|
|
Posted by David McCall on 11/05/07 20:35
"Joe" <abc@xyz.com> wrote in message news:sgKXi.3137$4I.1967@trndny03...
>
> "Spex" <No.spam@ta.com> wrote in message
> news:13itr7vk7v0tj17@corp.supernews.com...
>
>
>> What are you so hung up about capturing at 1920x1080 when the actual
>> resolution of the camera is way less than that at 800+ tvl?
>
>
> Just curious, but this complete video greenhorn would appreciate an
> explanation about the "800+ tvl". I do follow this thread regarding the
> fact that on tape you don't get 1920 pixels- but I don't understand that
> the camera's res is way less than that amount.
>
> thanks,
> Joe
Often people confuse this measurment of resolution with
the number of pixels in rows and columns of the picture.
They are related, but not the same.
Lines of resolution take into account not only the pixel resolution,
but also the optics of the camera. A single line consist of a
black line as well as the white space between the black lines.
A simplistic way of looking at it would be to say that 800 lines
of resolution would require 1600 columns of pixels.
One pixel for the black line and one for white space.
Unfortunately it isn't that cut and dried. But that should get you started.
David
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|