Hi! I have a question about the Panasonic GS320. What is the 16:9 recording? Is the recording a "real" 16:9? Power in Comparison to other good recordings in the price range? If I have to imagine 4:3 recording can I get more on the Picture, but only vertically. Is this normal at 16:9? Sorry, but I'm not fit within the range Make for better interior shots 4:3 videos? You get more yes's Picture ...... I know the topic has already been discussed in 1000, but since I do not look right through! Bin unfortunately SEARCH in the forum by not found anything .........
cindy
Antwort von Quadruplex:
Perhaps in times
Antwort von Wiro:
"Quadruplex" wrote:
... just a really kind of you to notice the quotes
Although the main theme with nothing to do, but would not leave. Brackets can be synonymous words within the text highlight to make it clear that it is applicable to them. The question aims to see above the camcorder "true" 16:9 can - assuming putting it synonymous "False" 16:9 there.
A rule violation is not here before. Just a thought. It aims to prevent "never ending story" triggered ;-) Gruss Wiro
Antwort von mikelue:
Hi Cindy,
I try to help. True 16:9 is partially defined differently. So I set the Genuine PAL synonymous in quotes.
It is generally true for a 16:9 formats with square pixels in the ratio of 16:9 (eg 1280x720). The GS320 features but DV - digital video in PAL format (720x576). For PAL, a digital 16:9 format to be implemented two ways:
1. Letterbox:
- There are only about 405 lines of the rest is coded as black bars (top and bottom) - Da Picture has less detail than the full 4:3 Picture - The visible range of the 4:3 image of a camcorder is usually reduced in the Height
2. Anamorph:
- The 16:9 picture is of record in the stretched width and with non-square pixels stored - Is the better PAL 16:9 ( "real") because no Resolutionwie away from Letterbox - Use your camcorder for a few extra pixels (visible cutout is wider), which detail the dissolution of CAM to improve
I did with the GS140 because of the visibly more details and bigger image width (one tick more wide-angle) is always in 16:9 anamorphic mode (Aspect = 16:9) filmed.
Gruß Mike
Antwort von Udo Schröer:
When False is 16:9, however, not necessarily the letterbox process. When will it be fake when the camera means no 16:9 chip but has a 4:3 chip. Then the picture above and below cut off and the rest will be calculated in a 16:9 anamorphic.
The test if your camera for true 16:9 camcorder you can do as follows.
Look at your picture in 4:3 mode on the display. Now the Camera to 16:9. When should your real 16:9 Picture in Picture Width now more content, that is not the case you have not synonymous true 16:9
Antwort von Markus73:
"Udo Schröer" wrote:
Look at your picture in 4:3 mode on the display. Now the Camera to 16:9. When should your real 16:9 Picture in Picture Width now more content, that is not the case you have not synonymous true 16:9
Hm, so this may not quite be right: In my GS180 widens when switching to 16:9 synonymous angle and the picture they used my knowledge, the standard anamorphic process, also with 4:3-chip.
I actually know this test to distinguish between anamorphic and letterbox.
Gruß, Markus
Antwort von Quadruplex:
"Udo Schröer" wrote:
When will it be fake when the camera means no 16:9 chip but has a 4:3 chip.
The chip size is sausage - just need enough pixels for the picture used (ie, not gross or photo pixels, but the net-resolution image). Constructed example, a chip with 1024 x 768 pixels, ie 4:3, produces very good 16:9 - it will only halt the Height 576 out of 768 pixels.
"Udo Schröer" wrote:
Look at your picture in 4:3 mode on the display. Now the Camera to 16:9. When should your real 16:9 Picture in Picture Width now more content, that is not the case you have not synonymous true 16:9
Nope - depends on the type of chip in and Optics. Compulsory such behavior is not.
Antwort von fotoralf:
Hello Udo Schröer
you have a source for this definition of true 16:9?
I could still follow you if you of a "true 16:9 Camera" etc. speaks. On the video (pictures) related, but I think it is somehow inappropriate.
Quote:
When will it be fake when the camera means no 16:9 chip but has a 4:3 chip. Then the picture above and below cut off and the rest will be calculated in a 16:9 anamorphic.
That should be 4:3 but only on chips with about 0.5 MPixel (approx. 800x600) are true. My GS140 has IMHO a 4:3 sensor. Their 0.8 MPixel (about 1000x800) permit the other angle of view in 16:9 mode through the use of additional side pixels of the sensor.
Furthermore, I know the GS75 (3x 0.5 MPixel) where the circumcised 4:3 picture above and below is cut off, but then usefully be synonymous as a letterboxed output. If I get a Picture of 720x576 (4:3) at 720x504 (16:9) will curtail the upscaling of the 504 lines to 576 lines of PAL 16:9-anamorphic image scaling only losses.
What camcorder do denn sowas?
Gruß Mike
Antwort von Quadruplex:
"Anonymous" wrote:
What camcorder do denn sowas?
The 16:9-mode s.alten Sony camcorders worked exactly like that. But is really a thing of the past ...
Antwort von mikelue:
Hello Quadruplex,
Quote:
The chip size is sausage - just need enough pixels are used for the Picture
From vision camcorder, I am fully of your opinion.
Quote:
The 16:9-mode s.alten Sony camcorders worked exactly like that.
Interesting what it so everything is / was.
16:9 If I only of the picture quality since there is consider me for the following qualities (eg video format with 576Zeilen):
1. Picture The 16:9 with square pixels (1024x576 is not a digital PAL more!) Comes of a sensor of a video resolution of 1024x576 or higher has
2. The 16:9 anamorphic picture (720x576, digital PAL) is a sensor of a video resolution of 1024x576 or higher has
3. Picture The 16:9 with square pixels (720x405) than in 4:3 letterbox Picture (720x576, digital PAL) is a sensor of a video resolution of 720x576 or higher possesses, and of which only 405 active lines and waste lines (bars) black encoded
4. The 16:9 anamorphic picture (720x576, digital PAL) is a sensor of a video resolution of 720x576 has 504 vertical lines of an anamorphic picture to 576 expected to be high.
Optics, sensor quality, video compression and differences of interlaced and progressive times outside left.
Gruß Mike
Antwort von Udo Schröer:
1. Correct anamorphic format makes these cameras not all, this requires a anamorphotic Picture of the optical distortion. 2. True, this is not the ratio 4:3 or 16:9 anamorphic mode the chip provides. 3. False, however, is not the 4:3 anamorphic picture cameras can produce.
The SonyDCR-VX2100 has a 4:3 chip. When you switch the top and bottom of the picture cut off. The electronics still generates the distorted anamorphic video is stored. For the remaining pixels, the picture projected. The sharpness, however, is clearly after. And the Picture is synonymous in the width no longer there.
The SonyHDR-FX1 produces also a 16:9 anamorphic video quality is better but because the camera enough pixels, here is the video down what is expected to significantly less error.
Video cameras with a "REAL 16:9" erzegen have more and more content in the image width because more pixels are used as in the 4:3 mode. If they are not synonymous, it is not a real 16:9 mode.
One source I have on hand for the Digital Book Shooting http://www.galileodesign.de/katalog/buecher/titel/gp/titelID-1015
Incidentally, this book synonymous in a version of Slashcam
Antwort von Udo Schröer:
"Anonymous" wrote:
Hello Udo Schröer
you have a source for this definition of true 16:9?
I could still follow you if you of a "true 16:9 Camera" etc. speaks. On the video (pictures) related, but I think it is somehow inappropriate.
Quote:
When will it be fake when the camera means no 16:9 chip but has a 4:3 chip. Then the picture above and below cut off and the rest will be calculated in a 16:9 anamorphic.
That should be 4:3 but only on chips with about 0.5 MPixel (approx. 800x600) are true. My GS140 has IMHO a 4:3 sensor. Their 0.8 MPixel (about 1000x800) permit the other angle of view in 16:9 mode through the use of additional side pixels of the sensor.
Furthermore, I know the GS75 (3x 0.5 MPixel) where the circumcised 4:3 picture above and below is cut off, but then usefully be synonymous as a letterboxed output. If I get a Picture of 720x576 (4:3) at 720x504 (16:9) will curtail the upscaling of the 504 lines to 576 lines of PAL 16:9-anamorphic image scaling only losses.
What camcorder do denn sowas?
Gruß Mike
For the source see next above.
Did I just read at Panasonic. Wick is clearly written that your cam in 16:9 mode, 540,000 pixels effective uses, so synonymous is a true 16:9 mode.
Look this link. http://www2.slashcam.de/artikel/Basics/ DV Produktion_in_16_9.html
If the Qualitäsunterschiede interested in, here my tip! A bill has fine structures, firstly a close-up in 4:3, then presents to 16:9 in order. In my case when Sonydeutliche differences, especially in vertical lines to recognize.
Antwort von Quadruplex:
"Udo Schröer" wrote:
1. Correct anamorphic format makes these cameras not all, this requires a anamorphotic Picture of the optical distortion.
Nope - anamorph is anamorphic. How it occurs is wurst. The framework should be consistent, ie: powerful optics and high resolution chips.
Antwort von Babapapa:
Hey! That's what I call time info:)
That means probably the GS320 has a real, then I understand. Have something more Anglebei Wide 16:9, but this is the picture above and below some pruned. I switch back to 4:3 then I have above and below for more Picture. 've Synonymous 16:9 as 4:3 and then filmed as a Still Image abgespeichert.Ist probably normal then, the thought always remains Height and it changes only the wide angle? ? ! If you told me at least ....
4:3 http://www.bilder-hosting.de/show/K6MK7.html
16:9 http://www.bilder-hosting.de/show/K6SHL.html
Greeting
cindy
Antwort von Udo Schröer:
Check times the original image of the 16:9 image should be 720 x 576
Antwort von Tuffy:
Hi Cindy,
if you ask me, the very clear distinction from anamorphic 16:9! Had I but synonymous with a camera in the price range expected (this was already the NV-GS180 wait!)
Gruß, Lucas
Antwort von Udo Schröer:
"Tuffy" wrote:
Hi Cindy,
if you ask me, the very clear distinction from anamorphic 16:9! Had I but synonymous with a camera in the price range expected (this was already the NV-GS180 wait!)
Gruß, Lucas
The Resolutiondes image was changed, therefore only s.Original read.
Antwort von Tuffy:
Yes clearly, which was changed, and I concur that yes synonymous from the information that I see in the picture, ie the more widescreen look at, for example.
Antwort von Jan:
It is not without reason the stability of 16:9 activation GS 180 off - space for 16:9.
320 has a 16:9 anamorphic mode.
But I am not sure whether this is always better, for example, Canon has an anamorphic synonymous (true) 16:9 mode when the initial price 9xx MV / MD 1xx. And with only 800,000 CCD Resolutionvor stability. The 16:9 mode does in the models synonymous with stabilizer, then with WW deterioration.
Competitors Panasonic GS 60 or SonyHC 37 have simply letterbox (when Sony.de are 3 mm longer at 16:9, I could not discover), but with a good 35 or 36 mm Focal, Canon has given itself in stability of only 40 mm at its real 16:9 mode (MD 110), stability in the Wide Angle s.wird Once again significantly worse (45 mm).
Somehow we want to but at a 16:9 resolution & wide advantage. or not?
Whether the full advantage of the space at 4:3 (+ Pana Sony) or the closely squashed "true" 16:9 Canon is better, so everyone can decide for themselves.
For me, the camera simply have a 16:9 sensor for "true" 16:9.
Sorry for the increased occurrence of 16:9.
VG Jan
Antwort von Babapapa:
"Jan" wrote:
It is not without reason the stability of 16:9 activation GS 180 off - space for 16:9.
320 has a 16:9 anamorphic mode.
But I am not sure whether this is always better, for example, Canon has an anamorphic synonymous (true) 16:9 mode when the initial price 9xx MV / MD 1xx. And with only 800,000 CCD Resolutionvor stability. The 16:9 mode does in the models synonymous with stabilizer, then with WW deterioration.
Competitors Panasonic GS 60 or SonyHC 37 have simply letterbox (when Sony.de are 3 mm longer at 16:9, I could not discover), but with a good 35 or 36 mm Focal, Canon has given itself in stability of only 40 mm at its real 16:9 mode (MD 110), stability in the Wide Angle s.wird Once again significantly worse (45 mm).
Somehow we want to but at a 16:9 resolution & wide advantage. or not?
Whether the full advantage of the space at 4:3 (+ Pana Sony) or the closely squashed "true" 16:9 Canon is better, so everyone can decide for themselves.
For me, the camera simply have a 16:9 sensor for "true" 16:9.
Sorry for the increased occurrence of 16:9.
VG Jan
Hi Jan, somehow I think was the purpose of 16:9 did not understand!
So the first time Panasonic has an optical Image Stabilization, and therefore requires no camera pixels to the picture to stabilize.
The 16:9 anamorphic recording is synonymous not intended to create more Wide Anglezu but on a 16:9 TV in the height (cm) less like a TV is 4:3, the same Resolutionzu reach.
The heist: a 16:9 TV, despite a lower height the same vertical Resolutionwie a 4:3 TV. To make this work is the Picture vorverzerrt and when playing back compressed.
Antwort von Udo Schröer:
Had forgotten about me login.
The optical Image Stabilization refers of course to the 320
Incidentally, the whole answer yes to the field of cinema. Here are the 35mm films synonymous anamorph s.Projektor back up and stretched. Otherwise it would not be possible, a Picture of 1:1,85 or 1:2,35 with a 35mm film to produce. Exception is of course the 70mm movies.
Antwort von Jan:
Ok, I had the GS 180, which meant working with the Digital, Mark was at the top, the GS 180 mentioned.
But it is still better a true 16 / 9 Picture (such as Canon MD 110) to produce (with wide-bad), but when the plane CCD zusammenzudrücken significantly, except that the proportions just right, or stop like Panasonic & Sonyein good 4:3 Picture to offer?
You have to be me but erla times the reasons for the industry to 16:9 then umgeschwenkt has. I'm actually of better resolution and widescreen (more wide) expected - probably because I was wrong ....
VG Jan
Antwort von Udo Schröer:
The Resolutionist yes better synonymous with 16:9 anamorphic Imagine a TV Width of 40cm and 30cm Height before, ie 4:3. In the Height you have 576 rows = 30 cm: 576 lines makes 0.52 mm per line. A 16:9 TV is synonymous 40cm wide but only 22.5 cm high. Again, you have 576 lines = 22.5 cm: 576 lines of 0.39 mm per line. You see the Resolutionanhand number of pixels is identical but is on a 16:9 TV closely written. This increases the local Resolutionobwohl the whole picture has the same.
Antwort von Jan:
I once again ....
Wikipedia writes "The ratio of 16:9 was chosen because when overprinting Place area equal rectangles occurring with all aspect ratios of 4:3 to one Support All 2,35:1 joint surface with the ratio is 16:9. Thus, with the recording format 16: 9 preparedness for all playback formats met "
That is synonymous true, however, that enlightenment came only later. Origin was the movies with 1:1,85 and 1:2,35.
Now we wanted synonymous widescreen in your living room!
1:1,85 wanted one but not in the TV area to apply, as the vitreous body would become very broad. So we had to 16:9 which corresponds 1:1,78 agreed.
As the scale Now in the private sector has established the format followed.
1:2,35 films are the way to the surface of her small videos such as 16:9, which are synonymous to the video on a 16:9 TV or generate narrow black bars. In movies it does not, you simply zoom back to max screen height, while the broader picture and accordingly generates the mega Effect.
Antwort von IndoorJo:
... clear so far. But in what format should be "now include the films, which is good, future-proof ,...?
Antwort von Peter2003:
Hello IndoorJo,
heavy heart for me, I realized that the 16:9 TV format for the (near) future. That is why I recently decided on this format, synonymous if my TV is still 4:3 (and hopefully will remain for a while).
