Frage von alfred:
11/2010 on the cameraman is a field report on the new Canon XF300. Herein is reported that Arte and other broadcasters would accept in the near future only cameras with 2 / 3 chips. (4:2:2 mandatory). A coherent / a comprehensible way / technical reasons for the chip size is the author of the article, however guilty.
Strangely, while the BBC, the Canon XF300 with 1 / 3 chip (accepted because of 4:2:2) at Arte usnicht this should be the case. Can anyone imagine why? Evil to him who thinks this evil?
Antwort von B.DeKid:
And I thought the cameras have only accept the NEN Pink Body -!)
Antwort von NEEL:
Now, 2 / 3 inches is just in the EBU rules. These policies have created the channels together to define "sustainable" standards. Channel act synonymous with shooting or licenses, some of them have huge license departments (see YouTube) and what is not EBU-compliant, could be either on the market less value. I think mainly we owe such developments the economists of the transmitter, the less editors.
Antwort von Replay:
Quite so close I would not see. They have recently taken material that was far from it, with such a sensor to have been filmed, even disdainful SD was a simple device underneath.
If the content is, synonymous material beyond the EBU standard is accepted.
Greetings
Replay
Antwort von WoWu:
If the content is, synonymous material beyond the EBU standard is accepted. These are precisely the awards which bring no next. Of course, nobody is ever after, which sensor is used when you recorded the assassination of any one politician, but who decides for what "true" or not "right"?
There is an editorial and a technical loss reduction. these are two pairs of shoes and if the thing is found in the technical inspection as "not broadcast quality," admits s.Nachfragen it a rat tail and special permits. That does no editor-in voluntarily.
So the "voice" of the contribution must be pretty weighty.
Times completely ignoring the fact that synonymous know the TV stations exactly what, for example, a sensor with <2 / 3 but with a 16:9 shape is received and what a 4:3 sensor the same size produced s.Picture.
They are there considerably more flexible than for example in the sub-sampling. What's more, that the BBC allows such exception, respecting a contribution.
We couple of standing still synonymous 4:2:0 material, write and do it but as long as we stay under the legal percentage ... no problem.
Trouble is, if the guidelines that there are now once ignored or stupid question, what are really good, or, worse still, make a tape and said that everything was ok.
The EBU is so people do not want. Those who make the EBU expertise are (mostly) highly qualified technicians and engineers who do their duty in TV stations and bring in experience.
A coherent / a comprehensible way / technical reasons for the chip size is the author of the article, however guilty. Such articles are synonymous unfit to carry technical explanations. EBU papers constitute but quite clear. For 4:2:2, I got it in a thread shows once.
So who makes the rules in question should either explain why a substantially different approach is the better way, or follow it.
(Alternatively, lie in wait if you can not turn his camcorder with the paparazzi movie).
Or, of course, buy a camera whose images are accepted, which is today either difficult or expensive.
Antwort von Pianist:
Or, of course, buy a camera whose images are accepted, which is today either difficult or expensive. Just looks like that. I am totally a mystery to arise again and again why these discussions. Those who want to produce for television, must meet the same requirements. Solid technology should be a matter of course. The fire department extinguished but not synonymous with a Gardena hose. I argue even when tenders outside the media industry with the IRT guidelines, because it can explain the great difference between small and large cameras.
Matthias
Antwort von alfred:
Hi Wolfgang,
4:2:2 is still ok and so you got me / us convinced. But 2 / 3 chip versus 1 / 3 chip with the same resolution?
Can justify slightly less DOF and less intensity of the chip, the disqualification of two thirds Chipper? I see this either artistically or send standard is a technical reason. If so, what I would be interested?
You work a lot but with the Pana HPX 371, a 1 / 3 Chipper. Will you now to 2 / 3 chip change?
Alfred
Antwort von Pianist:
May constitute slightly less DOF and less intensity of the chip, the disqualification of two thirds Chipper First, blogs, and also because it is just two completely different camera classes. In a mill with 2/3-Inch-Chips You know that it cooperates see above end of the scale, and that is for devices with smaller chips simply not the case. Since it is not just about the chip size, but of the whole subsequent signal processing. The quality difference to the final product is clearly visible, or only in very rare cases can not be seen.
Matthias
Antwort von WoWu:
No, Alfred, that's what I've synonymous words, if the design is 16:9, you lie almost at 1 / 2 ". And synonymous, that the chip issue is viewed not as dogmatic as the sub-sampling to provide we are again.
Added to this, that it is hardly 2 / 3 and recorder that you can hang 1 / 3 "(16:9 chip) images very well and with identical quality page2 / 3" images, we show synonymous daily.
.... But now comes the
"however", for third is synonymous special requirements s.das Lens to a 2 / 3 "lens to match the picture performance.
And we see every day as well. If we use the 1 / 3 no 16mm Primes by a corresponding optical condenser, but a kit lens would turn out the picture performance significantly worse.
The 2 / 3 "EBU description is not so much meant the chip, but rather the performance of the lens image, to the same detail resolution at 1 / 3 higher by many times must, under normal conditions camcorder is not.
If the definition is with 2 / 3 "only shorter.
In reality, they write modulation depth in the border area frequency range of 80% in the middle of the picture before the. What a 2 / 3 "Lens and 720 lines resolution, 66 lp / mm corresponds to. (For 1080 I would have to even read again, but are correspondingly more stringent).
Such values are, however, with 1 / 3 "or less not even reached. Or just only with high optical expenses, how we do it. Therefore, we can very well 1 / 3 and 2 / 3 picture blends around with, without having to see the difference is.
As soon as we mix with ease, we want to see synonymous, why is 1 / 3 rejected (despite 16:9 chip).
With a 4:3 chip that would be a considerable amount of blatant. It's true what the EBU since vorschriebt, synonymous if it is for some, difficult to understand because it lacks the direct comparison.
As for the subsequent processing, so I can not follow Matt. The processing of the 300 is much better than that of synonymous 2700er and the 3000. Time has not stopped since. But s.den Ojketiven not much more to change, or just with a huge effort. But this is not economical in the class of camera.
Antwort von WoWu:
What I can think of the way:
In the title is .....
only 2 / 3 "....
If the MORE relates to larger chips, it is far out that it will accept, because if I degrade my picture so drastically in order to prevent moire, I reach the MTF determination and not synonymous with the chips fall, synonymous if they are still so huge, just by!
Antwort von NEEL:
@ WoWu:
From where does it then actually going with EBU-compatible camcorders - If the HPX 500 with kit lens still out? Or you actually need at least one HPX 2100er? I'm currently thinking whether I should define me as a monster. The Scarlet is probably due to 1x2 / 3 inch out of the race ...
Antwort von WoWu:
@ NEEL
That's just the point, why the EBU
NOT / 3 "2 3 /" is defined, but on the
basis of two image quality has laid down certain one.
And quite deliberately s.einer synonymous site that is
NOT wrong with steepening Picture impression grants you artificially.
You have to watch also (and can easily calculate yourself) whether you will achieve the quality, synonymous if you do not have 2 / 3 ".
Your Optics, it must be in proportion to the chip size is only at 80% MTF bring in the middle.
We achieve this (and better) with good Lenses and an optical adapter that we reduced the 16mm Lenses for 1 / 3 ".
Thus we do not only 1-2 aperture more light, but to double our (almost) the resolution, which is in accordance with our overall benefit of the MTF.
The pictures are perfect .... despite 1 / 3 ".
Why are these items, such as the above is the cameraman, totally unsuitable for professionals because they do not explain what is behind it but rumgeritten only 2 / 3 "is what is just not true (not so).
I had a camera man synonymous explains what it means.
So my tip: Or see what to get for a MTF and you then you'll know whether the condition is met.
This can be synonymous a camera / lens combination to be, as with us.
For example, even reach / 3 "HD camera heads with these values SD Lens
on 2.
Despite 2 / 3 ".
You see how important it is to understand the request.
Therefore, I can give you at different camcorders no advice. The lens makes a lot of it.
(By the way the 500 I would not buy around the croak)
Antwort von NEEL:
Hi Wolfgang,
thanks for the clarification.
@ NEEL
You have to watch also (and can easily calculate yourself) whether you will achieve the quality, synonymous if you do not have 2 / 3 ".
Your Optics, it must be in proportion to the chip size is only at 80% MTF bring in the middle. How accurate count it? 'm Just a trained writer, which rotates like to a documentary, mostly about technique I've made a bow. Can you do that for mere mortals like me to pack into a simple workflow? Or must I only X divided by Y?
We achieve this (and better) with good Lenses and an optical adapter that we reduced the 16mm Lenses for 1 / 3 ".
Thus we do not only 1-2 aperture more light, but to double our (almost) the resolution, which is in accordance with our overall benefit of the MTF.
The pictures are perfect .... despite 1 / 3 ". Sounds good. What are using an optical adapter for you? How is the handling in terms Fokkusieren? If the Cam with a lighter lens not bad "back-heavy"?
You see how important it is to understand the request.
Therefore, I can give you at different camcorders no advice. The lens makes a lot of it. ... and the cost is the limiting factor. At least for the price of a good HD ENG-Optics turn a whole other low-budget feature film:) It would be your solution with the 16mm lenses probably the only viable, but rather ingenious way for most of us ...
Antwort von WoWu:
@ Neel
The calculation and that which belongs to the understanding, I stated in my book. mail me but to look over the site, I will send you to use as "reading test. There a lot of this sin graphics, so it is not so easy to describe verbally, but we get back.
OT:
(Incidentally, I have now with a (full time) gemailed editor who has read the Amazon reviews and know of the Book he says. Igorieren nonsense!
So do not worry, that I you, contrary to what some here in the forum, send an error collection.) :-)) OTende
As for the optical adapter, I do not know if that's all for the solution because it not only expensive, but because synonymous Cine Lenses for E are not really suitable cameras. (For various reasons, even quite inappropriate.) Only in the constellation of Lens, and the 300 adapter that fits quite excellent and gives good results.
But this can go in any other constellation rather backward.
For example, we have experimented with the Zeiss CLA 35 HD and 35mm primes on the 2700er and every lame HD lens was better than the Panavision Primo 81st (And by the way synonymous throughout the camera lenses).
You see, it is a question that I put together my video equipment.
I know it helps you now not as direct and next it would be better to show a method patent, but there are the large number of components and not the vote (and the requirement) is the secret.
