Frage von MB:
Can the VX2100 synonymous very good SD pictures in 16:9, or is it because with the computerized mode of a FX7 serves just as well?
It is mainly the resolution - it is clear that the VX2100 is better in Lowlight.
Antwort von Udo Schröer:
The VX 2100 is not exactly the first choice at 16:9. I have tested it themselves, after switching to the 16:9 mode is visible after the focus. Looks, however, still very good.
Antwort von beiti:
The VX2100 has a 4:3 chip in standard resolution and enlarged for 16:9 only an excerpt, which can not be optimal. Because you're definitely with the DV-FX7 better mode of operation.
Antwort von Quadruplex:
The VX2100 has a 4:3 chip in standard resolution and enlarged for 16:9 only an excerpt, which can not be optimal. Even if the speaker is for this camera has been confirmed: So sweeping is the wrong. It does not chip on the format, but the number of pixels (or actually used for the Picture) to. If the 16:9 sufficient, there would be no problem.
Antwort von beiti:
Even if the speaker is for this camera has been confirmed: So sweeping is the wrong. It does not chip on the format, but the number of pixels (or actually used for the Picture) to. If the 16:9 sufficient, there would be no problem. That is why I have written in standard resolution. " The chip format itself has a disadvantage insofar as you have in the 16:9 Wide mode Anglehat less.
Antwort von Quadruplex:
That is why I have written in standard resolution. " Oops - missed. Is s.Morgen still early :-)
Antwort von Udo Schröer:
Even if the speaker is for this camera has been confirmed: So sweeping is the wrong. It does not chip on the format, but the number of pixels (or actually used for the Picture) to. If the 16:9 sufficient, there would be no problem. That is why I have written in standard resolution. " The chip format itself has a disadvantage insofar as you have in the 16:9 Wide mode Anglehat less. The wide changes in the VX is not, no preference whether 4:3 or 16:9, it will hold the top and bottom cut off and followed to hochscaliert anamorph
Antwort von beiti:
The wide changes in the VX is not In the Width, but on the diagonal or on the surface in terms already.
Antwort von MB:
Is the Resolutionder VX2100 then in 16:9 as well as for comparison with the FX7 in 4:3? In both cases, the chip so it is not optimized.
Antwort von Udo Schröer:
The FX 7, but more pixels! This converts the Cam. Go down the resolution, the VX up.
As I said, both in the format of the VX are very good quality, the sharpness of detail in 16:9 mode, it's something worse.
I have had times in a banknote Eigenversuchmal close up. In 4:3 mode could be the little fine lines very well distinguished. In 16:9 mode, these are no longer clearly separated.
Antwort von beiti:
Is the Resolutionder VX2100 then in 16:9 as well as for comparison with the FX7 in 4:3? In both cases, the chip so it is not optimized. It does not matter that the chips for the resolution "optimized" means. With regard to the sharpness of the final product, the chips Resolutiondes not high enough. In this respect offers a high-definition chip best conditions for high-quality NTSC or PAL.
Umskaliert is anyway: chips almost always have square pixels, while for the record in these cases (4:3 SD, 16:9 SD, HDV) rectangular pixels needs.
Incidentally sit in PAL camcorders mostly the same chips as in the corresponding NTSC models. From an optimization on the output resolution can therefore be no question.
There are also special procedures, such as pixel shift of some 3-chip camcorders, which is not synonymous in grid fit, and requires an interpolation still very good results.
So do not worry if the Resolutionrunterskaliert be. The only drawback to the high chip Resolutionist the lower light sensitivity.
Antwort von Udo Schröer:
Is ultimately a question of synonymous purse.
Certainly it would be better with an equal FX7 or FX1 in HDV mode for filming. If there is not enough, one can well synonymous with the VX2100 live.
Antwort von beiti:
Is ultimately a question of synonymous purse.
Certainly it would be better with an equal FX7 or FX1 in HDV mode for filming. If there is not enough, one can well synonymous with the VX2100 live. I think the concern of the Asker's (MB) was rather whether he with the FX7 in DV mode, compared with a VX2100 had a quality disadvantage. As you can but clearly indicate complacency.
Antwort von Udo Schröer:
An alternative is the 16:9 anamorphic of Century for the VX2100, so you can immediately record 4:3 mode 16:9.
Antwort von MB:
Thanks for the info!
It is, above all, as good as possible with PAL recordings of the aforementioned price range to make, because many smaller stations are synonymous in the future, just send in SD, of course, for cost reasons and to better the existing archive to use.
Antwort von fenom:
An alternative is the 16:9 anamorphic of Century for the VX2100, so you can immediately record 4:3 mode 16:9. What I just do not understand is why you do not make these simple lines in the 16:9 Camera s.and mach simply beams or simple pruning? If this is not synonymous?
Antwort von Udo Schröer:
They are not simply black bars, with which one could make any editing program. The anamorphic picture is distorted so as to equalize the (side of) on the TV, the horizontal lines move closer together as the visible Resolutionerhöht although the Picture as well as 4:3 with 576 lines was recorded.
