Hi--
>> I have never seen this - and I assumed the "direct" "S"
>> output has been "double-processed" (and was an analogue
>> conversion of the camera-digitized signal...). Otherwise,
>> there would need to be two signal paths within the
>> camcorder one from the CCD chips to "S" out, and one from
>> the digital decoder to "S" out (which seems unlikely in a
>> consumer camcorder...). One of the interesting features for
>> me of digital camcorders is that there has been NO visible
>> difference between the "straight" "S" output of the
>> camcorder, and the output from tape passed through the "S"
>> output (barring dropouts...), unlike with analogue
>> camcorders (what you see with the direct connection is what
>> you see on tape...). Let me know if this is not correct...
>I'm pretty sure it is not correct. In order for that to be true, the camera
>would
>have to be encoding AND decoding the MiniDV signal in real time, which I don't
>think it can do. The output of the CCD chip is analog anyway, so they don't
>need to
>have any new signals, just a video MUX which is trivially easy in the LSI chips
>used in this camera. For example the 144-pin CXD3133AR (a Sony custom chip?)
>which
>is labelled IC756 on the schematic, has seven video inputs and eight video
>outputs.
Yes. But there is considerable signal-processing done, which is visible
in both the "S"-direct output and in the "S" tape output... Where would this
processing happen in the stream? Before or after digitization...?
>There may be no visible difference between live and recorded playback but I
>believe
>there is a measurable difference.
>See for example http//www.bealecorner.com/trv900/respat/snappy/snap.html
This may be a different issue, akin to film resolution of many assembled
frames able to show more detail than a single frame. Information not
only averages over a set of frames, but bits can add to the average,
improving the resolution, I would think...;-) A single-frame of video
viewed on a TV has less resolution information in it than a stream of
frames of the same still subject...
>A better test would be to look at a color test pattern, given I'm claiming the
>"live" signal does not have the 411 sampling limitation either. Maybe I'll
>do a
>live/playback color test pattern at some point.
This would be interesting (and should be done on a single frame, or the
same number of multiple frames...;-).
Holler back with the results!
Thanks.
Hi, again --
Oh, on the web sample you say the example only works "live"...
I would try the same with tape....;-)