don't you have compression when you export a frame to Bmp or jpeg? isn't that where its coming from? why don't you compare the frame export to a 32bit targa (.tga)?

erm,

there's no compression in a bitmap 24 bit - thats why its 6meg..

is it? ok.

just suggesting.


joel

Been lurking here. Is it positive that the analogue out is only 8-bit, has there many any spec sheet (of the chips and D/A convertor involved) to verify this, or test, could there be 10, 12 or 14 bits colour depth? And has there been any test to verify the resolution, where ever it is the native 960, or processed pixel shifted 1440, 1920, or 2880 at this stage of the pipeline? I say this because who knows what quality is being passed to the custom mpeg2 encoder chip to increase the quality of it's processing? Also has anybody tested the Signal to niose ratio of his stage to see what resolution and bit depth it is limited to?

Thanks

Wayne.

<<<-- Originally posted by Wayne Morellini : Been lurking here. -->>>

Hi Wayne.. that's okay, I've been lurking at your hang-outs... read that whole thread started by Obin in one afternoon... and backwards at that. Big headache. :)

Barry Green states from his tests that the vertical resolution when interlaced is around 800 lines. CF 25 or CF 30 (the in-camera "fake" progressive) he measures to approx 575 lines (more likely 540). Best guest is that CF delivers one single raw fields worth of rez. In interlaced mode, according to Barry, each field is fuzzed down a bit closer to 400 lines to prevent buzzing on interlaced displays.

As to the specs as measured "live" from the component out, I don't think anyone has done any qualitative work here. We're pretty lucky to have had anyone actually try what Kaku has tried. I sure intend to more, when I have my Z1 in hand.

Regards,

Jim Arthurs

The 775/800 in interlaced, and 575/540 in CF30, were measured from frame extractions from tape, not live, so no I don't know if the analog component out might be delivering more. We were monitoring on a large 36" HDTV, live, and I certainly don't remember it being higher, so I think those are probably pretty accurate.

As for horizontal resolution, I posted some res chart extractions here... it looks very clean at 800, and passably clean at 900 although maybe at 900 it crossed the threshold to "unresolved". It did seem like the live analog component looked acceptably clean even at 1000, but examining the tape it looks like 800 is the cleanest resolved resolution. So perhaps it is delivering more horizontal resolution at live analog component out, as opposed to the downsampled-to-1440 version on tape.

<<<-- Originally posted by Jim Arthurs : <<<-- Originally posted by Wayne Morellini : Been lurking here. -->>>

Hi Wayne.. that's okay, I've been lurking at your hang-outs... read that whole thread started by Obin in one afternoon... and backwards at that. Big headache. :) -->

Crazy, that thing is over 500 printed A4 pages ;)

Thanks

Barry, so the measuments of lines, is that actual pixel lines or Test Chart lines? I understasnd the measuments have changed since 4:3.

Is it delivering a 4:2:0, or 4:2:2 (or 4:4:4) through the analogue out, what does the monitor report?

Thanks

Wayne.

to John Jay
 

john,

is it possible to find somewhere kind of mirror of your previously mentioned link - which is now not working.

http://s17.yousendit.com/d.aspx?id=...TU1DGA089KLQNNC


thank you


filip

Sorry Filip,
Ive recycled it, maybe someone who downloaded it can help