Archived from groups: rec.video,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (
More info?)
To ask "what is the resolution" of a consumer camera is almost the wrong
question, as the differences are pretty small for most cameras in the same
price range.
I'd rather know the "f-rating" at 0db and 2000 lux. This gives a measure of
the camera's light sensitivity.
I'd rather know the S/N ratio. This is - - given the similarity of
resolution among a camera and its peers - - a better measure of picture
quality.
I'd rather know that I have manual control of when the gain kicks in. This
will allow you to keep the picture less noisy in marginal light situations.
I'd rather know that I had manual control of audio levels - - even if
they're buried in a menu.
But it will be like pulling teeth to get this info from the manufacturers.
Steve
"Jeffery S. Jones" <jeffsj@execpc.com> wrote in message
news:2c9hj0dgs71uk0faotkncq3c929ug5djbf@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 20:33:19 GMT, "Bob Evans"
> <robert_evans_yah@yahoo.com._NOSPAM> wrote:
>
> >I was reading reviews of the Sony DCR-HC30 and DCR-HC40. It indicated
that
> >the 30 had 500 lines of resolution and the 40 up to 530. If these are
> >rendered to NTSC format which is 720x480, at what point woudl the extra
> >lines of resolution be visible and result in a better quality picture?
The
> >only time that comes to mind is while the editing/viewing on a computer.
If
> >it is intended to be burned to a DVD and viewed on televisions, would the
> >additional lines matter or improve clarity in anyway since they are
> >converted to 480 at that point anyway?
>
> First thing, "lines of resolution" isn't a measure of pixels. What
> it measures is the number of vertical lines visible within a square on
> the display (nowadays this is measured with electronic instruments,
> not visually). Since the TV picture isn't square, the total number of
> vertical lines which might be visible on the screen will be larger
> (roughly one-third larger) than the lines of resolution.
>
> Second thing, the frame size of a digital format extends outside the
> visible area on most TV monitors (some can show it out to the edge).
> For NTSC, that gives a maximum DV usable resolution of between 704 and
> 710 pixels. When you run through the numbers, that means that DV at
> 530 lines of resolution will need that 704 pixels to display it
> without loss, with a bit of rounding filling in the remainder.
>
> DVD resolution is only slightly smaller (704x480).
>
> The 480 dimension is fixed -- a poor TV or other video device might
> display them imprecisely, blurring the image a bit, but nothing can
> make NTSC TV show more than that (in standard definition anyway).
>
>
> Lines of resolution measures the apparent sharpness of the image,
> *not* its pixels of resolution. Some video devices offer sharper
> images than others, and if the recording medium can handle it, you'll
> actually see a difference. DV is already much higher resolution than
> SVHS or Hi8, let alone VHS, so 500 lines of resolution is quite good.
>
> An analogy might help: If you take a picture which is very out of
> focus, the image will be quite unsharp. You may not even see two
> clear lines on the screen. Yet the DV frame size of that blurry
> picture will be exactly the same -- 720x480 -- as one which is in
> perfect focus, showing excellent detail.
>
> Better camcorder technology can give you a little more detailed
> imagery from the DV format. 500 vs. 530 isn't a huge difference, but
> every little bit can help -- especially in poor light or other
> conditions where the image detail isn't easy to see.
>
> --
> *-__Jeffery Jones__________| *Starfire* |____________________-*
> ** Muskego WI Access Channel 14/25 <http://www.execpc.com/~jeffsj/mach7/>
> *Starfire Design Studio* <http://www.starfiredesign.com/>
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram