If a DV camera has a 16:9 chip, which brings me to this then? If I use the film for television (PAL) or DVD (PAL) do, then it is the standard Resolution720 x 576, no preference how big the chip is not it? : P
Liebe Grüße bassabus
Antwort von usul:
If you have 16:9 material with a 4:3 Camera aufnimmst, go to your 576 lines of a lot for the black bars on it, your real picture is thus less efficient lines. With a 16:9 to 16:9 chip will actually use all 576 lines.
Antwort von bassabus:
Thank you!
So either a chip or a 16:9 anamorphic recording - comes out the same. Or?
MfG bassabus
Antwort von Markus:
"bassabus" wrote:
So either a chip or a 16:9 anamorphic recording - comes out the same. Or?
Each camcorder, the "true" 16:9 capable (no preference whether 16:9 - and 4:3-image converter) writes the data onto tape anamorph. Thus, DV / PAL specification: 720 × 576 pixels.
Okay, as far so good. But - at times on the title of the discussion back - what more expensive then a 16:9 transformer?
MfG bassabus
Antwort von usul:
Why should a 16:9 chip more expensive? The opposite is the case: since unneeded pixels garnicht only be produced, is the chip area and the number of pixels at a true 16:9 chip smaller. This is synonymous cheaper to produce.
Antwort von bassabus:
Hab nochmal in the basics of research ...
So - go back to 720 x 576 no preference what one is doing synonymous. (HD, etc. times excepted). 4:3 and 16:9 are generated by the pixels in the width varies. It's not used as synonymous more information.
I have a 16:9 CCD of 960 x 576 recording, and the superfluous pixels then wegschmeisst "- I only have the advantage of weitwinkligeren image.
Help! I thought I was with the pixel aspect ratio understood. The advantage of real (not geletterboxten) 16:9 but there is really only in the quality improvement of vertical resolution - the horizontal remains the same.
Thank you
Antwort von usul:
"bassabus" wrote:
I have a 16:9 CCD of 960 x 576 recording, and the superfluous pixels then wegschmeisst "- I only have the advantage of weitwinkligeren image.
Why should the chip have 960x576 pixels? 16:9 The chip has 720x576 pixels. There are no pixels discarded.
Antwort von bassabus:
I refer to it here: http://www.slashcam.de/artikel/Basics/ DV production-in-16-9.html - paragraph for cameras and NLE editing cards.
Have I misunderstood what?
Antwort von Udo Schröer:
I've tested it. Camera with 4:3 to 4:3 chip makes Auflösungungen much better than when I switch to 16:9. It only uses the middle line and followed up on anamorph expected. 16:9 chips reckon the Picture down what brings better results.
Antwort von Markus:
"bassabus" wrote:
The advantage of real (not geletterboxten) 16:9 but there is really only in the quality improvement of vertical resolution - the horizontal remains the same.
Both the vertical than the horizontal resolution synonymous Their image is exactly the same data (as well as the pixel resolution). The 16:9-Picture is only wider (or less) than a 4:3-Picture.
Ultimately you have to decide in what format you would like to produce and then buys or lends itself ideally to a camcorder, the exact format of this standard is created.
A 4:3-image converter is needed to produce an optimal image square 768 × 576 sensor points, then to 720 × 576 to be converted. When 16:9-image converter, it is in the best case, 1024 × 576 sensor points, which can then be downscaled.
This theory describes synonymous Udos practical observation that the 4:3-images of a 16:9-camera look better than the 16:9-photographs of a 4:3-camcorder. It is always a question halt the existing sensor points from which the Picture is created.
