Frage von Eazyjd:
Hello
I must confess, I do not know exactly where it belongs - if I chose the wrong board, let me responsible Mod this forgive and move the topic;)
To my understanding, problem:
I liebäugle with the purchase of an FX7, in 1440 x 1080/50i HDV recording. When I 1440/1080 parts, I get exactly the ratio 4:3. Does this mean the Camera is in 4:3 format?
To perhaps a little clearer: The use of the camera would ultimately for the end product of WMV video (HD of course). When editing software I use to Premiere Pro.
What if I, as a goal of a 1280x720-movie he did (square pixels, WMV, no fields). Is this simply FX7 inappropriate?
I know quite Beginners are questions that I have already cut more in SD. But somehow you have yet to acquire a basic yes or? ;)
I thank you very much for clarifying my confusion.
Greetings from Switzerland
Eazyjd
Antwort von Zedt:
Hello Eazy,
the trick with the 1440 x 1080 pixels lies in the aspect ratio of 1.333 (HDV) - of course it is all 16:9 where only rudimentary "HD (V)" draufsteht. Runterkonvertieren to 1280 may not be a problem synonymous. The question is whether you do not like buying a CameraLink solltest with the native 720p (x 1280) drives me now is because the first JVCs On - perhaps someone knows some other, but otherwise I think would be nothing against the FX7 speak .. .
schöne Grüße,
KM Max
Antwort von scubavideo1:
The FX7 has in this context, the disadvantage of only 1080i incorporated.
I have therefore for the professional version V1E decided. The 1080i25 can be synonymous (that is 1080i, but the two fields are recorded at the same time, cached, and then 1080i conform to the two split frames).
Advantages:
- No Kammartefakte (particularly important if the material after using projector or computer to be presented)
- With standards, it is therefore normal as 1080i on any HD-capable screen play.
Disadvantages:
- Many people complain about Ruckler in the Picture, particularly at fast pans or tilts. In my experience that is simply a problem of the computing power of the playback device. In my case, synonymous creates a 2.66 GHz Intel Quad Mac with 6 GB of RAM and NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GT to display in full Resolutionnur be smooth when the camera stopped.
Of course, this "quasi-progressive" 1080i25 material synonymous reckon down to 720p. It takes quite long (for a 10-minute I have a few hours). The conversion must anamorphotic (rectangular) pixels into square convert the frames deinterlace (1080i in real materials, such as of the SonyFX7 would be to use an adaptive deinterlacer, which analyzes every picture, the same coverage because unmoving, picture parts over and for all moving either the even or odd lines removed and replaced by interpolated values) and the material is then re-compress.
If the direct output to WMV does not lead to optimal results (for example, because the I-frames and car bodies with no drastic change of image content (eg, hard cuts) can be set), you have to get the 720p-only material once in a minimum amount of destructive format (eg ProRes422HQ on the Mac) and in a further step as WMV output.
Abstract:
For your purpose, a camera that can record directly 720p, better suited. I can price your choice of FX7 absolutely understand.
Or, as Stu Masch joke (http://prolost.blogspot.com/) it in his book "The DV Rebel's Guide" expresses:
Lack of money is very often characterized by creativity and time to replace.
In this sense, I hope you are not too confused to have.
Antwort von Markus:
Many people complain about Ruckler in the Picture, particularly at fast pans or tilts. Presumably, the user of the Movement Resolution 50i videos usual (because you can make almost anything) and you do not know the guidelines, s.die you deal with a 25p recording should hold (since there are restrictions for fast movements).
Antwort von Eazyjd:
Hello
First thank you for the many replies.
So, in this case is, of course, the pixel aspect ratio of 1.333 crucial - I thought until today, when HD was always square pixels. Well, once again learned.
How does it now, but actually, if I have an HD Premiere Project and 1280x720 with square pixels and then create the material for an FX7 HDV, the 1440x1080 pixels with a pixel aspect ratio of 1.333 absorbs "input". Are then cut off the side of the picture?
Of course, for my sub to have an Cam with 1280x720 (p) is the best choice. However, I see these cameras in the budget only twice the price of a FX7 - or am I mistaken there?
What is with cameras like the HDR-SR12E - according to
the manufacturer page
When older model HDR-SR7E
Greetings and Thanks
Eazyjd
Antwort von WoWu:
@ Eazyjd
To complete your initial question to be clarified:
1440x1080 comes in the doing of a 4:3 Profile (Level H14) from MPEG-2 HD and is not defined.
Only 720p25 is defined of the SMPTE HD format.
With the anamorphic pixels will be interpolated only after 1920.
In this respect you have of course completely right that the whole thing in one corner of the 4:3.
And at the formats, whether interlaced or not, you have the choice between something jerky movements and blurred images. Also, the transfer of I in p is not entirely without, unless you use a Interlacer filtering with motion adaption work ... but since you do synonymous to slightly computing taken. Otherwise, the de-interlacing rather questionable from the man so with the usual filters how.
If you want the background and the theory of interest, try the link below.
Antwort von WoWu:
Perhaps more to the camera:
With a 1 / 3.1 ClearVid CMOS Sensor geh mal no reason to believe that the 1920 are, firstly because you lose by the ClearVid Farbmaske 6:1 s.Pixeln and FullHD is purely a marketing name only and says that the device with such a signal can bypass. How it creates so that is not claimed. If at the same time as described above, 1440 is being offered, which, incidentally, as you very rightly did not conform to HD, which suggests that the entire mill in 1440 is working and everything else again computational work.
Antwort von wolfgang:
@ Eazyjd
To complete your initial question to be clarified:
1440x1080 comes in the doing of a 4:3 Profile (Level H14) from MPEG-2 HD and is not defined.
"HD is one of the 12 broadcast compatible format described in the ATSC table. If HDV into that description."
Source: Steven E. Browne. High Definition Post Production. Focal Press 2007.
It is true that the 12 format 1440x1080 pixel dimensions do not provide. But as Mr Browne HDV I see very well in the context of what is generally regarded as time HD viewing.
And synonymous if the pixel dimensions to 4:3 Eck belong - it is asymmetrical with a PAR recorded, the Picture of the HDV devices is of course a 16:9 picture (or you can just picture distortions).
Antwort von WoWu:
"HD is one of the 12 broadcast compatible format described in the ATSC table. If HDV into that description" True: HDV1 1280x720
Antwort von wolfgang:
Na and HDV2 you can probably synonymous to include ...
Antwort von WoWu:
Then you can synonymous from SD hochkonvertierten films of SAT 1 and Pro7 including .... you could of course all ...
In any event 1440 appears in none of the designated (übrigens 18) Tables on.
But before misunderstandings arise because ... I will of course not saying that there is no HD .... it's just difficult because the borders really be considered.
Clearly, any better picture of SD above somehow synonymous with HD only will this whole FullHD and ramblings of what it really behind stekt the time people really s.der cheated slightly and transparency can not hurt.
Festival is just that, according to the specifications only 720 as "real" HD standard is specified .... and is synonymous in the "broadcast" tables back there. But you've quite obviously, 1440 is synonymous HD, but not part of the "tables" so far has Mr.Browne is not entirely correct words.
Antwort von Eazyjd:
To once again on my return to initial confusion.
Wikipedia tells me:
HDV 720p: 1280 x 720 pixels with frame rates 25p, 30p, 50p or 60p and 24p optional
HDV 1080i: 1440 x 1080 pixels with frame rates of 50i and 60i
When higher-resolution 1080i format, the individual pixels are not square, but the factor 3:4 stretched horizontally, so that synonymous here a picture format of 16:9 results.
What does this horizontal aspect ratio 3:4 for the ultimate resolution (the Width and Height) of a 1080i HDV imported material in Premiere, when the project finally have square pixels.
What would then be converted to square pixels, the size of the image?
For my purposes would be a 1280x720 (p / i) camcorder is certainly the best choice. However, I see no model currently available that in the price segment of the FX7 is ...
Antwort von Wiro:
What would then be converted to square pixels, the size of the image? Hello,
1440 px to give a 4:3-anamorphic picture.
In 16:9-output with square pixels, you have to set 1920x1080 px.
Greeting Wiro
Antwort von WoWu:
but you've obviously still only the contents of the 1440 resolution because the stretch of the pixels you do not win more image content, but to distribute the recorded content only to a broader area.
For my purposes would be a 1280x720 (p / i) camcorder is certainly the best choice. A combination of 1440x1080i or p (preferably) and 720 p (i, there is not) would be the best, because even if you do 720p, you have the advantages of a Lens, for a higher resolution to be suitable (to be). This leads to better images than a camera, only the original is designed for 720p.
But did you at the "original" 720 cameras working again but the advantage that they are working with image sensors, the Progressive synonymous with full Resolutionabtasten ... you have the most at the 1440ern not ... So you see, the topic is pretty much everything apart s.and we can not simply pick out individual parameters and then decide.
A camcorder is a microcosm of the outbuildings.
Antwort von wolfgang:
Then you can synonymous from SD hochkonvertierten films of SAT 1 and Pro7 including .... you could of course all ...
In any event 1440 appears in none of the designated (übrigens 18) Tables on.
I would hochkonvertierte films including synonymous - because the (technical) criterion rather should be, in what Resolutionein film exists. Whether you agree with the quality of the material then satisfied or not satisfied, it is an entirely different, highly subjective evaluation synonymous.
And if Mr. Browne because instead of 18 tables of 12 speaks - so I think that anything but happy.
But before misunderstandings arise because ... I will of course not saying that there is no HD .... it's just difficult because the borders really be considered.
For me, the thing eigentlch quite simple - everything that goes out via SD is HD. For today's buyers of panels or camcorder is the still the most useful criterion.
Only one should not confuse beginners that HDV2 HD was not - because simply can not know that HDV2 younger than the old broadcast tables. Perhaps more tables to the broadcast today's technical realities and adapt a review found.
Clearly, any better picture of SD above somehow synonymous HD
And just as it is.
On the question 720p vs 1080i - so the discussion is old, and basically gabs even recommendations for 720, but for 720 50p. Hardly an affordable device in the consumer area but 720 50p, in the 50 Hz world has 720p synonymous hardly enforced. Personally I would actually 1080 50p s.liebsten, but even the EX1 provides us with only 1080 25p.
For the beginner ists about hinausaus still important to know that we have in these two formats is 16:9 before us. Material, which thus on modern 16:9 panel screen is displayed.
So I would be so comforting that, in tests with test groups between 720p and 1440x1080 50i material around the material was being equivalent. And look at the available HDV devices remain, and are more likely to stop 1440x1080 50i devices. Or, alternatively, on full-HD AVCHD in the area go - the market, 2008 will be primarily in order to be flooded. But please do not overlook that AVCHD material halt in the post with the most cutting programs is still difficult than HDV material.
