What's the Kell factor in 720p

Tommy James · May 11th, 2005, 05:16 AM

Another example is that the JVC HD100 uses pixel shifting technology to generate the equivalent of 3 megapixel JPEG still images that can be shot continuously.

Graeme Nattress · May 11th, 2005, 06:09 AM

It doesn't matter what pattern it uses - it's still resolution reduced compared to a 3CCD solution. And all it takes is for you to look at the picture without any added electronic sharpness (oh dear, you can't) to see that it's soft and quite low rez.

I severely doubt that the benefits of 3ccds will be thrown away after compression, and indeed the HD100 looks just so much better than the HD1 or HD10.

Now don't get me wrong - I'm a strong supporter of single chip cameras, but they've got to have bigger chips, and they've got to have at least as many pixels on their one chip as the 3 chips would have in total. Do that, and you'd have a single chip camera that would be very superb indeed.

Graeme

Radek Svoboda · May 11th, 2005, 08:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Mullen

1080 x .7 is just over 700-lines. And 480 x.7 is about 340 which definitely is NTSC V rez. So the Kell seems accurate for both NTSC and 1080i. 720 x .7 is just over 504-lines.

Amazing they both come out to the same number!

Steve, are you trying say that it not matter if footage is progressive or interlaced, Kell factor of .7 is added to pixel count to get actual resolution?

That would make PAL DVD 504x336 lines, HD100 896x504, and HDCAM 1008x756 lines. Sony actually advertises 1000 lines on HDCAM.

I thought that you consider vertical resolution only as "the" resolution of camera.

I also thought 720-60p resolution is same as 1080i-60i resolution. Interlaced resolution must go down with movement, doesn't? Further decrease in resolution due to HDV MPEG2 processing.

May 11th, 2005, 06:09 AM	#32
Graeme Nattress RED Problem Solver Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Ottawa, Canada Posts: 1,365	It doesn't matter what pattern it uses - it's still resolution reduced compared to a 3CCD solution. And all it takes is for you to look at the picture without any added electronic sharpness (oh dear, you can't) to see that it's soft and quite low rez. I severely doubt that the benefits of 3ccds will be thrown away after compression, and indeed the HD100 looks just so much better than the HD1 or HD10. Now don't get me wrong - I'm a strong supporter of single chip cameras, but they've got to have bigger chips, and they've got to have at least as many pixels on their one chip as the 3 chips would have in total. Do that, and you'd have a single chip camera that would be very superb indeed. Graeme __________________ www.nattress.com - filters for FCP

May 11th, 2005, 05:16 AM	#31
Tommy James suspended -- contact admin Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 214	Another example is that the JVC HD100 uses pixel shifting technology to generate the equivalent of 3 megapixel JPEG still images that can be shot continuously.