Frage von inwa:
Hello,
I deal with the subject Resolutions. A 35 mm film negative, a 4k resolution (confirmed approximately 8 to 12 million pixels).
* (Stillimage-35 mm format film - 36 x 24 mm)
* 35 mm Cinefilm - 21.3 x 18.2 mm
* Normal 16 mm - 10.3 x 7.5 mm
* 1 / 3 inch chips 4.4 x 3.3 mm
Normal 16 mm then theoretically about 1.6 - 2.4 million pixels. However, the image resolution is likely to be synonymous with the Lenses beschränkt.Das see when you look at Sreenshoots of HD 1080s video camera recordings. The neck is much blurrier than PAL PAL Picture.
My questions:
1. What are the best Resolutionerreichen Lenses? (16 mm, 2 / 3 inch video)
2. How big is a 2 / 3 inch chip? How big is a video chip of a professional HDTV camera (in mm)?
How many will 3.l) color pixels of a Bayer-chips (50% green and 25% each of red and blue pixels implemented in consumer cameras into pixels? For professional cameras is about 45%.
Regards
Antwort von Gast1:
Your questions show that you're still some time should deal with this issue. Browse a bit on the www and there Dictionaries can certainly help.
A movie has no pixels, and certainly not one lens. And a 2/3-Inch-Chip time is now 2 / 3 inches high. And a potato chip has approximately 345 calories, while the light brown areas have more and more the dark :-)
The first of April was six weeks ago.
Antwort von auktionadmin:
http://aboutpixel.de/forum/viewtopic.php?p=13426&sessionid=db71ce4a36418a9e42678a70b66a6611
Your questions show that you're still some time should deal with this issue. Browse a bit on the www and there Dictionaries can certainly help. Please read first, then checks:
* "System to describe the objective image quality of digital film recorder," Dissertation of Dr. Dipl Ing Hans Kiening
http://www.ub.tu-cottbus.de/hss/diss/fak3/kiening_h/pdf/diss_kiening.pdf
A movie has no pixels, and certainly not one lens. The Resolutionwird in Linen provided, which can be converted into pixels.
And a 2/3-Inch-Chip time is now 2 / 3 inches high. ok, then let's Nehem times the 1 / 3 chip:
* 1 / 3 x 2.54 = 0.85 x 0.6 = 0.5 cm Height for 4:3
* 1 / 3 x 2.54 = 0.85 x 0.49 = 0.41 cm Height for 16:9
* 1 / 3 inch chips, according slashcam: 0, 44 x 0.33 cm
Skin So not all that closely. Moreover slashcam had been in my experience, luckily Trollfreie zone. Let us hope that it stays that way.
Antwort von inwa:
PS: Was not logged in when I sent the AW to "gast1.
Antwort von Jan:
Inwa Sorry, but the Wichtigtuerrei along the lines
"I read somewhere that you test times and now brings" anything - like your exact 1 / 3 philosophy. The TV Talkshow was already a mile long annoying. Professors argue tagtaglich on similar issues - they often find no consistent answer.
Your Question 3 could you s.Panasonic Hamburg, Canon or Sony send Wittlich Cologne, I'm hearing is firmly convinced that one a long time nothing, as will smoke their heads.
Before a week or two I have a Canon said professional training times - It is absolutely right, I think - it is important to know the functions of a camera and beherschen to them, especially in the field manual to be able to do many tricks without much accessories is totally uninteresting what special equipment (New CCD / processor) was just installed in the camera, or turn on the camera is now even faster, at 0.2 seconds can be.
I admit - I was synonymous for a long time ago to the purely technical data sheets.
With such strong lenses after LP zb Leica lenses searched ... I have been synonymous since opened his eyes ...
All this makes no sense to worse with the camera sometimes better films are rotated, is not synonymous rare.
LG
Jan
Antwort von PowerMac:
My questions:
1. What are the best Resolutionerreichen Lenses? (16 mm, 2 / 3 inch video)
2. How big is a 2 / 3 inch chip? How big is a video chip of a professional HDTV camera (in mm)?
How many will 3.l) color pixels of a Bayer-chips (50% green and 25% each of red and blue pixels implemented in consumer cameras into pixels? For professional cameras is about 45%.
Regards 1. This is an overly technical view. They say that good HD zoom (lie 15-30.000 euro) at about 800 - 1600 lines. Parameters such as line Resolutionin pixels resolution or make no sense for optics. If you are so "burning" interested, look for optical resolution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_resolution
2. Trigonometry. The angle (= angle of the diagonals in the ratio 16 / 9) of the 2 / 3 "long diagonals (Cathetus reveals) and hypotenuse (length) with the cosine of the length and width of the chip. I hope this is true now;)
3. If the physical resolution example of a CMOS chip is 1440x1080, there after the "debayering" synonymous exactly this Resolutionaus. You mean the actual ratio of about redundancy. The actual underlying algorithm of any consumer camera with CMOS sensor and the actual information content using the Bayer filter, has nobody investigated. But the effective line resolution. And is the Consumer Cameras (lines 300-400) whether the small chip size, of course, might well below the likely chip resolution.
Antwort von inwa:
Inwa Sorry, but the Wichtigtuerrei along the lines
"I read somewhere that you once and now test" is useless -- I am talking here not at all pompous or to Rechthaberrei. The larger more of a forum is frequented destso faster the device, unfortunately, in this direction. I work now for quite some time with the question of Resolutionund'm just interested with s.Infos.
as your exact 1 / 3 philosophy. In terms of employment with the theme I have noticed time and again that not everyone can agree on a similar system. In the photo section lines or line pairs are as Resolutionangegeben. The lines but then my line synonymous pairs. In the TV line resolution is counted, but this means line pairs. Time is specified, the Resolutionder displayable lines, sometimes the claim relates to a (how great?) Square image box on the screen. When digital TV, the pixels will Resolutionangegeben. Which in turn represents not the Resolutionder displayable lines. In analogy, the area is Resolutionangegeben MHz. There are Fausformeln to umzurechenen in lines, and then even with the factor 1.34 multiplied, one comes to the pixel resolution.
I am sure that the slashcam indication of the chip size is correct, and suspect that there endweder with something like a square box, or the lies behind the claim relates to the nutbare surface of the chip.
The question is synonymous halt if a 2 / 3 chip is 16:9, the same area as a 2 / 3 4:3 chip.??
The TV Talkshow was already a mile long annoying. Professors argue tagtaglich on similar issues - they often find no consistent answer. You have to separate theory and practice. But theoretical basics are already important to the emerging practice, to evaluate the theory of different facts and then re-add this to the theory. In short, I want to know not only that something is the way it is, but why it is so synonymous as it is. And this is not possible without theory.
Your Question 3 could you s.Panasonic Hamburg, Canon or Sony send Wittlich Cologne, I'm hearing is firmly convinced that one a long time nothing, as will smoke their heads. I spoke with two professors uswith for media technology and business with the head of the Institute for Radio Technology tv for about zzwei weeks. He has assured me that my 12 Seat rows would be answered in writing to me. I'm really curious if this happens.
Before a week or two I have a Canon said professional training times - It is absolutely right, I think - it is important to know the functions of a camera and beherschen to them, especially in the field manual to be able to do many tricks without much accessories is totally uninteresting what special equipment (New CCD / processor) was just installed in the camera, or turn on the camera is now even faster, at 0.2 seconds can be. I started with Super 8 and VHS. Beginners and all I can recommend Super 8 only. The material is expensive and in Comparison to video as you have to think about what you want already. And we all know this - what use is the best technique if the content is wrong. Conversely, there are enough examples of films which entprechen technically several times the standard requirements, and yet were very successful. For example, Wim Wenders Buanavista Social Club or the DokMa films where the poor technical quality of the movies by the success of films successfully grown cameraman regarded as a stylistic device. On DVD are the films to him sharp.
I admit - I was synonymous for a long time ago to the purely technical data sheets. With such strong lenses after LP zb Leica Festb
Antwort von inwa:
1. This is an overly technical view. They say that good HD zoom (lie 15-30.000 euro) at about 800 - 1600 lines.
Thanks for the information!
That would be the horizontal resolution, which would correspond to a horitzontalen video resolution of 1060 - 2130 pixels. If horizontally with vertically equated, and the 16:9 ratio is taken into account, one comes to 630,000 to 2.5 million pixels. The second claim seems to be too high, for very good Zommobjektive are there in the small-format photography (and is indeed much larger viewing area) are only about 13 million pixels, very good lenses at 20 million pixels.
Berrechnung:
Chip area:
2:3 x 2.54 = 1.69 cm diagonal of the chip Height x 0.49 = 0.83 cm and 1.47 cm width of the chip of the chip. So 8.3 mm x 14.7 mm Suppose the calculation is correct, and surface is completely used, then the chip is 7 times smaller than the negatives.
The best zoom for small-format photography to create 13 million pixels. That would be allocated approximately 1.85 million pixels for HD cameras. And if that with the pixel expansion factor "is multiplied by 1.333, you get 2.5 million pixels. The data are consistent also.
What is the pixel expansion factor?
Chip with 100 pixels resolution can be represented only about 75 lines. Where there is a line resolution, with errechen must therefore be multiplied by 1.333 for the horizontal pixel resolution.
Now the question arises whether it is enough that the lens has a 25% lower Resolutionhat lines, or whether it has 100 lines Resolutionhaben so s.end 75 lines can be displayed on the television (????).
In the first case would Objektivauflösung the best zoom lens for HD 1080 range - in the second case, not as would be the best Resolutionder zooms by 30% too low. Because then the line resolution can (in this case is line = line I assume strongly) with the horizontal pixel resolution will be equated. So from 800 - 1600 horizontal lines would get out of a maximum of 800 to 1600 pixels and 1920 horzontal it should be. 1,080 vertical lines would then be up to 900th
With high quality lenses can be sure the HD Resolutionrealisieren. It's just an animal act at the set, change the conductor Lenses, since, in contrast to film cameras must be readjusted every time and who thereby wasting only a little, mess up the whole recording which is difficult to control s.Drehort.
2. Trigonometry. The angle (= angle of the diagonals in the ratio 16 / 9) of the 2 / 3 "long diagonals (Cathetus reveals) and hypotenuse (length) with the cosine of the length and width of the chip. I hope this is true now;)
We do not yet know exactly, but we'll get that out already. Incidentally, I have calculated erstmal synonymous with the Height Pytaguras. I came to the following:
Image height for 16:9 devices = [((image diagonal for square) divided by 337) from the root] times 9
Image height for 4:3 device = [((image diagonal for square) divided by 25) from the root] times 3
But there are fixed relations, as I then read.
* 16:9 Diagonal x 0.49 = image height
* 4:3 Diagonal x 0.6 = screen height.
Much simpler;).
3. If the physical resolution example of a CMOS chip is 1440x1080, there after the "debayering" synonymous exactly this Resolutionaus. You mean the actual ratio of about redundancy. The actual underlying algorithm of any consumer camera with CMOS sensor and the actual information content using the Bayer filter, has nobody investigated. But the effective line resolution. And is the Consumer Cameras (lines 300-400) whether the small chip size, of course, might well below the likely chip resolution.
400 lines located on S-VHS or HI-8 level. Converted with the pixel expansion factor, it is about 530 horizontal pixels per line. So a total of approximately 310,000 pixels. 300 lines are about 400 pixels horizontally
Antwort von inwa:
I have now synonymous found something on the Net:
Quote:
"HDCAM 1080 24p stores, like the film, 24 complete frames per second (fps, frames per second). Resolutionvon made the recording with a 1920 x 1080 pixels, which lies just below the average Super 16 film resolution of 2 K."
www.movie-college.de/filmschule/ media / digitales_material.htm
Quote:
Derived from the HDCAM parameters a detachment of the film as a recording medium to want one more moment in the department "slogans". Too many quality factors are still very far from the film.
The purely mathematical line Resolutionist exactly half as high as 35 mm (for pixel 4 times smaller). The contrast range is modest compared with modern Negativmaterialien. Perhaps even s.ehesten compared with early reversal materials. Exposure errors lead to burnout unforgivable. Also, the depth of field (depending on the size of the host chips) in the camera is not comparable with 35 mm. The images are prone to flatness, spatial depth will play worse than that film. 8-bit color depth is far away of Film. In addition, this information is synonymous density recorded only compressed to tape. The Resolutionvon fast movements is still unsatisfactory at 24p.
Even the design of the camera itself produces the distance of a professional film camera huge. Instead of a bright optical viewfinder, there is only black and white electronic viewfinder. The tolerances for the lens mount flange-are higher than for film cameras, which can cause sharpness problems. The interference immunity especially in damp or cold with a film camera is much higher.
http://www.movie-college.de/filmschule/medien/24p.htm
Antwort von Jan:
For CCD Size / Conversion factor I once had a Comparison of Color reingestellt Stillimage.
ask-to-ww-at-nv-gs-250-400-xm-2 -
LG
Jan
Antwort von rikeson:
But there are fixed relations, as I then read.
* 16:9 Diagonal x 0.49 = image height
* 4:3 Diagonal x 0.6 = screen height.
Yes, that's all but synonymous Pythagoras. If I may reckon up to 4:3 times s.der diagonals. Long s.kurze Page = Page = b; diagonal = c
So:
a ² + b ² = c ², because we are in 4:3 format which is a by 4 / 3 is greater than b so I substitute a = 4 / 3 * b. Thus, the equation now reads:
² (4 / 3 * b) + b ² = c ² and multiplied and expanded:
16 / 9 * b ² +9 / 9 * b ² = c ² brings it all added up:
25 / 9 * b ² = c ² by both sides to take root:
5 / 3 * b = c then on both sides by 3 yields by 5:
b = 3 / 5 * c the result in decimal form:
b = 0.6 * c
The same Rechnerei after a switch is:
a = 0.8 * c
