RE: Varicam or HD

["Victor Wolansky" <victorw(at)NATMEDIA.com>]

 

Jef, look what I found, I think is very good to understand the 4:2:2 4:4:4 99:99:99 thing... :-)

 

I don’t know if the email is going to keep the format, if not. This is the link

 

http://www.answers.com/topic/ycbcr-sampling

 

As you can see the 4:2:2 or 4:4:4, is the sampling of a group of pixels and not the sampling of each individual pixel.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Victor Wolansky

DS VFX Artist

WEBsite

Demo Reel

815 Slaters Lane

Alexandria. VA.

443-797-3507

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ds(at)Softimage.COM [mailto:owner-ds(at)Softimage.COM] On Behalf Of Jef Huey
Sent: Monday, August 01, 2005 5:38 PM
To: DS(at)Softimage.COM
Subject: Re: Varicam or HD

 

Victor,

 

Like I said, ignore pixel count FOR THE TIME BEING.

 

4:2:2 and 3:1:1 is about how much information EACH pixel has.  It has

nothing to do with how many pixels are on a line.

 

1920 x 1080 is a description of how many pixels wide by how many pixels

high an HD image is.

 

Each of those pixels could have been captured as EITHER 4:2:2 or 3:1:1.

 

Do you see what I am talking about here?   So no, a 300x300 4:4:4 image

is not better than a 1920x1080 4:2:2 image.

But the individual pixels of the 300x300 have more color information

EACH than the later image.  And you  would get a better key from the

300x300 image.

 

At least that is how I understand it.   ;)    All this said, testing is

and good lighting is the key.  PUN!!

 

Jef