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.
slashCAM benutzt Cookies zur Optimierung des Angebots, auch werden teilweise Cookies von Diensten Dritter gesetzt. Die Speicherung von Cookies kann in den Browsereinstellungen unterbunden werden. Mehr Informationen erhalten Sie in unserer Datenschutzerklärung. Mehr InfosVerstanden!
