Re: Varicam or HD
| Date : Tue, 02 Aug 2005 12:19:37 -0400 |
| To : DS(at)Softimage.COM |
| From : Jef Huey <jhuey(at)henninger.com> |
| Subject : Re: Varicam or HD |
Victor,
Great example. I remember seeing that awhile ago. While this would seem to say that I was not correct in saying sampling is about the quality of _individual _pixels, let me ask - based on these images, would you rather key a 4:2:2 or 4:1:1 image? 4:2:2 probably because there are more unique descriptions of the image COLORWISE in the 4:2:2 image. Since keying is all about edges, 4:2:2 has more info for the edges. So that said it would seem that the Varicam would be better for color keying.
But then you have to take in the pixel grid size issue. And that would have to fall into the what is the final product and what manipulations will I do in the intermediate steps question.
Jef
Victor Wolansky wrote:
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
--- 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
- Follow-Ups:
- RE: Varicam or HD
- From: "Victor Wolansky" <victorw(at)NATMEDIA.com>
- RE: Varicam or HD
- References:
- RE: Varicam or HD
- From: "Victor Wolansky" <victorw(at)NATMEDIA.com>
- RE: Varicam or HD
| DATE: | << | >> | THREAD: | << | >> | INDEX: | Main | Thread |
|---|
- Previous by Date: Re: HD material in a SD sequence
- Next by Date: Re: HD material in a SD sequence
- Previous by Thread: Re: HD material in a SD sequence
- Next by Thread: Re: HD material in a SD sequence
- Index(es):
| Search the Digital Studio List archives here or use the advanced search form to search across mailing lists. Searching help is available. |