Resolution "fine line": Video Camera -> Monitor

Discussion in 'Amateur Video Production' started by Darren Harris, Nov 6, 2003.

  1. Can anyone tell me where the fine line is for digital video camera
    resolution as far as camera hardware when one needs the maximum
    quality one can get on a computer monitor?

    In other words, above what video camera resolution would be considered
    overkill for just pc viewing?

    And am I correct in assuming that any decent analog camera(using
    something like "Dazzle creator 80" or an "ATI All-In-Wonder Pro
    8megs(PCI)") would be more than what I'd need in order to get the best
    video I can get for viewing on a pc monitor?

    Thanks a lot.

    Darren Harris
    Staten Island, New York.
    Darren Harris, Nov 6, 2003
    1. Advertisements

  2. Since a computer monitor can show every one of the pixels
    in the digital video camera's image, and the DV image will
    have higher pixel resolution than most analogue capture
    devices provide, the answer is: the highest resolution digital
    video camera you can get, used with a digital capture card
    (these are now often very cheap) - though if you deinterlace
    the video image for computer-viewing, this can affect the
    result and the answer...
    David Ruether, Nov 7, 2003
    1. Advertisements

  3. Darren Harris

    Samuel Paik Guest

    I've owned a monitor capable of displaying 1600x1200 since the
    mid-90s (back when 21" monitors weren't cheap!) This is far higher
    than NTSC or PAL is capable of representing, much less any standard
    definition video camera is able to capture. It works pretty well
    as an HDTV monitor, although it isn't able to display all that a
    1080 line broadcast is able to represent.

    Samuel Paik, Nov 7, 2003
  4. So basically, my analog video camera can never produce as much display
    information as a digital video camera, and the highest resolution
    digital video camera one can get still cannot take full advantage of
    what a 1900 x 1200 computer monitor is capable of, correct?

    How do the answers change when considering a different kind of
    display.(ie: TV monitor).

    Thanks a lot.

    Darren Harris
    Staten Island, New York.
    Darren Harris, Nov 8, 2003
  5. Darren Harris

    Samuel Paik Guest

    Which analog video camera? Which digital video camera? Probably your
    camera is better than some and worse than others, but without knowing
    more how can I possibly tell?

    You are asking a rather vague questions about subjects which don't
    necessarily have simple or precise answers.

    Samuel Paik, Nov 8, 2003
  6. Actually, I thought that I was pretty clear. This is about the "state
    of the art".

    All I wanted to know was what resolution would a digital(or analog)
    video camera have to be to be considered overkill for a computer

    But from what I'm told in this thread, neither of those two video
    camera standards can output the resolution necessary to push the
    envelop on a computer monitor.

    Darren Harris
    Staten Island, New York.
    Darren Harris, Nov 8, 2003
  7. Not necessarily. The very best analogue cameras can produce a fine
    picture with high resolution - but the low-end analogue capture cards
    I think you mentioned may be limited to 704 pixels H rather than the
    720 of FireWire cards. And many DV cameras have fairly low
    Yes, at least for Mini-DV and similar - the resolution is limited to
    720x480 by the medium specifications (though it is generally lower
    in terms of actual picture TV-resolution).
    Many cannot display even the 540 TV-lines of the best Mini-DV.
    A TV is less sharp than a computer monitor, but it is set up to
    properly display interlaced TV; computer monitors can display
    the full resolution of the captured video, but generally cannot
    display the interlacing properly, giving poor motion-video unless
    the interlacing is compensated-for...
    David Ruether, Nov 8, 2003
  8. I'll try asking this question another way.

    IF you had a 21", 1900 x 1200 capable computer monitor, that you
    wanted to view the best quality video you could, what video camera
    hardware would you need, and what would be the resolution?(I am
    assuming that the video camera needed for "film-like" quality would be
    different than that needed for "video-like" quality).


    Darren Harris
    Staten Island, New York.
    Darren Harris, Nov 10, 2003
  9. Darren Harris

    FLY135 Guest

    FLY135, Nov 10, 2003
  10. Instead of springing for such expensive video cameras, is it possible
    to get higher resolution by using stop-motion photography and linking
    the images together to create a video?

    It looks as though I should stick with working with standard
    resolution (25") analog monitors. They are relatively cheap, and
    should give me a good picture if I feed them a decent signal. Of
    course, I will have to use a "digital to analog" converter since the
    output will be coming from a pc, and I hope that dual monitor support
    will still work with this, so that I can run two of these analog
    monitors(or perhaps one analog along with one digital monitor) at the
    same time if I have to.

    ***Now all I have to do is find out what the "fine-line" is for
    resolution as far as getting the best picture on an monitor, so I
    won't end up going overboard on camera hardware. Does anyone have an
    idea what that resolution would be?

    Thanks a lot.

    Darren Harris
    Staten Island, New York.
    Darren Harris, Nov 13, 2003
  11. Okay, are there any sites that have charts/graphs indicating the
    relationship between the various formats and hardware as far as

    Thanks a lot.

    Darren Harris
    Staten Island, New York.
    Darren Harris, Nov 25, 2003
  12. Consumer/Prosumer analog only cards can range from NTSC 608x456 to 704x480.
    DV cards are always NTSC 720x480. Then you have the true broadcast quality
    cards at 720x486. You won't find capture at higher resolutions until you buy
    some form of HD card. High end broadcast quality cards can include:
    composite - the lowest form input, S-Video - which is next in line,
    Component - which is much better, and Serial Digital Interface - the
    highest. Overall both Component (when gained from a superior tape format and
    not some GoVideo deck with component output on it) and Serial Digital are
    far better than 1394. They are both able to place more image information in
    the video stream which is true uncompressed frames. 1394 is locked at just
    under 4MB/sec at 5:1 where the uncompressed stream is closer to 1:1 with a
    starting data rate of around 28MB/sec.

    The best you will ever get is going to be your source coupled with the
    choice of input editing card. Naturally the better the camcorder the better
    the quality of image over 1394, but even an old VHS camera output would
    remain about the same if component were used for input.

    Larry Johnson
    Digital Video Solutions
    "We Know NLE Better Than Dell or Gateway Ever Will!"
    877-227-6281 Toll Free Sales Advice
    386-672-1941 Customer Service Line
    386-672-1907 Technical Support Line
    386-676-1515 Fax Line
    Larry Johnson, Nov 25, 2003
  13. Thanks.

    I guess there are no charts/graphs for this stuff yet.

    Anyway, obviously the display is no where near where the bottleneck
    would be, and it appears that video card is what I'd have to worry
    about first.

    Is a "serial digital" editing card available at the consumer level?
    And if so, what kind of data stream can I expect, and would the card
    still be the bottleneck as opposed to the video camera?

    P.S: From your numbers, there doesn't seem to be a big different
    between a top end NTSC and a DV card. And between a DV card and a
    "true broadcast quality" card. But I guess the numbers don't tell the
    whole story.


    Darren Harris
    Staten Island, New York.
    Darren Harris, Dec 15, 2003
  14. Darren, first NTSC is the video standard used here in America. All our
    video, whether captured using 1394, serial digital, component, or composite,
    is NTSC. You said that from my numbers there doesn't seem to be a big
    difference between DV and "true broadcast quality" - this is true only if
    you are looking at the resolutions, i.e. 720x480 vs. 720x486. DV has a much
    lower data rate at just under 4MB/sec where uncompressed video is around
    28MB/sec. Given this a single minute of DV is about 232MB whereas one minute
    of uncompressed video is about 1.6GB.

    One can work with DV using a generic 1394 card for as little as $15-20, and
    uncompressed starting around $2000. Once you add the feature of serial
    digital interface another $1500-1800 is added to the score, not to mention
    having to have the proper equipment to feed in the SDI signal. Then on top
    of that you need the proper hard drives to allow you to work with the video.
    Particularly if you want a render free realtime editing system.

    The dpsVelocity is a card offering add-ons digital interface and serial
    digital interface. The card starts at the dpsVelocity 2D for just under
    $2800 which comes with a break-out cable. Then there is the dpsVelocity 3D
    which comes with a the cable for capture from composite, component, and
    s-video for just under $4900. Then there is the dpsVelocity 3D DX for just
    under $5000 which has a break-out box offering all the previously listed
    analog inputs and outputs plus nearly every other conceivable analog type
    audio input and output. Now, on top of that there is a DV I/O add-on for
    $2000 and an SDI add-on for $1500. Or you can purchase them together for
    about $2900.

    Then you just have to add this to the proper system with an approved VGA
    card along with the hard drives and proper cameras, decks, etc. mentioned
    above, and you're good to go.
    Larry Johnson, Dec 15, 2003
  15. Darren Harris

    RGBaker Guest

    Darren, first NTSC is the video standard used here in America. All our
    Implicit in this statement is the (false) assumption that 'true broadcast
    quality' is uncompressed. Though uncompressed video is one path to
    broadcast, in fact a tremendous amount of production is performed using a
    degree of compression, whether the mild compression of DigiBeta, the modest
    compression of Digital-S & DVCPro50, or the acceptable compression of
    DVCPro, DVCam & DV. Note too that all but DigiBeta use a vertical
    resolution of 480 -- and are still entirely suitable for broadcast.

    Even those that would count analog source as 'uncompressed' -- which it is,
    though bandwidth limiting amounts to the same restrictions -- would
    typically apply compression during the NLE phase ... it is entirely possible
    to use Avid with 'uncompressed' files, but so too is it common to apply
    compression during the digitization phase.

    RGBaker, Dec 15, 2003
  16. I wish there were an easier way to learn how to be a compressionist.

    One of my goals([rojects) is to achieve at least VHS quality on a 25
    inch monitor while using simple real-time editing.

    Just multiple videos overlapping, changing direction, and changing
    size. Nothing complex like rendering.

    So it seems that there will be no getting around paying a lot for a
    high end video card. But the other hardware shouldn't be a problem
    from what I can see.

    Darren Harris
    Staten Island, New York.
    Darren Harris, Dec 22, 2003
  17. ????????
    If you are using a DV camcorder, "perfect" transfer to computer
    is as little as $15 away (a TI-chipset FireWire card); if analogue,
    decent cards are maybe $150 or so...(?)
    David Ruether, Dec 22, 2003
  18. ????????
    Perhaps my understanding of the definition of "real-time" is different
    from others.

    I'm talking about to doing real-time editing on already captured video
    that will be stored on my hard drives, and worked on in ram-disks.

    Darren Harris
    Staten Island, New york.
    Darren Harris, Dec 22, 2003
  19. Darren Harris

    RGBaker Guest

    Perhaps my understanding of the definition of "real-time" is different
    Perhaps it is -- what does that have to do with your Firewire transfer
    capability, or your analog to digital conversion requirements?

    This is a good place to gain information, but you seem to be talking through
    your hat ...

    RGBaker, Dec 23, 2003
  20. Actually, you had gone off course with your "broadcast quality"

    I was originaly asking about resolution as far as hardware, and those
    camera -> capture card -> display questions were answered. I
    originally didn't mention the storage part for reasons of
    simplicity.(Anyway, I gather that the hardware needed to do NLE under
    these circumstances is way out of my price range).

    Now I'm attempting to get answers concerning "real-time" editing on
    *already captured video*. Specifically, from hard drive/ram -> video
    card -> display.(I said ram bcause like I mentioned, I want to work
    out of ram-disks for speed reasons).

    Also, I'm just not familiar with how much the role of the video card
    changes between "camera to display" and "hard/ram drive to display".
    Specifically when NLE is injected into the equation.

    The most important thing I've learned is that 28mbs would be needed
    "to the display(25 inch monitor)". But now I have to consider adding
    in the simple real-time NLE I mentioned to this process.


    Darren Harris
    Staten Island, New York.
    Darren Harris, Dec 24, 2003
    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.