Resample vertical resolution

Labview gurus,
Here's the problem:
I am currently collecting photoacoustic waveforms from my PXI-5152 using an ultrasonic transducer and I am normalizing the output by measuring the laser energy photoacoustically using another ultrasonic transducer. Mathematically, I am taking Voltage (experiment) /Voltage (laser energy) and then I am plotting this vs. angle of incidence so that I can get photoacoustic signals from a material at varying angles of incidence.
Essentially, this gives me an inverse curve for Fresnel reflection as shown here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fresnel_reflection.svg (So I get transmission instead of reflection, etc.)
What I've noticed is that at higher angles of incidence (i.e. smaller photoacoustic signal since there is more reflected light) I seem to have a less noisy curve than I do at lower angles of incidence. I realized that this may have to do with the fact that the number of digitization levels (8 bit digitizer at 100 mV range so each level is 0.390625 mV) changes dramatically since at lower angles my signals are ~100 mV (~256 levels) and at higher angles my signals are ~10 mV (~25 levels). This suggests to me that the lower noise I observe at higher angles has more to do with digitization error than anything.
Question: How can I use Labview to make the acquisition of voltage levels equal for different voltages? For example, if I wanted both 100 mV and 10 mV to be displayed by 25 levels as opposed to how it is now?
At first, it might seem counterintuitive to want less resolution for some of the measured voltages, but the issue is that I am using a curve fitting algorithm over all the points and I would like to keep the error approximately consistent in % over the range since this will affect the curve fitting, etc.
So, how do I do this? Btw, not that anyone would care, but I just graduated with a PhD in Bioengineering, so huzzah, one more engineer has entered the world.

A simple mask of the lowest bit would sound likely.
A demo of a sliding mask would be in order I guess. the larger the value the more bits get masked off.
Spoiler (Highlight to read)
I can't wait to find this on the RG thread but the functionality is fairly easy to follow.
I can't wait to find this on the RG thread but the functionality is fairly easy to follow.
Jeff

Similar Messages

Vertical resolution

Hi everybody,
I have a couple of clips where a button on the Canon XM1 was moved to FRAME, which improved the vertical resolution by 1.5x. Which now is a flicker in the footage.
Any idea how to get rid of this or tone it down?

So if the vertical resolution was increased by 1.5%, that means the footage is 720x720 and the whole image is stretched vertically? I'd say to distort the vertical parts of the video in the motion tab. As far as the flicker, I don't know how you'd get rid of that.
Good Luck,
-Brian

How do I export jpgs as tifs with the original resolution ?

Hi,
I am very new to Lightroom 5 (I only installed it today (on Windows 8.1) :-)) but I have read Victoria Bampton's Quick Start Guide and have read a number of forum posts over the last few weeks to get an idea about how the program generally works.
I am embarking on a project to scan and archive my family's photos and videos, and I will be using Lightroom to manage the collection. To start the project, I have just imported over 10,000 digital photos taken by a variety of cameras (36 of them, according to Lightroom !) over the last 12 years or so into a new Lightroom catalogue.   These are all currently JPEG files, but I want to keep TIFF files in the collection because my research has led me to the conclusion that TIFF is a better long-term archival format.
I started by doing an Export of a small number of photos to save the .jpg files as .tif files, but when reviewing the results, I noticed that the image's resolution was changed during the export. For example, one original jpg is only 96ppi but the exported tif is 240ppi. Another jpg is 180ppi and the tif is 240ppi. At least, that's what the metadata seems to be telling me (via the Details tab of the Properties dialog in Windows), so I assume it's true...
I understand that the 240ppi that I am seeing in the .tif file metadata was specified in the Image Sizing section of the Export dialog, so that's not the issue.
I would prefer it if the .tif file has the exact same resolution (ppi) as the original .jpg, but I am unable to work out how to do it.   It would be great if the resolution setting in the Export dialog was controlled by the Resize to Fit checkbox, like the other settings in the section, but it doesn't appear to be (it's enabled even if the Resize to Fit checkbox is unticked).
I then thought about using the Library Filters to filter by the Horizontal Resolution metadata, so that I could select all the photos with the same resolution and export just those with the Resolution setting in the Export dialog set to the right number, and then repeat that process for each different group of original photos with a different resolution. Unfortunately, I have not been able to work out how to filter by the horizontal resolution metadata field - it doesn't seem to be available in the dropdown list of fields shown when I click on the up-down arrow next to the "Date" or "Camera" (etc.) columns in the Library Filter pane.
Finally, here's my question (or three):
Is there a way to export .jpgs to .tif files while keeping the original resolution ?
Alternatively, is there a way to select groups of photos by their horizontal or vertical resolution (so just those photos could be exported in a group with the right resolution specified) ?
Or is there any other way to do what I want (convert jpg to tif with the same resolution and keeping all the metadata) ?
Thanks for reading all the way through to the end.
John.

These are all currently JPEG files, but I want to keep TIFF files in the collection because my research has led me to the conclusion that TIFF is a better long-term archival format.
I'm not sure why you say this. In terms of long-term archival format, I think the two are equal, I am not aware of other reasons to do this, and thus in my opinion, the task of globally turning all your JPGs into TIFFs seems unnecessary. You don't gain anything by doing this. But you sure will spend a lot of time and take up a lot of disk space doing this.
I would prefer it if the .tif file has the exact same resolution (ppi) as the original .jpg, but I am unable to work out how to do it.
Again, I think you have embarked upon an unnecessary task. The ppi in the file is essentially meaningless. A photo that has (for example) 3000x2000 pixels saved at 240 ppi is the exact same photo as the same photo 3000x2000 saved at 180ppi, not a single pixel has changed. You are placing a meaning and importance to this ppi number that just doesn't exist.
To answer your questions at the bottom, I would advise you to not do the things you are talking about, it seems to me that you have greatly misunderstood things.

Can I use a 2nd Monitor at 4K resolution (quad hd, 3840 x 2160 pixels)

HP Envy TS 17 Notebook, Product # E4S19UALaptop is running Intel HD Graphics 4600, and I have 16Gb memory installed. I use a 2nd monitor all the time via the HDMI port - works great. Both the laptop and the current 2nd monitor are running at 1920x1080 resolution (HD). I would like to attach a 4K monitor - (UHD-1) 3840x2160 resolution - 4 x "regular" HD (twice the horizontal and twice the vertical resolution). Will this laptop be able to operate the 4K monitor at 3840x2160 resolution (even at 30hz would be okay - not for games but rather for word processing, spreadsheets, software development)? Don't want to invest in the fancy new monitor if the laptop cannot drive it! Here is an exampe monitor: Samsung 28 Inch Ultra High Resolution LED Monitor (U28D590D), available on Amazon.com. Thanks!

Thanks for the information! As a suggestion, I have a copy of that manual, and it does indeed state precisely the information that I needed. Funny thing is, I looked in the TOC and the Index for anything related to external monitors and HDMI, and there wasn't anything that pointed to that page. Perhaps for future User's Manuals, the TOC and/or Index could include such references. Either way, thank you so much for the help! Also, for folks who are interested in higher resolution external displays, there is the option to use USB devices such as that from www.plugable.com to attach devices. I don't yet have their USB 3.0 4K compatible one, but I have been using their USB 2.0 HD compatible one for several years so that I can have 3 monitors (built-in, external, Plubable USB) - and it works very well. Flawless operation, though refresh rate is slow (not good for gaming). Which works for me, because it is mainly for surfing and email.

TV out resolution

I finally connected my MSI MEGA 180 to my TV, but got some
problems.
If i use 800x600 on my 36"" Sony widescreen i get 3 cm black bars on top/bottom.
What resolution should i use ?
I tried adding a custom resolution of 720x576, then it shrinked to 1 cm top/bottom.
800x800 seems to be too high, it makes the screen scroll, it doesn get right if i try values between 600 and 800, it suddenly gets too big.
Whats the recomended screen resolution on tv out for a widescreen tv ??
Or how do i stretch it so it covers the entire screen ?
I'm not impressed with the quality, it's very blurry, hard to see text etc...
Dst

Hi,
I've been away a while, so I only just found this thread.
Firstly - the TV standards.
NTSC = National Television Standards Commitee, aka Never Twice the Same Colour, used in US and other third world TV countries
SECAM = SEquential Coleur Avec Memoir, aka Something Essentially Contrary to the American Method. Used in France, Russia and related countries.
PAL = Phase Alternating Line, aka Peace At Last. Solves the green faces/ purple trees problems that plague NTSC. Used in enlightened countries
TV vertical resolution is set by the number of lines - about 480 for NTSC, 580 for PAL and SECAM. Horizontal resolution is set by the maximum video bandwidth, about 5MHz for PAL, 4MHz for NTSC. Colour bandwidth is worse. The upshot is that 800x600 is the maximum resolution you can reasonably display on a TV, and even then you need to use large fonts for it to be readable.
There are some variations each format, for more info, look here
Most TV sets are deliberately overscanned - the picture is larger than the "frame". The smaller the set, the more the overscan, and the more information is lost around the edges. To compensate for this, and to make sure that the whole PC display area is visible on the TV, most TV out chips are programmed to uderscan the image, with a black border all round. The TV out chips usually can expand the picture to "full screen" or "overscan" mode, but the standard drivers might not give you the option.
Have a look at tvtool It's a very useful utility, although it might not work on your hardware (and is nVidia only).
Hope this helps.
Cheers

Widescreen TV resolution (unsupported?) intel mac mini

I'm having problems setting the mac mini up to my tv, i'm in the uk so no HD yet but the resolutions the mac mini with dvi-component adapter is displaying only have 4x3 aspect ratios, so when watching widesreen tv or movies it double letterboxes them. Is there any way i can force the mac mini to display at 1024x576 rather than just giving me the options of 720x576, 800x600 and 1024 x 768. I remember on older mac with older monitors there was abutton in teh system prefs which allowed you to display resolutions that might not be supported is there any way around this?
It doesn't appear to be the tv as when hooked up to a powerbook the display options are far greater and include 16x9 meaning tv and movies are displayed full screen.
On the plus side it is seriously fast, with handbrake in universal binary it runs 3-4 times faster than my powerbook, 15fps on the 1.67ghz pbook and 60fps on the mac mini, which compares well to 37fps average on a mates dual 1.8ghz G5 nice.

I have the same sort of problem with a brand new Dual Core Mac Mini and a Pioneer Elite PRO-710HD. The TV is quite capable of handling 1080i input via the VGA/RGB jack, but the Mini won't give me 1920x1080 as a resolution option. I've currently got it set to 640x480, which displays fine, but I really want the higher resolution to work.
If anyone can point me to a guide to hacking the display settings tables that Display Preferences uses to figure out what a particular display is capable of, that would be great. I tried the restart with cmd-opt-a-v and that didn't change the available options (which are many, btw, but none with 1080 as a vertical resolution option, 1050 and 1200 being the closest and they don't work).
Cheers,
-Sam

Wrong image resolution for TIF file

Under OSX 10.6.2, the image resolution using Preview application is wrong for FAX MultiPages TIFF files.
If I open up a file with this resolution:
Image size: 1728 x 1081 pixels
Image DPI: 204 x 98 pixels/inch
Color Model: Gray.
The image always show up all squeezed vertically which tells me the Preview application is not processing the DPI properly. When using the size menu from tools, it assumes the resolution is the same for vertical and horizontal which is wrong.
I'm unable to use the Preview application to read FAX TIFF files with the standard FAX resolution.
How do I open up a trouble ticket with Apple developers to fix this issue? I believe it's a software design issue assuming that all TIFF files use the same resolution for both horizontal and vertical DPI. The Preview application should be able to handle different DPI for horizontal and vertical resolution.
We're a small business and we are running the whole office with Mac Minis and iMac with a Mac Mini Server of course. We love it, but we have this annoying bug which I don't have any way to fix it.
Thank you,
Stephan Monette
Unlimitel Inc.

Here's a sample of the tif file from our fax machine you can download:
http://www.hmnet.net/warp2/fax-standard.tif
Download the file on your desktop and try opening it. You will see the square at the bottom will look like a rectangle. With the right resolution, it should look like a square, not a rectangle.
If I open the file with Windows picture and fax viewer, the resolution is fine and the square looks like a square. But the same file on Windows with Quicktime fails to open and it complains about a corrupted file.
On my MAC, the file opens with Preview, but the resolution is wrong.
Maybe the FAX server is not formatting the TIFF file properly, but we can't fix that since there's no more support for it. But the Windows app is able to open it up with the right resolution. So maybe it's just some code change to do in the Preview app.
Thanks,
Stephan Monette
Unlimitel Inc.

Hotshot video conversion resolution? No full screen ever?

I have the Pantech Hotshot. The screen resolution of the phone is 400wide x 240high. When I convert a video to that resolution the phone always reduces it to 320 wide instead of filling the screen to the 400 wide and makes the 240 high even smaller. If I convert the video to a larger size it makes the video on screen even smaller. The only video resolution that works decent is 320x240 which fills the screen top to bottom but leaves black bars right and left. If its the phone software that's doing it than what's the point of having a screen 400x240 if you can never view a video in that screen filling resolution? And the video player has no option to zoom or fill the screen. What is the best resolution to convert a video to view on this phone to fill the screen completely like every phone I've ever had was able to do? Thanks

"The screen resolution of the phone is 400wide x 240high. When I convert a video to that resolution the phone always reduces it to 320 wide instead of filling the screen to the 400 wide and makes the 240 high even smaller. If I convert the video to a larger size it makes the video on screen even smaller."
I think you have not found the solution to your situation. We have a non-smartphone (Samsung u370) that, like your phone, has a screen resolution of 400x240 and, like your phone, seemingly won't play a video at the correct resolution when the video is a resolution that exceeds 320x240.
On this u370 phone while playing a video, there are icons on the screen one of which looks like an "X" with arrows at the end of each of the ends of the "X". Tapping this icons causes the video player to expand the video so that now it's playing at the full horizontal resolution of 400.
The video player on our flip phones works the same way. Our LG vx8370 has a 320x240 screen. When I play a 320x240 video, initially the video players plays the video at a resolution of 240 x something. When I push up on the directional pad, then the phone expands the video and then plays it at 320x240.
One more thing. My experience on two different Verizon non-smartphones is the same when it comes to playing widescreen videos -- when I play a video of a resolution such that I have to select the option to expand the video so that the video is playing at the full horizontal resolution of the video, the video player won't show the correct vertical resolution of the widescreen video. Instead, the video player stretches the video to fill the vertical resolution of the phone's screen. While that is tolerable to me for a 16x9 video, my preference is that I find a stretched 2.35:1 video to look unwatchable. The only way that I can preserve the aspect ratio of the widescreen video is to use a video conversion tool that lets me pad the video with blank lines. FFmpeg and mencoder are two tools that have this padding option. So this is what I came up with. Suppose I have a 16:9 widescreen video. The video would need to be about 400x224. Since the video player software on the Verizon non-smartphones will play incorrectly by showing a video stretched to fill the whole screen, I'll need to use the padding command in ffmpeg and add 16 blank lines -- 8 lines above the video and 8 lines below the video. The ffmpeg command for that is
scale=400:224,pad=400:240:0:8
ffmpeg will scale the video to 400x224. The pad command tells ffmpeg that the converted video will have a total of 240 vertical lines of which 224 are the video and 16 of which are blank lines. The "8" tells ffmpeg how to center the video -- there'll be 8 lines above the video and 8 lines below the video.
Since ffmpeg uses a command line interface, two free graphic user interfaces for ffmpeg that I like are Avanti and Pazera:
http://www.videohelp.com/tools/Avanti
http://www.pazera-software.com/products/audio-extractor/
Pazera uses an older version of ffmpeg which can be updated after installing pazera by, if I remember correctly, just deleting the older ffmpeg file and replacing it with the new one.

IdeaPad 10Se and running software requiring at least 800 x 600 grafic resolution

I have bought an IideaPad 10Se this week with the 1024 x 576 resolution. I have problems installing harwere requiring at least 800 x 600 resolution. I installed my HP writer that requires at least 800 x 600 by attaching an external screen and made only displayed on this screen during installation. That was a fine work-around for installations. Now I have installed a Canoscan 4200f scanner using the same work-arround. Unfortunately the Canoscan Toolbox programme tests the resolution everytime it starts and when it is not up to 600 in vertical resolution it refuse to start. Is there a way to fool programmes that the resolution is 600 in vertical resolution and not just 576? Or how can I solve this problem.

I had a problem installing the Cisco VPN which required at least the 800x600 resolution
to install but not to actually run the software after it was installed.
It seems you can set the resolution to 640x480 using third party software but not
any resolution with more than 576.
FWIW 1024x576 is exactly the 16:9 aspect ration as found in HD TVs.
There is software that won't install and there is software that won't run after it is installed.
I found if I plugged my spare monitor into the VGA port and then used the FN+F3
you can make the external monitor your primary one temporarily. This assumes
the external monitor supports at least 800x600 of course.
Then just install or run your software 800x600 normally.
It's a kludge for the "won't install but will run" type software.

Dual Monitors Arranged Vertically

Hi. I can't for the life of me figure out how to setup dual monitors. My calibrated monitor is on bottom, so I want the interface/tools on top. Can someone help me out? Thanks so much!

Open settings (S). Then select "Display" and change the "Top" value to match the UI screens vertical resolution.
Example for a 2x 1920x1080 display-setup:

Possible to get the color space and resolution from the .eps file

Hi all,
We have using the InDesign CS3 5.0.4, windows, javascript. We need to get the color space and resolution of the graphics (.eps) file using scripting.
The properties of the image like (actualPpi and effectivePpi will return the value only for the .tiff. and .jpg etc) but it will not return the .eps file resolution values.
Kindly give me the suggesting for the decrepancies.
Regards,
Nagaraj

... open them programmatically in PhotoShop, read out resolution and color space ...
On opening them in Photoshop, it asks you "what resolution shall I use, and what color space shall I apply?"
A single EPS may contain any number of embedded bitmaps, with any horizontal and vertical resolution, and in any color space. You can use only a few of these with Illustrator -- and even only one at a time with Photoshop --, but other programs allow just about every possible combination.
Not to mention procedurally generated bitmaps, also possible with PostScript.

ITunes idea of ATV resolution different to others?

I made a little HD movie (to test the iPhone 4S) in FCP X. When I "shared" it to Apple TV, it produced a video of 1280 x 720, which should be what ATV can handle, or so I thought (and so did FCP X!).
However, iTunes wouldn't sync it, saying it couldn't be played on this ATV. So, I made iTunes produce a version that it would work with, and it made a copy at 960 x 540, and still called it HD.
Something doesn't seem right here. I checked the movies that have already synced, including an HD movie bought from the iTunes store, which was 1280 x 544. That was the highest resolution, everything else was less.
So, does anyone know what I've missed? It seems it's not easy to get it to play any real HD.
I am using the ATV 1 (with the 160GB hard disc).
Thanks.

Winston, thanks for that and the useful link.
I was seriously thinking of updating my SD camcorder to HD, but am not now cerain it is worth it!
My old camcorder produces very nice footage at 768 x 576 (PAL). The iPhone4s gives me quite remarkable footage at 1920 x 1080 (but has its flaws, obviously, hence the thinking behind an upgrade!) but if it's going to have footage crunched down to 960 x 540 I can't really see the expense is going to be worth it, just to actually lose 26 lines of vertical resolution (unless I buy a blu-ray recorder of course).
Maybe I'll hold off and see what ATV3 brings!!

Clip Proxy Resolution

Hi everyone,
Does anyone know if you can change the size (resolution) of the automatically generated clip proxies? FCServer creates 384x216 Quicktimes, which are OK for basic viewing - but on our high res monitors, I'd prefer something a little bigger for my users.
I've tried different Compressor settings under Administration -> Preferences -> Analyize, including creating my own custom preset. Once I've either re-analyzed, or imported a new clip - I find that the new proxy has been created using my desired settings (codec, etc) ... but the resolution has been changed to the default 384 x 216.
I'm not after full frame clips, but I would prefer a vertical resolution of more than 216 pixels!
I notice in the FCServer tutorial videos the clip proxies seem at least twice the size, so I figure it must be possible. What am i missing?
I know this is a minor thing, but my reviewers would greatly appreciate the larger frame size :o)
Any ideas?
Regards,
Oliver Trenouth
Media Editor and Developer
National Media Museum

Hi everyone,
Sorry to raise this topic to the top again, but I'm still none the wiser!
I've been able to run several tests to see at what stage the problem may be occurring. Here's what I've discovered:
Sticking with H.264 as my format of choice, I've created two custom Compressor presets:
*Preset 1. A 800kbps quicktime MOV based preset using the H.264 compressor. The resolution of the clips is set to 640x480 under the Geometry tab.*
*Preset 2. A preset using the H.264 For iPod Video 640x480 template, changing the .m4v file extension to .mov (else the proxy will open in iTunes!)*
I've then added those presets to FCServer, set them as the preset for Clip Proxy analysis, re-analyzed a couple of clips, and here's the results:
*Preset 1. Same problem. Although the geometry setting is 640x480, the resulting proxy clip is smaller.*
*Preset 2. Result! The resulting proxy file is 640x480 for 4:3 content, and 640x360 for 16:9.*
I guess the reason for this has something to do with the fact the "H.264 For Apple Devices" compressor restricts the frame size, and automatically handles changes in aspect ratio.
While this temporarily fixes my problem, it's not ideal. The "H.264 For Apple Devices" compressor offers very limited choices for encoding, and seems to take about twice as long to encode as Preset 1.
It seems that FCServer has some preset resolution(s) for clip proxies ... but I can't find where that information is stored. Does anyone have any ideas?
Thanks,
Oli.

Canon 1DC vs. 5DIII vs. C300 & Raw Video resolution comparison

I bought the C300 and C100 for what I paid?? Raw video che C 100!! CANON
Canon did not give me the raw video wc 100 oc 300 but the 5D II and III is tucked away for a long time ... bad Canoan
In the battle of the 1080p cameras, the game has changed. Here’s how the 5D Mark III in raw recording mode compares to the best 1080p output from the Canon C300 and 1D C.
The Canon C300 is a very good albeit highly priced $15,000 HD camera, producing an ultra clean and detailed image by oversampling from the same 4K sensor as the C500.
It is the current benchmark, so interesting to see how close the 5D Mark III raw gets in 1080p.
ue to the way the crop mode framing works in the current Magic Lantern build we couldn’t do a final 100% perfect chart test for the 1:1 mode so please treat that last image as a work in progress not a final result!
The Panasonic GH2 is third best on this test, certainly closer to the C300 and 5D Mark III raw than the other cameras, which is astonishing considering the price difference.
The 5D Mark III is slightly cleaner than the GH2, with less aliasing, especially horizontally but it’s still a good result for the GH2.
The Sony FS100 seems to have a soft default output and a strong anti-aliasing filter. The 7D and NEX 5N are a big step down with plenty of moire.
To summarise, I’d put the cameras in order of resolution at 1080p as follows:
Canon C300
Canon 5D Mark III Raw (1080p)
Panasonic GH2
Sony FS100
Canon 7D
Sony NEX 5N / VG20
I’d tentatively say the 5D Mark III in raw 1:1 crop mode has the Canon C300 beaten for resolution, but more development is needed with Magic Lantern before we can say for sure with any finality. For all I know they could have a Super 35mm 4K crop working eventually, it’s too premature to judge the final resolution of the crop mode. Exciting times ahead!
Canon 1D C
The 1D C uses a 1:1 crop (at APS-H) to achieve it’s 4K image, a huge 4096 x 2160. The aspect ratio is slightly narrower than 16:9 and the sensor area used quite a bit less than the 5D Mark III raw in full frame mode.
When you scale 4K on the 1D C down to 1080p you get cinema standard 2K (2048 x 1080) rather than the full HD TV standard 1920 x 1080.
Here’s how the field of view differs between the 5D Mark III in raw (full frame) and the 1D C in 4K MJPEG mode (APS-H). Shot with a Zeiss 25mm F2.0 Distagon.
You have to bear this in mind and how it affects your lenses. The 1.3x crop of the 1D C makes the Zeiss 25mm a rather less exciting 32mm, and the crop vertically is even more due to the narrower aspect ratio compared to 16:9 (or especially 3:2) on the 5D Mark III in raw.
The 1D C and 1D X can do a full frame 1080p image too of course, but the 5D Mark III raw is a lot nicer and more detailed for that.
So 4K is what the 1D C is all about for me.
We shot in 4K Canon LOG, 1080p raw on the 5D Mark III and noticed a few interesting pros and cons for both cameras
I feel the 5D Mark III in raw is both amazing and feature packed relative even to the professional $12k and $15k C-series offerings let alone other DSLRs. It is a dream for anamorphic shooters, offering very clean 2.5K anamorphic images with a 1280p vertical resolution. Various shooting aspect ratios such as 3:2 and 4:3 are not offered on the C-series cameras. To utilise the full height of a 3:2 full frame sensor is a genuinely new feature, as even the factory 5D Mark III crops the full sensor to 16:9 with the standard video mode. The Nikon D800 also crops the full frame sensor. With anamorphic on the 5D Mark III with raw you have a larger sensor recording area than any other DSLR on the market, and considerably different to Super 35mm, APS-C or the 1D C’s APS-H 4K MJPEG.
The 1D C is of course top dog for resolution but the image cannot be graded with the freedom of raw, even from Canon Log. Colour and gradation, especially when it comes to skin-tones are better on the 5D Mark III with raw.
The cleanness of the full frame 1080p mode is also excellent on the 5D Mark III in raw, ahead of any other DSLR on the market and so close to the $15,000 Canon C300 that in the real world it makes no difference. Only on the most demanding test chart could I tell.

I bought the C300 and C100 for what I paid?? Raw video che C 100!! CANON
Canon did not give me the raw video wc 100 oc 300 but the 5D II and III is tucked away for a long time ... bad Canoan
In the battle of the 1080p cameras, the game has changed. Here’s how the 5D Mark III in raw recording mode compares to the best 1080p output from the Canon C300 and 1D C.
The Canon C300 is a very good albeit highly priced $15,000 HD camera, producing an ultra clean and detailed image by oversampling from the same 4K sensor as the C500.
It is the current benchmark, so interesting to see how close the 5D Mark III raw gets in 1080p.
ue to the way the crop mode framing works in the current Magic Lantern build we couldn’t do a final 100% perfect chart test for the 1:1 mode so please treat that last image as a work in progress not a final result!
The Panasonic GH2 is third best on this test, certainly closer to the C300 and 5D Mark III raw than the other cameras, which is astonishing considering the price difference.
The 5D Mark III is slightly cleaner than the GH2, with less aliasing, especially horizontally but it’s still a good result for the GH2.
The Sony FS100 seems to have a soft default output and a strong anti-aliasing filter. The 7D and NEX 5N are a big step down with plenty of moire.
To summarise, I’d put the cameras in order of resolution at 1080p as follows:
Canon C300
Canon 5D Mark III Raw (1080p)
Panasonic GH2
Sony FS100
Canon 7D
Sony NEX 5N / VG20
I’d tentatively say the 5D Mark III in raw 1:1 crop mode has the Canon C300 beaten for resolution, but more development is needed with Magic Lantern before we can say for sure with any finality. For all I know they could have a Super 35mm 4K crop working eventually, it’s too premature to judge the final resolution of the crop mode. Exciting times ahead!
Canon 1D C
The 1D C uses a 1:1 crop (at APS-H) to achieve it’s 4K image, a huge 4096 x 2160. The aspect ratio is slightly narrower than 16:9 and the sensor area used quite a bit less than the 5D Mark III raw in full frame mode.
When you scale 4K on the 1D C down to 1080p you get cinema standard 2K (2048 x 1080) rather than the full HD TV standard 1920 x 1080.
Here’s how the field of view differs between the 5D Mark III in raw (full frame) and the 1D C in 4K MJPEG mode (APS-H). Shot with a Zeiss 25mm F2.0 Distagon.
You have to bear this in mind and how it affects your lenses. The 1.3x crop of the 1D C makes the Zeiss 25mm a rather less exciting 32mm, and the crop vertically is even more due to the narrower aspect ratio compared to 16:9 (or especially 3:2) on the 5D Mark III in raw.
The 1D C and 1D X can do a full frame 1080p image too of course, but the 5D Mark III raw is a lot nicer and more detailed for that.
So 4K is what the 1D C is all about for me.
We shot in 4K Canon LOG, 1080p raw on the 5D Mark III and noticed a few interesting pros and cons for both cameras
I feel the 5D Mark III in raw is both amazing and feature packed relative even to the professional $12k and $15k C-series offerings let alone other DSLRs. It is a dream for anamorphic shooters, offering very clean 2.5K anamorphic images with a 1280p vertical resolution. Various shooting aspect ratios such as 3:2 and 4:3 are not offered on the C-series cameras. To utilise the full height of a 3:2 full frame sensor is a genuinely new feature, as even the factory 5D Mark III crops the full sensor to 16:9 with the standard video mode. The Nikon D800 also crops the full frame sensor. With anamorphic on the 5D Mark III with raw you have a larger sensor recording area than any other DSLR on the market, and considerably different to Super 35mm, APS-C or the 1D C’s APS-H 4K MJPEG.
The 1D C is of course top dog for resolution but the image cannot be graded with the freedom of raw, even from Canon Log. Colour and gradation, especially when it comes to skin-tones are better on the 5D Mark III with raw.
The cleanness of the full frame 1080p mode is also excellent on the 5D Mark III in raw, ahead of any other DSLR on the market and so close to the $15,000 Canon C300 that in the real world it makes no difference. Only on the most demanding test chart could I tell.

Relation between image size, resolution and pixels

I would like to increase the size of image by using PSE9.
For sample existing image had: width (W) 6.073", height (H) 7.683", resolution 300, pixels W 1822, H 2305.
A situation) when I changed the image to W 8, H10 and click on RESAMPLE the resolution on changed but number of pixels increase to W 2400 and
   H 3036
B situation) Image size W 8, H 10 and NO ACTIVATED RESAMPLE. Now resolution reduced to 227 and number of pixel NO CHANGED from original
   W 1822, H 2305
In my understanding if image blow up the number of pixels will be same as original and only the distance between pixels will be increase. So, resolution should
be dropped.
Now the question: How in sample A increase number of pixels? From where they come?
More realistic looks sample B.
Now other way: I used crop - make original image smaller. So, the number of pixels should degrees and resolution NO CHANGED. But PSE 9 shown number of pixels same and resolution increased.
Is it right?
What is wrong or right in above explanation?
Can visible find the difference between samples A & B on computers monitor? I tried blow up sample B by 10 times and still no differences on screen,It is because resolution of monitor to low?

A. Resample means elements adds pixels to the existng pixels to increase image size
    and\or resolution and subtracts pixels to downsize. Usually resampling to make an image
    smaller is okay, but resampling to make an image bigger can result in loss of quality.
    Of course that doesn't mean you shouldn't do it, just something to keep in mind.
B. Leaving the resample box unchecked, elements only changes resolution (print size)
    and doesn't change the actual number of pixels (harm the image) so the image will
    be and look the same on your monitor.
Usually a resampled image will be of lower quality than a non resampled image because
elements has to make pixels to upsize and subtract pixels to downsize.
Elements uses the resampling method choosen in the image size dialog to determine how,
with one of the bicubic choices being the best for photos.
Elements, as far as i know, uses the standard bicubic mehod for the resampling with the crop tool.
A more detailed explanation:
http://kb2.adobe.com/cps/331/331327.html
MTSTUNER

Resample vertical resolution

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for