True. What I was thinking - and did not write (bad) - is that if the
pixels are the same size (which they are not in the 1920 vs 300
example) the 300 4:4:4 pixels would be better.
In my mind there are two discussions here. Image size (the pixel grid
so to speak) and the sampling quality of each pixel in that grid. A
higher density grid will give better total image resolution. I have
been focusing on the sampling quality which is nicely shown in the
email from Victor with the charts.
Jef
Tony Quinsee-Jover wrote:
Define "Better"
In the below example the 1920 image will give SIX TIMES the horizontal
resolution of the 300x300 image, but each pixel will only have half
the chrominance resolution. 6 x 0.5 = 3, so the 1920 image will still
have THREE TIMES the chrominance resolution of the 300x300 image.
Regards,
Tone :)
At 01:38 02/08/2005, you wrote:
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.
---
Subscribe? E-mail Majordomo(at)Softimage.COM with the following text in
body: subscribe ds
Unsubscribe? E-Mail Majordomo(at)Softimage.COM with the following text in
body: unsubscribe ds
---
Subscribe? E-mail Majordomo(at)Softimage.COM with the following text in body: subscribe ds
Unsubscribe? E-Mail Majordomo(at)Softimage.COM with the following text in body: unsubscribe ds
