Frage von Nio:
Hi,
I plan to soon incorporate a MiniDV Kammera with a play. From the finished print, drawn to the hard drive data, I would like to draw some pictures on hard drive and later beautifully GROSS.
In what Resolutionziehe I have the videos on the calculator, which I s.end total of 800,000 pixels, not more economy my cam.
Example: 640 x 480 has a total of 307,200 pixels.
What a Resolutionmuss when I select the import function on the calculator to land that really synonymous 800,000 pixels on the calculator?
Nio
Antwort von coconut:
I do not want to discourage you, yes, but you can
pretty big bend!
Therefore, the ResolutionDeiner Cam never enough to merely synonymous for nearly a usable photo to make of it. Not even (in the small format 9x12), the really good ......
Antwort von Nio:
I know that this is not THAT huge, but I'd notwithstanding all that it has the best quality that I can get. So is my asking about the Resolutionweiter exist (or better, according to the formula, with which I can calculate it yourself ...
Nio :-)
Antwort von Jan:
Hi Nio,
for a 10x15 pretty good (Postcard) you need (so about 2 million + pixels no 4,5,8, of course - except you throw the digital zoom to make or Enlargements), and with a known s.Besten digicam CCD Size 1 / 2, 5 "or 1 / 1, 8" or perfekterweise with a full frame sensor. With smaller cell phone or camera sensors is then in low light conditions synonymous not speak of a very good picture of synonymous although some phones have 2 million pixels.
LG
January
Antwort von mdb:
I know that this is not THAT huge, but I'd notwithstanding all that it has the best quality that I can get. http://www.topazlabs.com/ already provides an improvement
Antwort von beiti:
@ Nio
If you DV Extract images from the film, they are big 720 x 576 pixels. This is the standard resolution of PAL. Whether your camcorder, the chip has 300,000 or 800,000 pixels, it plays no role, and the DV tape takes exactly 414,720 pixels per picture on (in which even a dark, unusable edge is included).
If your camcorder has a photographic memory with function, it can be synonymous in higher Resolutionfotografieren. However, you can shoot at the same time, and most camcorders do not shoot, that you then have to interrupt the shoot to take photos.
Antwort von Markus:
... takes exactly 414,720 pixels per picture on (in which even a dark, unusable edge is included). Whether a fringe left does not stay or depends on the camcorder. My newer cameras all show the whole picture. Only my older models still have this edge.
Antwort von Nio:
If you DV Extract images from the film, they are big 720 x 576 pixels. This is the standard resolution of PAL. Whether your camcorder, the chip has 300,000 or 800,000 pixels, it does not matter ... But why then is on the package, which has 800,000 pixels of the camcorder? Advertising strategy, or what?
Nio
Antwort von beiti:
haber why then is on the package, which has 800,000 pixels of the camcorder? Advertising strategy, or what? He probably has 800,000 pixels on the chip. A higher chip Resolutionbringt with 1-chip camcorders entirely qualitative advantages over chips, which Resolutiongerade times for PAL ranges) (keyword color interpolation, but it is not 1:1 recorded on tape, but runterskaliert.
If the number of pixels is draufgeschrieben so conspicuous on the package, which is of course sheer advertising strategy. It was customary in the days of analog camcorder - and then were still no pixels recorded on tape.
Antwort von Nio:
Hi
You're right, there are 800,000 pixels on the chip.
So, then I'm not s.mehr pixels ran as s.The remaining 385,280 pixels, ran only on Sundays s.The 414,720 pixels, or whatever.
Trozdem Thank Nio
Antwort von coconut:
Yes, it is.
Unless your cam has a photoelectric function, then it (usually) more pivel used.
However you want to extract from a film recording still images and therefore it remains in the pixeling 414,720.
That is, synonymous only halfway usable, photos, simply not enough. You've got to you while still keeping in mind that a camcorder recording in general fields (interlaced). On playback, it will be from 2 half frames a whole. It is synonymous expensive camcorder to record all the frames, then there are actually 50 full frames per sec (PAL).
Frames in which the interlaced method is used to, despite the limited bandwidth available for TV shows available (standard PAL) get a picture of calm as possible. This is the first television and then all the odd play all the even rows (or vice versa?)
Since the layer inside the tube for a short time, "glowing", created for the human eye the impression of a liquid effluent film. In fact, however, represented only 25 frames.
But there are relatively simple ways to create interlaced frames. that would be the quality of the frames (pictures) to improve a little.
Look at 100fps.com, then explains exactly how, why so and so ...
Evt. helps you with your project. Thou canst posters or the like but definitely forgotten. These photos must be done right.
Antwort von beiti:
Did not forget to mention that there may be another reason for the high resolution chip, smaller camcorder use the extra pixels as scope for electronic image stabilization, that is, it will be only one section used for the Picture. [/ Quote]
Antwort von Jan:
Hello you,
that's why Sonybei gives her 800,000 Total MegaPixels - 400,000 Net pixels.
The stabilizer of Sonyist for most of the best, unfortunately he synonymous consume plenty of them, or rather, it uses a larger area of CCD than the one or the other company.
When a high-resolution 16 / 9 mode is needed because not much goes with 800,000 Total MegaPixels. The only Canon MV 900 zb holds with one lousy Wide Anglebei 4:3 and brings a usable at 16 / 9 (Others are in the 4 / 3 Panasonic eg eg 51 °). But the WW / Aufllösungs increase of 800,000 pixels Canon 's is not exactly sparkling. Is quite different because zb Sonywith HC 94 / 96 - 6 °, the rich get more WW at 16 / 9, 4 / 3 WW is synonymous quite appealing. Against the 16 / 9 Resolution winning a Canon XL 2 but from the looks synonymous Sonyalt.
The others have one or can eg take pictures during the shoot Panasonic GS 500 or some synonymous Sony or Canon's' s. Unfortunately, most of use here a lousy Resolutionala 640x480 at Stillimage, abolished GS 500 will be changed, I believe make up 1 million pixels in the movie mode, but for the more perfect Stillimage of Beiti to be as described in the photo mode.
LG
January
Antwort von JanC.Beck:
Is it really better off without Image Stabilization film or are the pixels used for the SiS lost one way or another?
Antwort von beiti:
Is it really better off without Image Stabilization film or are the pixels used for the SiS lost one way or another? They are lost either way. When turning off the stabilizers, the device does not s.der size of the framing, you can try yourself.
And even if the whole screen would be used, could still only record DV PAL 720 x 576 pixels.
There were actually times camcorder, used the stabilizer turned on at a smaller section of the chip (seen from the fact that the image detail of scarce when turning on the stabilizers and the picture was blurred), but today's do it no more.
However, there are now some Megapixel camcorder, which (to use in Stillimage mode the whole chip will stop without stabilizer).
Antwort von Jan:
Hello you,
the last but I was surprised with a Canon magazines.
There stood when the new MVX 450 / 460 (in video mode), the digital stabilizer off at 16 / 9, Anglebekommt be more wide, the focal changes according to Canon synonymous with the closure of the stabilizer's.
In Sonyoder Panasonic were only 2 focal lengths - one for 4-3, one for 16:9 - whether one or stability was of no preference, have addressed some of the digital stabilizer s.Bord indeed synonymous, except in the GS 280/300/500 current consumers of Sonyoder of Panasonic.
Everyone is cooking his own soup.
LG
January
Antwort von beiti:
Yes, that is quite a mess.
Early 90s Panasonic / JVC built a electronic stabilizers, Canon and Sonyhingegen optical stabilizer. It was the rule: Optical stabilizers = good, electronic stabilizer = mies.
Then build Sonyplötzlich synonymous electronic, and they were very good. The first optical stabilizer of Panasonic were, however, miserably poor. So it was said by experts: Stabilizers of Sonyand Canon are great, everyone else can forget it.
Meanwhile, Panasonic synonymous to get pretty good stabilizers while Sonyand Canon have done himself some models Patzer and therefore can not be blindly recommended.
In fact, we must today (each device separately or judge) to study at least in test reports to find out something about the quality of the stabilizer.
What the format generated 4:3 ond 16:9, is a topic for themselves. Usually the chips are 4:3 and are cut for the top and bottom of 16:9, ie, equal to the recoverable Wide Anglebleibt and the image height is scarce. (As long as Resolution Available enough, the quality still be good.) Genuine 16:9 chips exist in the consumer area (I think not).
If all sides in 4:3 margins for the stabilizer were reserved, they can be used for a wider 16:9 - in favor of the wide-angle and to the detriment of stability. Canon, there were so synonymous models, where the stability in 16:9 mode only compensates for vertical movement, because they lack the horizontal margin.
Stillimage for high-resolution mode is nearly always used the whole chip area, so an electronic stabilizer will not work any more. Fieserweise the most is not specifically in there in the brochures.
There remains the question of the achievable image angles / focal lengths and especially after the wide angle.
The actual focal lengths remain the same, no preference how big or small the used-up. However, Canon expects the prospectus in Small focal lengths equivalent to (so-SLR photographers to what you can imagine it), and this conversion ( "crop factor") varies, of course, depending on which part of the chip is used. The smaller the area used, the longer the equivalent focal-KB, and the smaller the possible wide-angle.
Antwort von Jan:
Hello beiti,
na indirectly, the JVC GR PD-1 has a 1 / 3 "16 / 9 CCD - it has been in recent months sold for about ¬ 1000 - a consumer good price when they might have long stood for a cost of ¬ 2000-3500 and the price is Semi held more consumers.
The data were standing in the way of the Canon 450 / 460 instructions again precisely because it's me otherwise probably believes None:
Video 4:3
Net Pixels 690,000
Focal (counted on KB): 48.1 mm-962 mm
Stabilizer turned on digital video with 16:9
Net Pixels 750,000
Focal (counted on KB): 43.7 mm-874 mm
16:9 power turned with digital video stabilizer
Net Pixels 880,000
Focal (counted on KB): 40.3 mm-806 mm
Of course, the Resolutioneh's not written on tape, but I was the resolution of 190,000 pixels profit mightily impressed already, which is soon to Canon XL 2 level SonyHC 94 / 96 because not even have a similar profit.
Yes at the other companies I know of so far only one synonymous Wide Angle / Focal / Resolutionje 4:3 and 16:9. Since I have been surprised that there are really 3 pure values, probably with Canon Stabilizer uses real power turned the entire area, almost 8 mm Wide Angleist been enormous. Well had the time to write
LG
January
Antwort von beiti:
Funny. Since Canon is actually gone the old way to shrink the image stabilization on the chip-neck (but at a high level of quality), thanks to sufficient resolution.
