Posted by Jan Panteltje on 12/26/06 19:25

On a sunny day (Tue, 26 Dec 2006 14:12:31 -0500) it happened "Steve"
<no@mail.sorry> wrote in <yuekh.2$O67.0@newsfe12.lga>:

>Are you talking about capturing stills in a high resolution then scaling to
>640x480 to use in a video? I hope not; that was not the original topic
>here.
No video VIDEO V I D E O

>One more time,
>
>when you shoot VIDEO with your camera, it uses a 640x480 area of the sensor.
>The camera does NOT use the whole sensor for VIDEO. The digital zoom uses
>part of the 640x480 area, not the whole sensor, for VIDEO, and expands it to
>640x480 for your shot.

Not in this case of the Mustek.
They would be daft to do it that way, but they are real clever :-)
WHY would anyone not use the whole sensor? that makes no sense whatsover.
You get much better results rescaling 2048xsomething to 640x480 even
if just for bayer pattern averaging.
Also you get better light sensitivity, and better optical details.

>Please prove me wrong. Send a link to the manual that states otherwise.
No need to prove anything, reality is.

>Here is a test.
>- take a VIDEO of a subject, fairly close up with the lens fully wide.
>- walk far away from the subject, and use the digital zoom to compose it in
>the same way, then shoot another VIDEO.
>Are the two shots of equal quality? I think you will find they are not.

Of course not, 265 x something rescaled to 640x480 never gives more then
256 x something detail.
That was not the issue.

[Back to original message]