Tweet
Matrox Capture Capabilities
I have been doing some research on “broadcast quality” and realised I have always misunderstood the concepts of lines of resolution, camera resolution and broadcast resolution.
For some reason I assumed that the 500 lines of resolution of the DV standard referred to the image in terms of pixels (and I assumed the same was true for VHS/S-VHS etc). Probably the “Digital” word confused me, so I thought it was actually a “picture” made up of 500 lines. I now know that if refers to the resolution of the image and its ability to “view” and accurately represent 500 lines in the image it is pointed at! (i.e. a 400 line resolution camera would see a blur if looking at the fine detail of 500 lines on a page for example and a 500 line or better camera would produce an image where you could distinguish the 500 lines).
Now my Matrox capture card (G200) is capable of capturing an image that is 704 pixels by 576 pixels. Because of the price when I bought it I always assumed the Matrox card was a bit of a “toy” not capable of capturing as high as “broadcast quality”. However I am now wondering if is really only limited by the quality of the camera or playback device?
From this conclusion I have made the leap in logic that the quality of the captured video is solely dependant on the quality of the image the camera provides. So in theory if I was to plug in a Betacam SP camera or VCR into the S-video input (assuming Betacam’s have an S-video output? I can’t say I’ve ever used one) and capture uncompressed YUV or similar it would be capable of capturing “broadcast quality” images.
Am I dreaming or is this accurate. I realise there are some other considerations regarding audio and component quality is better etc in the “broadcast quality” debate.
Some comments from the experts would be appreciated.
For some reason I assumed that the 500 lines of resolution of the DV standard referred to the image in terms of pixels (and I assumed the same was true for VHS/S-VHS etc). Probably the “Digital” word confused me, so I thought it was actually a “picture” made up of 500 lines. I now know that if refers to the resolution of the image and its ability to “view” and accurately represent 500 lines in the image it is pointed at! (i.e. a 400 line resolution camera would see a blur if looking at the fine detail of 500 lines on a page for example and a 500 line or better camera would produce an image where you could distinguish the 500 lines).
Now my Matrox capture card (G200) is capable of capturing an image that is 704 pixels by 576 pixels. Because of the price when I bought it I always assumed the Matrox card was a bit of a “toy” not capable of capturing as high as “broadcast quality”. However I am now wondering if is really only limited by the quality of the camera or playback device?
From this conclusion I have made the leap in logic that the quality of the captured video is solely dependant on the quality of the image the camera provides. So in theory if I was to plug in a Betacam SP camera or VCR into the S-video input (assuming Betacam’s have an S-video output? I can’t say I’ve ever used one) and capture uncompressed YUV or similar it would be capable of capturing “broadcast quality” images.
Am I dreaming or is this accurate. I realise there are some other considerations regarding audio and component quality is better etc in the “broadcast quality” debate.
Some comments from the experts would be appreciated.
) against his white shirt, it will put in a few consecutive grey pixels of increasing intensity, which will blur together even more on a TV. If the incoming image is really sharp, then one pixel will be black and the next white, with possibly one intermediate if it falls where the analogue signal is dropping. On a hi-res monitor, you may see this as a staircase, if you look closely, but on a TV it will look sharper than in the first case but you will never see the staircase.
Comment