|
|||||||||
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
April 16th, 2011, 05:21 AM | #46 |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Boca Raton, FL
Posts: 3,014
|
Re: F3 BBC Report
You basically say that in the post below, and perhaps other places:
http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/sony-avc...ml#post1639132 |
April 16th, 2011, 08:10 AM | #47 |
Major Player
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 628
|
Re: F3 BBC Report
I'm not trying to start a fight so I'll stay out of this...
Someone did find this about the sensor. It mentions gross pixel count vs effective. It is talking about the FS100 but still they both use the same sensor. page 4. http://www.sony.co.uk/res/attachment...7480643259.pdf
__________________
EX3, Q6600 Quad core PC - Vista 64, Vegas 8.1 64bit, SR11 b-cam |
April 16th, 2011, 08:59 AM | #48 |
Trustee
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Sherman Oaks, CA
Posts: 1,259
|
Re: F3 BBC Report
There is just too much confusion surrounding this sensor to know for sure.
What are "effective pixels?" Why is the pixel count "approx.?" Are "pixels" the same as photosites? This sensor could be anything, and convincing arguments have been made which run the gamut.
__________________
Avid Media Composer 3.1.3. Boris Red and Continuum Complete. Vegas 8.0c. TMPGEnc Xpress Pro 4.0 |
April 16th, 2011, 03:41 PM | #49 | |
HDV Cinema
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 4,007
|
Re: F3 BBC Report
Quote:
Effective pixels of moving pictures in 16:9 Approx. 3,370,000 pixels Effective pixels of moving pictures in 4:3 Approx. 2,530,000 pixels While many have assumed pixels are photosites, there are reasons to think this is not true: Juan say's the image is "grossly" over-sampled. There's nothing grossly over sampeled with 3.37MPixels if the photosite count is only 3.53 million. PS: from the same PDF: The sensor also features an optimum number of effective pixels for shooting HD moving images. At a high 50fps in >>> all-pixel scan mode <<<, this allows images to be captured with less color aliasing, jaggedness and rolling shutter than DSLR cameras, while providing the sensitivity to shoot at a minimum illumination of 0.28lux.
__________________
Switcher's Quick Guide to the Avid Media Composer >>> http://home.mindspring.com/~d-v-c |
|
April 17th, 2011, 04:14 AM | #50 |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Bracknell, Berkshire, UK
Posts: 4,957
|
Re: F3 BBC Report
With regard to sensitivity, I don't think we can draw any meaning full conclusions over pixel size from sensitivity alone. There are far too many other factors that can skew any conclusions, Q-factor, gain settings and noise reduction, microlense size and usage, binning etc etc.
The F3's effective resolution does seem to tie in quite well with what I would expect from a 3.3MP Bayer sensor. If it really was using 4800 x 2700 I would have expected higher measured resolution. Bottom line: It does produce a good image in the real world.
__________________
Alister Chapman, Film-Maker/Stormchaser http://www.xdcam-user.com/alisters-blog/ My XDCAM site and blog. http://www.hurricane-rig.com |
April 19th, 2011, 03:09 AM | #51 | |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Belfast, UK
Posts: 6,151
|
Re: F3 BBC Report
Quote:
Apparently, about 60% of delivered programmes have an issue of some sort. The reasons vary from not having the right paperwork to needing to re-shoot material because they used the wrong codec for more than 25% of the programme or post workflow issues. Any variation from the 25% needs to be discussed and to be justified eg the use of archival material. That's how it stands for HD at the present time. Perhaps they may reduce the quality standards in the future, but the impression was they weren't going to let these standards slip.. |
|
April 19th, 2011, 11:23 AM | #52 | |
Wrangler
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 2,100
|
Re: F3 BBC Report
Quote:
I've had a lot of my deliverables go through an outfit in Burbank called DVS, which does QC, encoding and vaulting for a lot of content producers, and the reports I've seen (i.e., the jobs that got rejected) are definitely machine generated with a human running it (human written notes in the comments beside each line item violation). But nothing that sounded like "spectrum analyzer" that could somehow divine what codecs were used before a master was made.
__________________
My Work: nateweaver.net |
|
April 19th, 2011, 11:48 AM | #53 |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Belfast, UK
Posts: 6,151
|
Re: F3 BBC Report
That's the term the BBC guru used. I suspect it's a similar device to the one that I linked to earlier in the thread.
http://www.cnrood.com/PHP/files/vide...nix-PQA500.pdf There was a mixed range of people at the talk, so I guess it was just a catch all term for a piece of test equipment. They sounded confident about being able to spot non spec video content, which may or may not be the case 100% of the time in practise. Certainly, he said HD programmes have been failed. It could be also be due to issues somewhere else in the chain, because post workflow was also mentioned in connection to this. Of course, it could just be a virtual transmission chain that pushes the master to the limits, so that the compression errors in the workflow start to show up. |
| ||||||
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|