The 480 lines are a standard the horizontal resolution can change per source.
The 480 lines are interlaced so there are 240 on the screen EVERY field (2 fields for every frame), but the resolution should read 480.
Actually it's 525 but only 480 are visable.
The horizontal resolution for DVD is max 720.
For digital broadcasts arround 640-720 depending on the source and bandwidth.
This is the most used table by the way:
ANALOGUE broadcast NTSC 270x486
Laserdisch 460x480
Betamax arround 250 and 285 for superbeta (they were ahead of their time )
VHS 240x480
SVHS 400x480
SDTV digital video broadcasts 640-704
In Europe we don't have analogue broadcasts anymore for many years, it's all cable or digital, so I calculated for SDTV sorry
DrPablo wrote:
They might be using Cooke. I don't know squat about movie camera lenses, but Cooke makes lenses for both movie cameras and for large format cameras -- and their LF lenses are astounding.
Zeiss dominates the movie industry and their lenses for these applications often exceed $50,000 each. HDTV is a must for today's television technology. Now if they could only get some content worth watching. And our HDTV technology is now 1080i at best. I believe this gives 1920 by 1080 pixels of resolution.
Zeiss hasn't made LF lenses for a long time, and as far as I know Leica never has. There are a couple antique Zeiss LF lenses out there, but it's really not a name in LF. Schneider and Rodenstock are the German lensmakers for LF whose names are breathed with the same reverence as Zeiss and Leica. Nikon and Fuji are also among the elites of LF. I wonder why Leica stuck to microscopes and small format cameras and didn't venture any larger.
I couldn't help but go out today and try to create a 3D image, with this thread in mind.
This is a large format image on 8x10 inch Ilford HP5+ sheet film, shot with a Schneider 300mm Symmar and a wratten #47 blue filter, developed in PMK-Pyro. I scanned the negative through a glassine sleeve, so it's suboptimal, but it'll do.
Lovely shot - plenty of 3D effect. I must say though that I find tilted planes of focus quite unnatural - I think it actually detracts from a sense of reality, perhaps because eyes don't work like that.
The base, and even the near ground, catches atention and has 3D. But It detracts from the main subject, the angel, wich has no 3D, and gives the sensation that something is lacking. Perhaps color would have aided. I don't know.
Notice how the pillar, which is perspectivally behind the tree is nevertheless less blurred, because the lens is closer to film on that side. The overall effect is unsettling for me - my subliminal eye knows something isn't quite right. I think I would prefer a small enough aperture to keep the gravestone mostly in focus, and a more orthogonal rendition.
Reminds me of a shot I did where I wanted more depth of field on the foreground, but no more on the background. I shot a sequence while moving focus through the subject and then layered them on top of each other in photoshop and painted in detail from the various frames as required:
Interesting technique, Richard. Do you paint in the focus manually, in areas which you judge to be at certain distances, or is there some way to do it more automatically?
I paint it in by hand. Just line up all the layers as best you can at 50% transparency, option click the layer mask icon in the layers pallet for each layer to get a black layer mask, and then pick your layers and paint in what you want on top of the best layer. The x key flips between black and white paint so you can do/undo in a non-linear way. I didn't spend too much time on it, so if you look close at the full rez image you can find places where the blend is visible, but I have printed it to 30x40 inches and nobody noticed. At that size he kind of dominates the room ;)
Thanks for submitting your fine work to such a critical audience. Based on comments in this thread (particularly brainiac and Son), I interpreted the scene to accentuate 3-D qualities. I will, of course, remove the image on request...
Copyright Woody Spedden
In capturing the scene directly, I would use a wide aperture, and select a time of day when the canyon was in darkness and the ledge in oblique light.
I think the texture of the clip really pops out and it has an amazing 3D feeling. I didnīt see this at first but after looking a while it really pops.
My shot as you've picked up on is a quintessential view camera shot. I used Scheimpflug focusing principles using lens swing to have a sharp plane of focus along the facade of the gravestone.
pere marti wrote:
It detracts from the main subject, the angel, wich has no 3D, and gives the sensation that something is lacking.
This is mainly because I got hasty and showed you a scanned negative instead of a print.
The angel on top actually is just as textured and detailed as the rest, and perhaps more so, because it has both texture and shape. You can see it better on this crop from the negative scan. I needed to adjust levels after scanning the negative to evoke the scene contrast and that wipes out some highlight detail. But on the negative there is a ton of detail even in the brightest highlights, and this will print very easily, especially if I do a lith print. Once I make a contact print I'll scan it in. Again, the Scheimpflug focus effect is visible -- but it was either that or stop down more, which would have made the background sharper than I wanted.
By the way, those are two spiderwebs between the angel's head and wing. You can see it with the naked eye on the negative -- pretty cool.
DrPablo, I like this crop by itself a lot more than the full image. It is evocative and strong, accentuated by the (excessive?) contrast and specially the harsh lighting. Although not a good exemple of 3D: the shadows hardly draw the volume and the moss is spread everywhere so it is more difficult to identify surfaces.
carstenw wrote:
Interesting technique, Richard. Do you paint in the focus manually, in areas which you judge to be at certain distances, or is there some way to do it more automatically?
I posted this on the alternative image thread, where it was recommended I post it here as well. It's an example of the 3D look with the entire frame in focus. Nikon 28/4 shift+polarizer+2stop grad ND filter. Kodal SLR/c at ISO6 15sec f/16. One reason I like the Nikon 28/4 is for it's "look", which shows strongly here. For stopped down landscapes, I think the 3D look has to do with textures, contrast, and microcontrast.
pdmphoto wrote:
I posted this on the alternative image thread, where it was recommended I post it here as well. It's an example of the 3D look with the entire frame in focus. Nikon 28/4 shift+polarizer+2stop grad ND filter. Kodal SLR/c at ISO6 15sec f/16. One reason I like the Nikon 28/4 is for it's "look", which shows strongly here. For stopped down landscapes, I think the 3D look has to do with textures, contrast, and microcontrast.
I don't disagree with your comments at all. This is an outstanding example of what is trying to be demonstrated here with regard to 3D. I think the most compelling issue is that none of us have been able to articulate what causes the 3D effect. But when you see it, you know it is there
)
Based on comments in this thread (particularly brainiac and Son), I interpreted the scene to accentuate 3-D qualities. I will, of course, remove the image on request...