Re: NTSC-->DV-->MPEG ?
- From: "Ken Maltby" <kmaltby@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 15:27:44 -0600
"Richard Crowley" <rcrowley@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:11m9tf6rrhohm77@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> "Ken Maltby" wrote ...
>> It's not a matter of the "camera parts" but of the imaging
>> parts.
>
> Sorry, I don't see how substituting the phrase "imaging parts" for "camera
> parts" changes anything? Can you explain?
>
>> You see the same effect in the low light level performance of digital
>> cameras, when compared to that of film.
>
<Snip>
> Yes, the electronic noise of a video camera is different than the film
> noise (they call it "grain"), but IME my DSR-300 camera is far more
> sensitive and useful in low-light than any film cine camera.
>
Noise has nothing to do with it.
>> An analog imaging is closer to film, in this regard, than
>> a digital one.
>
> You may be confusing the artifacts of digitization and data
> compression with any differences between electronic (video) imaging vs.
> chemical (film) imaging. These artifacts disappear in the higher-end
> (less compressed) formats.
>
I'm not talking about "artifacts of digitization and data
compression". It is a matter of "differences between electronic
(video) imaging vs. chemical (film) imaging". Also, to a limited
extent the similar, if of a much lesser degree, differences
between analog and digital video formats.
Quoting from a review:
"When digital cameras first appeared on the market, the resolution
was pretty coarse. Digital cameras have improved tremendously in
that department and high-end digital cameras rival 35mm film for
image detail. The one area where digital camera sensors are left
behind is tonal range. Chemical film can have a range of tones that
covers hundreds or even thousands of times more variation from
dark to light.
In an image where film can capture shadow details while maintaining
highlights, a digital camera will show only black blotches for the
shadows and blown out bright spots.
Digital photography is great for a scene with nice bright and flat
lighting, but when it comes to the tough situations, film wins hands
down. A subject in the shade of a tree with bright sky in the
background will either have lots of the shadow detail lost, or the blue
sky will turn white in the digital rendition. Film can capture this scene
if photographed carefully. Where I still use a film camera is for
underwater photography. Catching the eel hiding under the
overhanging coral would be lost on a digital sensor. With film, you
can pull old Mr. Eel out of the darkness."
Now while this is for still camera work, the principles are
the same. It is most likely that, at least to some small extent,
the analog signal off a CCD retains some little bit more of the
tonal range than what is there after digitization. So it could be
"An analog imaging is closer to film, in this regard, than a digital
one", as I said.
Luck;
Ken
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: NTSC-->DV-->MPEG ?
- From: Richard Crowley
- Re: NTSC-->DV-->MPEG ?
- References:
- NTSC-->DV-->MPEG ?
- From: Robert Morein
- Re: NTSC-->DV-->MPEG ?
- From: Richard Crowley
- Re: NTSC-->DV-->MPEG ?
- From: Robert Morein
- Re: NTSC-->DV-->MPEG ?
- From: Mike Kujbida
- Re: NTSC-->DV-->MPEG ?
- From: Richard Crowley
- NTSC-->DV-->MPEG ?
- Prev by Date: Re: NTSC-->DV-->MPEG ?
- Next by Date: Re: Nero Ultra 7 rebate question
- Previous by thread: Re: NTSC-->DV-->MPEG ?
- Next by thread: Re: NTSC-->DV-->MPEG ?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
