|
|
Posted by David McCall on 10/05/08 11:38
"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.
>
You see, I wouldn't think compression would have anything
to do with it either, but I think it is the compression that make
Ty reject it as an HD format.
>>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.
>
But, this "blowing it back up" is just interpolation. Interpolation can
make an improvement, and the output is higher resolution, but I
don't think Ty would buy that. I was in Best Buy yesterday and
looked at several "HD" TVs. Very few had adequit pixels to
actually do 1080i without interpolation. In fact most that I looked at,
were just "Wide XGA" (1366 x 768) much like a typical laptop.
However you want to talk artifacting, I think they are using sat TV
and the artifacting was pretty easy to see. So, if a shot looks bad
on HDV, I would suggest rethinking and reshooting the shot
because that shot is going to look like shit once it gets home
even if you shot it on 65.
>>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.
>
exactly right, but they are cheating on the resolution
>>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.
>
That is really good news.
> 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]
|