pixels."

And your lens will resolve higher than your sensor? Are you sure?

Bob's point is, the medium has been outresolving the glass fairly regularly for 50-80 years, since the days of Pan-X and Pan-F. Real-world 21st century improvements are likely seen more often by upgrading the lens than replacing the body.

easily. my proof is taking still photos that are true 1080 and then pulling the exact same pic from the video that CLAIM to be 1080 but certainly don't look it. Same location, same time, both using the same exact lens. The lens looks great in the still shot (at 1080, not it's highest 18mp), the video looses the resolution. Even if the process of down-resing is required to produce video off a DLSR, the video is not REALLY 1080 then. Thus, the lie.
I think I could post my examples if I still have them. It's pretty sad over all.