Frage von Berntromp:
I turn for some time with the ex3.
When I look at the material on my Mac Book Pro, it looks really great.
Then it is played with the format DVcam into the cut with 25Mbps.
After that, the picture is rather milky / mushy.
As I will say that computer monitors, the picture does not really show and before one can rely only on the preview monitor.
Ok?
I was then told I have to stop look for in an HDV camera even more on the sharpness and always check 3 times.
Well, ... but on my MacBook sees it but always very well? Where, then suddenly goes down the sharpness? Or, as the sharpness with me and come into the picture, on average, it's gone?
If the s.der 4:2:0 sampling rate of DVcam?
btw: I turn 1080/50i.
Furthermore, I was placed close to the black / white viewfinder to be used to provide sharp too. I have seen so synonymous always done before ... I was but that we now have assured synonymous with the color viewfinder, the pungency can.
Everyone wants to convince me, then something, but what is right or wrong? I think the picture comes from the muddy write it into DVcam format.
Or not?
Antwort von tommyb:
Ne, which is generally s.der low resolution of DV. The fact is
720x576 = 414,720
and is
1920x1080 = 2073600
Pixels compared.
If you go away a few feet from the monitor, then it should look the same synonymous better.
Antwort von Berntromp:
But then why give me digibeta `s better sharpness impression with the same resolution?
Antwort von TiMovie:
the workflow, ie XDCAM EX should be maintained until the last chain (; cut, Comp ...) and only at the circuit finale for the use (, DVD, Internet, TV)
be coded, everything else is nonsense for me! (and my opinion)
If you just point and her codierst, the film is always quali s.ar *
So why on DVcam?
That with the sharpness is really the other way around! If there is any in HD is not 100% sharp, you're in SD the impression that it is absolutely sharp!
Conclusion - I would take my leave of the DVcam codec!
Antwort von tommyb:
But then why give me digibeta `s better sharpness impression with the same resolution? In short: Because the cameras are simply better.
Antwort von ksr:
In short: Because the cameras are simply better. Yep, that can not be said often enough. Sharpness and resolution are unfortunately not nearly as much to do with each other, like a led to believe the advertising.
Exaggerate: When the lens is made of frosted glass, then the resolution can still be so high - the picture is not sharp ...
I've even been synonymous schonmal the Comparison with the analogous miniature film (different cameras, compact cameras, SLRs etc.) make very different good pictures - if synonymous always the same film is loaded (; and thus the "resolution" is always the same). ..
Antwort von Berntromp:
it is all clear.
only in the macbook ... it's sharp. super-sharp.
So .. where the focus go?
I told someone today that the ex3 s.Besten with Final Cut Pro, and it comes in harmony with other editing programs, unfortunately, yet to be loss of quality when importing / importing.
Is that true?
Antwort von ksr:
Previous speakers have already said it but in practice: The cam takes nem HD format - if you anschaust you like this on your calculator, it looks great. Then it will be in DVCam (; SD format) format, it now looks on the calculator is not quite so great - especially when in full-screen playback on "inflated" (; = scaled up) is because the screen resolution is usually higher than is 720x576.
It is certainly s.DVCam, as you have even guessed!
The conversion is then, in fact, not very thoughtful, but the entire workflow is set up just so. But stop a shame, because the HD resolution is given away immediately after the shooting.
Antwort von tommyb:
it is all clear.
only in the macbook ... it's sharp. super-sharp. If a reasonable DOWNCONVERT is made, then an HD signal from the EX1 / 3 the signal of a league Digibeta is second to none. This, however, is influenced only and solely by the Skalieralgorithmus.
With is a rather soft scaling algorithm (; eg bilinear), then the picture looks correspondingly from soft. Bilinear uses one synonymous rather sharp, unnatural-looking edges to avoid. Particularly disturbing in cartoons.
Unlike bilinear synonymous, there is the Lanczos algorithm. He is already much sharper.
Antwort von Lutz Dieckmann:
Hi,
Here we must say that a lens of a Digibeta usually costs 4 times a whole EX1. That alone makes a difference. Otherwise, I can not understand that. We have some of our new technology and cutting tutorial with the EX1 and rotated it to PAL from synonymous looks great.
Regards
Lutz Dieckmann
Antwort von WideScreen:
Hi Lutz.
Yes, the class-look synonymous, but it's just not as sharp as HD does ..... :)
And let us not forget, this is the DVCodec significantly worse than Digibeta.Allein already the data rate. Can therefore never be as knakig like the picture of a Digibeta.
Everyone wants to convince me, then something, but what is right or wrong? I think the picture comes from the muddy write it into DVcam format.
Or not?
Yes, that is true with the DVCam. And that tells you what everyone else is not here will be so different: p Either you do duch smart about the background, and then you can decide for themselves what is right or what you look shäufigsten is said and take this as correct. :)))
Antwort von robbie:
Hi Lutz.
Yes, the class-look synonymous, but it's just not as sharp as HD does ..... :)
aaaaaarg, yes, HD is therefore synonymous HD and not SD.
Ding the car looks blurrier when you glue s.Screen with your nose.
Go by 2 feet away and look again. Then SD is synonymous sharp ...
