|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
September 1st, 2004, 12:36 PM
|
#1 |
|
Regular Crew
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Fairview,nj
Posts: 137
|
A question about the Pal XL2 CCD
The specs for the pal Xl2 say that in wide screen it uses 960 pixel horizontally, the NTSC model does too. So, there is no more pixels horizantally in the pal than in NTSC. However the Pal chip has 800,000 pixels per CCD while NTSC has 690,000. There has to be more pixels vertically (not that the pal needs anymore than the NTSC) in the Pal version. I already now the NTSC chip is 960x720, so what's the pal version's? All i can think of is that it is 960x850
|
|
|
|
September 1st, 2004, 04:12 PM
|
#2 |
|
Regular Crew
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Köln, NRW, Germany
Posts: 70
|
Pal has 576 and NTSC 480 vertical Pixel.
regards Daniel |
|
|
|
|
September 1st, 2004, 04:24 PM
|
#3 |
|
Regular Crew
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Fairview,nj
Posts: 137
|
I know that. I'm talking about the entire CCD Block not the video standard
|
|
|
|
|
September 1st, 2004, 04:28 PM
|
#4 |
|
Trustee
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posts: 1,727
|
If the PAL one has 800,000 pixels and it's still 960 wide then height must be 833.
Aaron |
|
|
|
|
September 2nd, 2004, 05:31 AM
|
#5 |
|
RED Code Chef
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Holland
Posts: 12,514
|
We know for sure that the NTSC chips have a certain area above
and below the "content" area that are not being read (to get a 16:9 CCD). I assume on PAL the content area is simply increased and the not used areas are decreased. That sounds like a simple and perfect workable plan to me. I don't think they would put different chips in there. Makes sense?
__________________
Rob Lohman, visuar@iname.com DV Info Wrangler & RED Code Chef Join the DV Challenge | Lady X Search DVinfo.net for quick answers | Buy from the best: DVinfo.net sponsors |
|
|
|
|
September 2nd, 2004, 07:54 AM
|
#6 |
|
Regular Crew
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Köln, NRW, Germany
Posts: 70
|
Hi Rob,
nice idee but this can not work. If "the content area is simply increased" its no longer 16:9 ratio. So it must be another chip used. regards Daniel |
|
|
|
|
September 2nd, 2004, 08:22 AM
|
#7 |
|
Trustee
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Saguenay, Québec, Canada
Posts: 1,051
|
If the total pixels count isn't the same, it can't be the same chip.
__________________
Jean-Philippe Archibald http://www.jparchibald.com - http://www.vimeo.com/jparchib |
|
|
|
|
September 2nd, 2004, 08:35 AM
|
#8 |
|
RED Code Chef
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Holland
Posts: 12,514
|
Jean-Philippe: I'm pretty sure they are talking about effective
pixel counts, not the maximum number of pixels on the CCD's. Daniel: yes it will due to pixel aspect ratio's. Ofcourse it will probably have a wider resolution as well to get the different PA in the first place. Then again it could be different chips as well. There also concerns for DoF and FoV, ofcourse.
__________________
Rob Lohman, visuar@iname.com DV Info Wrangler & RED Code Chef Join the DV Challenge | Lady X Search DVinfo.net for quick answers | Buy from the best: DVinfo.net sponsors |
|
|
|
|
September 2nd, 2004, 09:51 AM
|
#9 |
|
Regular Crew
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Köln, NRW, Germany
Posts: 70
|
I mean. If it is the same chip - it must be also the same pixel size. And so the content area can not in both case 16:9
regards Daniel |
|
|
|
|
September 2nd, 2004, 05:53 PM
|
#10 |
|
Obstreperous Rex
|
Different CCD's in the PAL XL2.
See this page for more info: http://www.dvinfo.net/canonxl2/articles/article06.php |
|
|
|
|
September 5th, 2004, 02:57 AM
|
#11 |
|
RED Code Chef
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Holland
Posts: 12,514
|
Thanks Chris! I somehow missed that.
__________________
Rob Lohman, visuar@iname.com DV Info Wrangler & RED Code Chef Join the DV Challenge | Lady X Search DVinfo.net for quick answers | Buy from the best: DVinfo.net sponsors |
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
|
||||||
|
|
