Canon Elura 85(CCD 1/4.5" ) has more resolution than HC90(CCD 1/3" )?

Canon Elura 85
Video Resolution(13.5)
With the Canon Elura 85, we were able to capture video footage of a standard resolution in both 4:3 and 16:9 mode and export its stills to Imatest Imaging Resource. In 4:3 mode, the camcorder displayed approximately 277.9 lines of vertical resolution at its best, with 256.9 lines of horizontal resolution, yielding a true resolution of approximately 71392.51. In widescreen mode, the canon Elura 85 produced approximately 281.9 lines of vertical resolution at its best, with approximately 479.9 lines of horizontal resolution, generating a real resolution of 135283.81

HC90
Video Resolution (10.12)
In order to test for the Sony DCR-HC90’s true video resolution, stills from video footage of a resolution chart were taken in both 4:3 mode and Wide modes and exported to Imatest Imaging Software. In 4:3 mode, the camcorder gave us approximately 325.87 lines of horizontal resolution at its best, with 245.94 lines of vertical resolution, yielding a true resolution of approximately 80144.46. In Wide mode, this model provided 435.9 lines of horizontal resolution at its best, with 232.3 lines of vertical resolution, generating a real resolution of 101259.57 pixels at its best

This an interesting comparison. How can the HC90 have MORE resolution than Elura 85 in 4:3, but LESS resolution in 16:9???? It makes no sense. It makes me quite suspicious of these figures. Given all the inaccuracies that were found in the HC90 review recently (not sure about the Elura review), I would take all these numbers with a very large grain of salt.

I don't own either of mentioned camcorders, but as far as the differences in real resolution specs to manufacturer's optimal advertized resolution specs are akin to the tested EPA Mileage Estimates and the actual mileage. One explanation of discrepancy is the testing method or its interpretation of its result. Another answer maybe that the result of resolution test is correct and the explantion is any of the following (include TVs and video equipments):

What Detracts From Resolution?
1. The video camera, its lens, its video sensor (CCD, iconoscope, etc.) and its electronics may be less than top notch.
2. The video signals were excessively bandwidth limited during video production and recording.
3. Too much data compression was used.
4. The comb filter <vidcomb.htm> in the TV set, laser disk player, or S-VHS VCR was less than top notch.
5. The video signal was comb filtered, re-composited <vidconn.htm>, and comb filtered again.
6. The electron beam is too fat relative to the size of the screen. Scan lines then run into each other.
7. During interlaced scanning the even lines land on top of the odd lines instead of being in between.
8. The dot pitch is large relative to the size of the screen, typically a problem with screens smaller than ten inches.
Limited signal bandwidth is not a factor affecting vertical resolution. Since all the detail on any scan line has to be completed before drawing of the next scan line begins, restricting the bandwidth so much as to affect vertical resolution will have wiped out 100% of the horizontal resolution. (Source AOL Home Town/ TV & Video Resolution)

Personally, I've never heard of Imatest Imaging Software until it was mentioned in the review; I checked its web site for detailed explantion of the testing method. It is a composite of standard testing methods:

http://www.sinepatterns.com/i_Stdrds.htm

In the past, I've used EIA 1956 STANDARD TEST PATTERN for my camcorder to assess true resolution capability. If anyone is interested doing the same, here's the link:

http://www.bealecorner.com/trv900/respat/



As far as why Canon Elura 85 has greater resolution for 16:9 the explanation maybe that it touts the use of the full width of CCD and Sony HC90 does not even with greater pixels.

TS