Terry I see what you're trying to tell Michael.
Here's a question about the resolution of square versus non-square, though:
If you have ninety square pixels, each representing a piece of the color on a 1" line, but you have 100 rectangular pixels also indicating the color on a 1" line, shouldn't you have 10% better resolution? Sure when it gets back to a square pixel monitor things would SEEM to even out, but that's NOT what Avid thinks about color resolution, because the 8-bit color from Symphony was always converted to 10-bit inside the box even though it went back out as 8-bit. I know that bit-depth and spatial resolution are two different things... just having a conversation.
For this particular case, it would be interesting to see if shooting 640x480 for SD actually yields a better image than simply shooting the 5D in HD, protected for 4:3 and then cropped on the sides. I don't know personally. Maybe Canon does a better job of creating the SD file than the Avid would do converting it.
But it seems like it would be better to capture an image that is 1080 high than an image that is 480 high. Not to mention that you have a 16:9 image if you ever want to use it in the future.
Steve Hullfish
contributor: www.provideocoalition.com
author: "The Art and Technique of Digital Color Correction"
On Jan 26, 2012, at 9:49 AM, Terence Curren wrote:
> You are assuming the monitor and the sensor are the same. In other words, a 4:3 computer monitor with square pixels is going to show that 1" line that was shot non square as shorter than 1". What if the sensor shoots square, and your monitor is square, are you now getting less information than the stretched pixel?
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
No comments:
Post a Comment