dont understand the follow article: 9.2 mp versus 2mp which is it ??

[oduodui]

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/electronics-computers/audio-video/camcorders/hd-cam...0-99051299.htm

guys according to this article the sony hdr pj540 has a 9.2 megapixel censor.

but in this article the author claims that actual size is 2mp.

what is going on here ??

is it 9.2 or 2 megapixel .

i am very much a noob at all this.

please help.

thank you

[Cornucopia]

9.2Mpixel = Stills (JPG, RAW, etc)
2.0Mpixel= Video (MPG, MP4, AVI/MOV, etc)

Says it pretty clearly in the specs.

Scott

[oduodui]

thanks

what is considered to be to be the least mp requirement for shooting professional video ?? 10 mp or 12 mp ?? i dont think 2 mp is enough.

[Cornucopia]

You are mistaken. An HD video is 1920 (H) x 1080 (V). 1920pixels * 1080pixels = 2073600pixels = ~2Mpixels.

When shot & produced & displayed professionally, this is (usually) more than adequate for TV or Cinema.

Part of the need for greater pixel count has to do with better downtream edit/processing/compression robustness, part has to do with distribution on high dpi media (magazines, posters, billboards), but much has to do with inflated & oversimplified marketing hype. Also, stills don't have the sharpness benefit of what I will call "motion acuity".

Scott

[newpball]

Resolution is just one aspect, other things that are important are the glass, the dynamic range/number of stops, framerate and compression format used.

I'd say resolution wise the bare minimum for calling something professional is 1080/60P

[Cornucopia]

You would.
You realize don't you, @newpball, that this "minimum" you just invented invalidates all DCI 2k Flat (1.85:1)=1998x1080/24P and all DCI 2k Scope (your beloved 2.39:1)=2048x858/24P movies?
You start with a few good things to say and then blurt out a whole bunch of inanity. One step forward, 2 steps back.

Scott

[newpball]

You realize don't you, @newpball, that this "minimum" you just invented invalidates all DCI 2k Flat (1.85:1)=1998x1080/24P and all DCI 2k Scope (your beloved 2.39:1)=2048x858/24P movies?

Seriously, which serious videographer under 30 would in 2015 want to make stuttery 24p movies while 50/60p (or 48p) is readily available?

They won't unless they have to by insistence of senior 'experts' and executives who think that 24p is some golden number.

In 2015 high frame rate is obviously the road to follow, while 24p is mostly for nostalgists.

[Cornucopia]

Serious videographers know how to make 24p movies that don't "stutter".

Movies shown in DCI theatres (the great majority of commercial theatres in US now) can only be shown at 24p (or, with a few exceptions, at 48p). Not counting TODD-AO, or Showscan, there is no such thing as commercial 60p cinema yet. So, yes, 24p is a golden number if you want to get some gold for making your movie, instead of just personal satisfaction. Even Jackson, Spielburg, Katzman & Cameron have only experimented with 48p. Maybe in 20 years- you just need to pull a Rip Van Winkle.

Scott

[newpball]

... Jackson, Spielberg, Katzman & Cameron ....

Yes, they are all young energetic trendsetters........

[Cornucopia]

OK, name ONE "young energetic trendsetter" shooting 60P, who has had a hit/popular (cinema) movie. "Put up or shut up".

Scott

[newpball]

You got to be realistic, even Spielberg who was exceptional even when he was young only made his first big hit when he was 30. Most successful filmmakers score at a later age.

[Cornucopia]

You're the one who is not being realistic. Still waiting...

[jagabo]

9.2Mpixel = Stills (JPG, RAW, etc)
2.0Mpixel= Video (MPG, MP4, AVI/MOV, etc)

Says it pretty clearly in the specs.

Yes. And it also clearly states:

Note that the top resolution still photo is interpolated, which means more pixels have been artificially added to the image file. The largest uninterpolated image file is 2 megapixels.

Meaning the sensor is 2 MP and the 9 MP images are just upscaled from that.

[newpball]

DCI 2k Flat...DCI 2k Scope

Film theaters will make millions if they keep sticking to this 'high end' format.

They won't by the way, apparently to the chagrin of many VideoHelp Forum conservationist members.

[Cornucopia]

9.2Mpixel = Stills (JPG, RAW, etc)
2.0Mpixel= Video (MPG, MP4, AVI/MOV, etc)

Says it pretty clearly in the specs.

Yes. And it also clearly states:

Note that the top resolution still photo is interpolated, which means more pixels have been artificially added to the image file. The largest uninterpolated image file is 2 megapixels.

Meaning the sensor is 2 MP and the 9 MP images are just upscaled from that.

Miss that part. Sorry.

However, a look at the back of the manual says that the sensor max is 9.2Mpixels, yet the "gross" is 2.5Mpixels. And using BIONZ-X image processor. I'm guessing 1st one is the actual # of sensor wells and the 2nd is processed/Debeyered, then it's reduced again slightly to cover image stabilization. That makes more sense.

Regardless, if the OP is intending to shoot video, 2Mpixel (1080) is to be expected anyway.

Scott

[lordsmurf]

Resolution is just one aspect,

Sensor size is not resolution.

Megapixels are generally just marketing, and means almost nothing without knowing the sensor size.

other things that are important are the glass

For once, you're correct. (But even a broken clock is correct twice a day.)

[newpball]

Resolution is just one aspect,

Sensor size is not resolution.

Yes, it's also not chicken soup....your point is?

[hello_hello]

DCI 2k Flat...DCI 2k Scope

Film theaters will make millions if they keep sticking to this 'high end' format.

They won't by the way, apparently to the chagrin of many VideoHelp Forum conservationist members.

I see newpball is off his medication again.

I prefer higher frame rates myself. Not necessarily for watching a movie in a theatre, but for watching it on a TV, because a TV displays the image in a different way, and that can make motion appear less smooth.

I've read lots and lots of opinions regarding The Hobbit at 48fps, and the number one criticism of it seems to be it's too real and that makes it seem like you're on a film set and not that it makes the film set look more realistic. And I can actually relate to that (even though I've not seen the Hobbit because it exceeds my boredom tolerance) because I do something similar now even just watching TV at home. Every so often my brain turns a scene into a film set and I start thinking about what the set's made of and what's happening outside the camera frame.....

I watched the documentary Side By Side a little while ago (about the transition to digital) and while I think some directors are hanging on to the past a bit too tightly I remember one comment along the lines of "there's a layer between the audience and the actors, and that's the film itself", and being a fan of digital I thought that odd at first but I kind of get it now, and to a certain extent the same applies to the frame rate.

One of my favourite TV shows (The Walking Dead) is shot on 16mm film. I hate it. It's too grainy, not quite high resolution enough (although admittedly I've seen 16mm that looks much better) but they chose to shoot it that way for the look, and when it comes down to it I'm not going to not watch it because it's 16mm at 24fps. One of my favourite movies (Primer) is horrible and grainy and 16mm. What we need is more really good content, not another POS like Avatar shot in 3D at 48fps because that'll just make it another 48fps, 3D POS. My God...... how is that POS being extrapolated into a second movie?

The reality of it is, for viewing a movie in a theatre, a lot of people simply prefer 24fps. That may change over time, but meanwhile the chances are fairly good a lot of professionals are going to keep producing content that way.

What the Critics Are Saying About The Hobbit’s High Frame Rate

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Masterclass in Why 48 FPS Fails

[Cornucopia]

I find the discussion on HFR here:https://library.creativecow.net/kaufman_debra/Viewing-The-Hobbit-HFR/1 much more considered & balanced.

Scott

[hello_hello]

I have no doubt there's a bit of "getting used to it' involved (I haven't read that review fully yet but I will). Even when watching interlaced PAL on my Plasma, which is de-interlaced to 50p, I sometimes find it has a soap opera effect at first, but then after a while it becomes normal and going back to 24fps can seem a little odd. Mostly for me though, that's due to the sample and hold effect you get from modern TVs that can make motion at certain speeds look "jittery" (I think it's the sample and hold effect causing that, I can't remember exactly).

Anyway, I've never seen a HFR video in a Cinema so Il can't offer an opinion based on experience there, although in principle I like the idea. Maybe the first time I see one I'll go all newpall and anything with a frame rate lower than 48p will be for stuffy engineers with an interlacing fixation and job security issues, or however it works.....

[oduodui]

thanks for all the replies

so what setting on the this video camera will reproduce a video that is the closest to the raw output of the image processor ??

it has four quality settings and then you can choose between 25p 50 i and 50p ?

what settings will produce the a video image closest to the raw signal or which one received the least processing ???

[Cornucopia]

As per p.243 of the manual:

High definition image quality (HD):
-PS: Max. 28 Mbps 1,920x1,080 pixels/16:9

That's the best quality available, though still using compressed AVC (which is hardly anywhere near "RAW" - not available for your cam anyway).

For motion:

• 50p is the best (though it will tax your processor more)
• 50i is ~nearly as good motion-wise and is much easier processor-wise and is a very common standard, though it is interlaced and that has its own set of detractors
• 25p is good for more common web use, and is progressive like 50p, but it has only 1/2 the motion of the other 2 and so looks more stuttery and/or blurry

Scott

[oduodui]

thanks

Scott

i really appreciate it.