I think in my case I'm going to shoot using an HDCAM camera, but connecting
the HD-SDI output directly to a D5 to have the full 4:2:2 bandwidth with
more resolution than the Varicam.
The other thing is that I'm shooting HD, but the final product is going to
be SD, The reason because I'm shooting HD is because I will need to
stabilize and zoom a lot into the frame, so I need to have something bigger
in resolution than SD in order to not have to deal with the black borders on
a heavy stabilized shot.
Also the steadycam will be able to zoom to certain point in to the object,
and I will have to finish the motion with a digital zoom
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: Tuesday, August 02, 2005 9:20 AM
To: DS(at)Softimage.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
---
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
