David Heath |
May 11th, 2007 06:09 AM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Jimerson
(Post 676808)
The 1440x810 refers to the pixel count, the "resolution," of the CCD, not the processed image. As you agree, they're not the same thing.
|
In the Panasonic paper I linked to, then the 1440x810 limit figure is what they claim as the MAX resolution of the three chip assembly for luminance after processing, the very limit of what you may see off a chart. The text states that the 1440x810 figure ("a theoretical “best case scenario”) is the benefit that their pixel shifting and processing technology gives over what may be expected from 3x960x540 chips - a 1.5x improvement for luminance.
As far as pixel counts go, then there are three relevant numbers:
CCD - 960x540 for each of R,G,B.
Processing - done at 1920x1080
Recording - 1280x1080 or 960x720
Quote:
In any case, you might want to check with ReelStreem, because they're pulling 2K off the CCDs -- that's BEFORE processing. If what you're saying were the case in the sense you're saying it, that would be impossible.
|
It's not me saying anything - I'm quoting Panasonics own technical paper about pixel shift. But I really don't see how they can pull 2K off the CCDs before processing - are you sure they are not extracting the processed 1920x1080 raster, before it is normally downsampled for recording? That would make sense. (Though the detail within it could only be up to 1440x810.)
|