|
|
Posted by Smarty on 10/05/08 11:38
Martin,
I fail to understand how uprezzing / clever mathematics can increase the
resolution of a lower data rate / lower resolution signal. Doubling the
number of lines doesn't truly "resolve" any more detail, and the inherent
resolution of the originally sampled signal at the sampling rate it was
captured is the highest "resolution" achievable. Schemes developed by Yves
Faroudja and others (like DCD) can reduce jaggies or other artifacts, but
this is not in any way an increase in resolution.
Smarty
"Martin Heffels" <mitch.mcNeilljn@sprint.ca> wrote in message
news:ij4ot114ic0kv136msohq4fj1ot941cr02@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 15:49:14 GMT, "David McCall"
> <david.mccall@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>>Sony's high end offerings are not compressed very much,
>>but Panasonic's offerings DVCam-100HD and DVCam-50HD
>>ARE heavily compressed. Do any of these count?
>
> Compression has nothing to do with determining whether something is HD or
> not. The amount of pixels which are being recorded, and shown in the end,
> determine this: 1920x1080 or 1440x720, 24, 25, 30 or 60 fps interlaced or
> progressive.
>
>>I'd have
>>to look it up, or you can, but I think you will find that there are
>>few formats that actually that actually meet or exceed the spec
>>for HD all of the way from the chips to the tape (or P2 card).
>
> That's right. Some recorders squeeze the data down to 1440 pixels
> horizontal to make it smaller to be able to record it, but blow it up to
> 1920 again. This is compression, and has nothing to do with determining
> whether it is HD or not.
>
>>To me, they are all just digital formats of varying resolution and
>>quality.
>>Sure, an HDV camera is far inferior to a Cinealta, but it is superior
>>to what you get on cable or sat TV that the marketing people call HD.
>
> HDV means HD on mini-DV. HD heavily compressed to fit in a datarate which
> can be recorded on a mini-DV tape. It is compressed, but still HD.
>
>>If people can get away with bumping DV to 35mm and calling it
>>film, I think this argument will be mute within the next year or so.
>
> Hmmm, don't forget that in the mean time the uprezzing software has been
> improved tremendously. The top software can double the amount of lines via
> clever mathematics, and by that alone make it look like a higher
> resolution. Recording this on film now, will look much better than what it
> did 8 years ago.
>
> cheers
>
> -martin-
> --
> Never be afraid to try something new.
> Remember that a lone amateur built the Ark.
> A large group of professionals built the Titanic.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|