Re: Camcorder 16-235
 

[quote=Chris Clementson;1969559]I'm not. You have to understand how pulse-code modulation works for video. The numbers 0, 16, 235, 255, etc. are the actual 8-bit digital numeric values for a given pixel component which describes the amplitude of the pixel component when converted to analog. Pixel components can be R G B or Y U V. Effectively output levels and "scales" are one and the same. We're not talking about IRE units or % scales here. There is no distinction between "output levels" and "output scales". This is all being measured directly off files, ahead of all graphics hardware, ahead of Windows, ahead of display devices, etc.

YouTube doesn't change the level - the media identifies the scale used - if you clipped your 0-255 levels to 16-235 YouTube still sees 0-255 - your footage will appear washed out.

OK, thanks. We're concerned with color models. My understanding is that a pixel at 16 on the 16-35 luminance scale has the same pixel value as a 0 pixel on the 0-255 scale. It seems to me the way you are measuring, every camera, no matter what scale you set in camera, will give you a 0-255 reading. But get a camera where you can and set the scale to 16-235 and see if I'm wrong.

Re: Camcorder 16-235
 

Could you guys please take your bitchfight elsewhere?

Thank you.

Re: Camcorder 16-235
 

That makes no sense whatsoever.

In PCM the quantized values are not quantities to be measured on a "scale". You would know that if you had read the wikipedia page I linked to. There no "scale"; there is only the range of values that can be represented by 8 binary bits. I suggest you bone up on the binary number system.

Either you didn't read the wikipedia page on PCM or you don't understand it. Read it again. You should also read up on binary or "base 2" number system.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_number

Re: Camcorder 16-235
 

Yes sir! I'm sorry if the discussion has offended you in some way.
Next time a troll insults me, I will keep you in mind and ignore it. Lesson learned.

And by the way, you're welcome for answering your question.. In addition to helping you come in $1900 under your budget.

Lesson learned, again.

Re: Camcorder 16-235
 

I respectfully submit you didn't read the articles Christopher posted:

https://www.thepostprocess.com/2019/...full-vs-video/

https://www.lightillusion.com/data_legal_levels.html

Note especially the color range is identical for both the 32-235 and 0-255 luminance scales. As a further suggestion, perhaps instead of rushing out and buying a new camera you could check your footage with MediaInfo, which will identify if it's full or limited, and then compare that with your scopes.

Re: Camcorder 16-235
 

My scope has been extensively tested in many different ways including checking the input file using MediaInfo and the ffmpeg scope. It works flawlessly. MediaInfo does not tell you the maximum and minimum Y, U and V values in a file; my program does.

You still don't seem to grasp the fundamentals of pulse-code modulation and digital video and the applicable standards, sorry.

Re: Camcorder 16-235
 

So you still recommend this camera to him while you do know his current camera's already meet his only requirement, yet you expect me to

Not sure how anyone can take you seriously...you might want to look into the mirror to see what a troll actually looks like.

Re: Camcorder 16-235
 

If you are so sure about your own findings then do like Rainer suggested and get a camera where you can set the scale to 16-235 and then prove he is wrong.

Re: Camcorder 16-235
 

Enough out of you.

Stow it, please.

Re: Camcorder 16-235
 

I'm kinda impressed myself!

(backs away slowly)

Andrew

Re: Camcorder 16-235
 

Well, good luck in finding answers to your questions with that kind of attitude.

Re: Camcorder 16-235
 

He probably isn't buying any camera least of all one that anyone else suggests. Like I said before internet forums are for arguing and debating.

Re: Camcorder 16-235
 

Noa, he's not looking for any real answers and hasn't expressed a scrap of gratitude for other people taking the time to offer help. Not even to Chris Young, who went way beyond the call of duty with his lengthy reply. People like him think they knows everything already and just want to argue when presented with facts. If he is so smart, it makes you wonder why he even posted in the first place where he's sure to only get half-assed suggestions from morons like us.

Re: Camcorder 16-235
 

Agree, seems to be just here for a technical discussion, I tried to give some helpful feedback but looks like he doesn't appreciate anything and is not willing to accept anything from anyone. Well, I"m out, wasted enough time. :)

Re: Camcorder 16-235
 

What has not been metioned I don't think is why such a specific specification and what is the purpose, and also to video what that requires that output.

Having had 3 different camcorders over the past 12 years I find it hard to justify a particular requirement.

Re: Camcorder 16-235
 

He was just a troll that has since moved on. Good riddance.

Re: Camcorder 16-235