DVL-Digest 1178 - Postings: Index 16:9 vs. 4:3 (was: Did Mark Schubin chump 24p?) - (2) 16:9 vs. 4:3 (was: Did Mark Schubin chump 24p?) - "Perry Mitchell" From: Barry G Obviously I would never say or imply that anyone was a liar. What I was saying is that in the DSR-500's manual, it clearly states that the image in 4:3 mode is created by a digital resampling of the image from the CCD. They didn't say it was a subset of the 4:3 area of the 16:9 chipset, they said it was digitally resampled. That sounds an awful lot like they take a 16:9 widescreen image and downsample/stretch it into a "fake" 4:3 image, not that they simply extract a 4:3 patch out of the center of the chips. I would be pleased and delighted to be proven wrong, of course... 16:9 vs. 4:3 (was: Did Mark Schubin chump 24p?) - "Perry Mitchell" From: John Seghers From: "Perry Mitchell" [perry.mitchell@btinternet.com> Maybe it's worth passing by this one more time. Remember that the CCD is an > ANALOG device so it produces a signal that is then resampled (usually after > some analog processing) before the DSP (digital signal processing). This > happens both for 16:9 and 4:3, and in fact there are advantages to do with > anti-aliasing in 'over-sampling' with the number of pixels on the chip. > There is simply no equivalence between the chip pixel spacing and the DSP > sampling rate. I do not believe this is true. CCDs very definitely have defined pixel spacings. Reading a CCD is like reading out a series of buckets. While it's true that the buckets are analog, you are still reading the discreet charges captured by each CCD pixel. An A/D converter translates this into digital information. If the number of pixels does not match what you are wanting to display, then resampling is done from this digitized data. (diese posts stammen von der DV-L Mailingliste - THX to Adam Wilt and Perry Mitchell :-) [up] |
 slashCAM  News HD Camcorder database One-on-One Cam comparison About our tests About us |
|
|
