Frage von petes:
Hello,
In a variety of HD camcorder testing, we read that the horizontal and vertical resolution (x, y). But are smaller in the consumer area, x and y as the HD resolution.
So, for example, vertical resolution "800", but would have to be 1920pixel HD 1080x1920, right?
Is this about different metrics, or to interpolate the missing pixels, or I understand something completely wrong here:)?
Regards,
Antwort von tommyb:
Yes, you do not understand quite correctly.
A claim such as "Resolution: 800 lines" refers precisely to the optical Resolutionder Camera. The results from the combination of lens, imager and of course (ie the recording format HD or SD).
Lines - these are the horizontal lines, just like in the book known. Resolutions are generally considered "WIDTH x HEIGHT specified" - or x LINES LINES. So if you turn around times to 1080 x 1920 - so do 1920 x 1080 - it is the distance between 1080 and 800 no longer so great.
Despite the lack of 280 lines of the camcorder may still s.Limit work. This is among other things, that often is interlaced 1920x1080 - that is interlaced. They are then as 50i, or 50 fields. Fields are the same as the name suggests only half as large as some full frames. That is, fields from 1920x1080i50 videos are in principle only a Resolutionvon 1920x540 pixels per picture.
Here are the 800 lines ranging Resolutionvollkommen. Quite important, then, is the number of lines represent the camera can. Assuming that use of the imager (CCD, CMOS) in both the Height as synonymous in the Width and Resolutionhat an identical square pixels, then one can theoretically reach a line of resolution 1422 (coming 800: 9 x 16 = 1422).
Why are some camcorder, despite putative 3-megapixel CCD / CMOS image intensifier spit but only 800 lines of principle even though they may be producing more is synonymous ssg
Antwort von petes:
Can you please explain to what each of these variables in "(800: mean 9 x 16 = 1422)." And how to get this formula?
Antwort von petes:
Can you please explain to what each of these variables in "(800: mean 9 x 16 = 1422)." And how to get this formula? I've thought through the whole again. Is already clear:). (16:9, 800 lines).
But what I still do not understand is this: suppose we have a 1422x800 (LinienxZeilen) precision.
What does it if I now 1920x1080 instead of 1440x800 in contact? Yes, the same Resolutionbleibt (assuming the frames are recorded).
Antwort von tommyb:
True, there's no point.
But that does not mean that there are no cameras ausreizen this standard.
The best example is consumer DV camcorder. DV has a Resolutionvon 720x576 pixels, and is interlaced (usually). The consumer DV camcorder) have an effective Resolutionvon maybe 640x480 (very simple terms.
In the professional field, there will Digibeta camcorder. This does not take with the DV codec (and so they synonymous Digibeta) hot, but still use 720x576 pixels. These camcorders are very well able to achieve higher resolutions than the 576 lines of the video codec is available. These camcorders have a tendency reinforced synonymous with moiré effects in certain patterns (see Tie example).
So it makes in principle no sense a camcorder of 1422x800 effectively creates 1920x1080 squeezing. But it would make even less sense to 1422x800 in the next Resolutionzu bring down - in this case 1280x720. Namely, they would forcibly remove a portion of the information.
Then there is synonymous still cameras that use pixel shift. This may indeed have been able to create sensors that effectively synonymous, but only 800 lines come through pixel shift to 1080th IdR but it is so that pixel shift camcorder rather that halving Resolutionaufweisen, ie, the chip itself and creates 960x540 which is then interpolated to 1920x1080.
Antwort von petes:
Wow, thanks for your detailed answers.
Antwort von WoWu:
But this can be synonymous well that with the 800 TV Lines are meant.
TV Lines was the standard method when there were no countable pixel on image sensors or monitors there. You could be distracted the electron beam with different values and synonymous in its brightness somewhat arbitrary light / dark. It then came out different results.
TV lines describe the maximum number of visible changes that can in a horizontal line (TV line) are generated.
So even something like that, like the black / white line pairs in the MTF.
Except that the effective amount is specified and no line pairs per mm. Another difference is that there, where LP expressed per square millimeter, the values are directly comparable.
The TV-Line Information dahingegen are obviously not dependent on the size of because there are effective information.
A large screen is obviously more TV lines represent, as a small screen. To that extent always include information about this size and make a direct Comparison is not impossible, but at least difficult.
It therefore belongs to each TV line indication always a screen or sensor size.
Conclusions about the Horizontaleauflösung is very difficult because TV Lines, or synonymous TV-line/Picture Hight, always refers to a (Qudrat) screen window of 75%.
A Resolutionvon 800 thus corresponds to a Picture of 1066th
Another option, if it does not correspond to TV-Lines/ph exists, is that the camera manufacturers mark the 45% of the MTF has indicated that at 800 lines in a 1080s system must be to meet the minimum requirements. (720s For a system at 530, because not to be given 45% but 50%.)
Respect, a 800 claim is therefore entirely correct and conforms to the standards!
(800 lines at 45% MTF)
Such a claim is significantly better resolution than any indication, because the 800 is at 45% MTF information as to which quality with the camera works. A Resolutionvon 1920x1080 contrast, says nothing about whether the area is seen in the upper Resolution anything at all.
To that extent it would be a fine value.
Feeble-mindedness are such claims as 1000 Lines & Co.
