Curious Discovery

Discussion in 'Amateur Video Production' started by Karl Engel, Feb 3, 2004.

  1. Karl Engel

    Karl Engel Guest

    I've been experimenting with caturing AVIs direct to hard drive from
    my Sony TRV-33 camera instead of to tape.
    I found when the camera is set to Memory Stick mode (but not recording
    to MS)the output to the computer appears to be at the same resolution
    as when set to Camera mode, but the colours are richer and the lens is
    significantly more wide angle.
    Both AVIs play back at 720x576 (according to CinePlayer) and create
    the same sized files, but look vastly different. Why would this be?
     
    Karl Engel, Feb 3, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Since you're capturing in Still mode - at least, that's what the camera
    thinks - you're gaining
    more pixels frpom edge to edge of the chip since the image stabilisation is
    not in use, hence the
    wider angle.

    Robin.
     
    Robin Davies-Rollinson, Feb 3, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Karl Engel

    Karl Engel Guest

    Wow. So if I decided to film a short(OK I'd probably hire a 3-chip,
    but anyway)and was going to use a tripod for every shot and wanted to
    extract every last pixel of quality out of the camera, this would be
    the way to video it. Direct to laptop in Memory Stick mode? Kinda like
    a mini-mini-mini Russian Ark (without the single-shot, steadicam,
    universal critical acclaim etc!)

    BUT... Memory stick mode also videos MPEGs as well as stills; so why
    would they design it so that the image stabilizer doesn't work in MPEG
    mode? The width of view doesn't change between stills & MPEGs.

    This explains the diff between pixels and "effective" pixels, then.
    Sorry, gotta lot of catching up to do.

    Hey, while Im asking dumb questions, some people seem really adamant
    that replies should be bottom-posted, not top. That's fine, but isn't
    it a hassle for all the people using Google as a reader on long posts?
    The bottom frequently gets chopped off, & the sense of a post is
    always clear from the previous ones. Plus a lot more scrolling is
    needed to get to the relevant bit.
     
    Karl Engel, Feb 4, 2004
    #3
  4. Karl Engel

    Deco_time Guest

    If peoples would edit their reply to only include what they are replying to,
    like this, there wouldn't be any problems. As it is now, with peoples top
    posting or bottom posting and including 30 pages of irrelevant post in their
    reply,even with a dedicated newsreader it's getting harder and harder to
    make sense of it all. I've seen post where 78 lines of different prior post
    are cited and then "Me too" added at the bottom; In a case like this, I
    guess top posting would be more appropriate.
     
    Deco_time, Feb 4, 2004
    #4
  5. Karl Engel

    Jukka Aho Guest

    The most appropriate way would have been not to post at all. No-one
    needs "me too" messages.

    In any message where the previous post is quoted _in its entirety_
    (without trimming it down), the quoted part is irrelevant and
    should not be there at all, as it offers no information on what
    part of the original message one is commenting.
     
    Jukka Aho, Feb 4, 2004
    #5
  6. The memory-mode (still mode) is optimized for stills; the video
    mode is optimized for TV-viewing. If you play the still-mode video
    on a TV (or just hook the TV up directly to the camcorder in still
    mode for viewing), the image will not look right on TV, and motion
    effects will be annoying...
     
    David Ruether, Feb 4, 2004
    #6
  7. Karl Engel

    Eric R. Guest

    Amen!

    -Eric
     
    Eric R., Feb 4, 2004
    #7
  8. Karl Engel

    DavesVideo Guest

    Eric said:
    "Amen", in some churches is added, by the congregation, to the preachers
    coments to express agreement. Very much like saying "me too". So to the issue
    of disagreement with the "me too" messages, let me add "me too".



    Dave
    http://members.tripod.com/~VideoDave
     
    DavesVideo, Feb 4, 2004
    #8
  9. Karl Engel

    Eric R. Guest

    Ditto.

    -Eric
     
    Eric R., Feb 6, 2004
    #9
  10. Karl Engel

    Smaug69 Guest

    Whoooooosh!

    Smaug69
     
    Smaug69, Feb 6, 2004
    #10
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.