Resolution question for T2i and 60D

[Snapper123]

Well, it only took a Youtube test of the ML hack for me to see that the higher bit rates of the ML seemed to improve "something or other" about the image, while the ones that pushed the bitrate lower than normal truly made the image look worse. It seemed to relate only to blockage most of all though, which isn't all that bad with these cameras to begin with :/ - I still cough the bad quality of the native files up to invisible distance aliasing (because I can actually pull 720P+ easily out of a Canon DSLR when shooting macro videos, surprisingly), probably some sort of "low pass filter" (whatever that is), and a few other things here and there, including what I hope is my computer muddying the footage all up.

Sadly, it seems I just stumbled onto a few resolution tests done with charts by professional DP's and all, that prove not even the GH2's true resolution is much above 640P, if at all. I've said it forever but anyone expecting to get more than 640P from a DSLR camera shouldn't use them, and that anyone who's happy with a DSLR camera probably either only does Youtube videos (which are downrez'd to 640P even when you click 1080P/720P) or simply views all their own files in tiny players, having never viewed the original files on a 1080P monitor. Or much in the case of what the DP of Tiny Furniture said, if you use complex sharpening technology/shoot macro, you can get a good 720P-ish out of the final render. (Appearantly, they only braved distributed the film using 720P DV disks lol, although I may truly be mistaken.)

And who knows, maybe 720P is a good enough render for a lot of purposes, it is at least for internet and local purposes, but the sad thing is it seems you really have to apply some advanced technology to even pull that true 720p rabbit out of the hat, fighting and struggling to get even as high as a true-eye 720P render seems so 1999 to me...render these files at their full resolution and it seems as though they'll look like trash, like the original files seem to. I just don't like that!

 

[Exact]

I didn't say you couldn't do it, but that it wasn't readily available. Obviously, the packages you mention require additional cost, some of it quite the expense. And, on top of that, he'd have to purchase an EXTERNAL Blu-ray burner, yet even more cost.

Ah, while I see your point, readily available clearly means different things to different people. So Windows (as it comes off the shelf in a retail box) includes HD video editing and Blu-ray video authoring for free?

None of my Windows PCs have a Blu-ray burner either, so I'd still need to buy an internal/external drive there too, so even if Windows does include it, it's not always going to be readily available there either.

My Mac Pro has an internal Blu-ray writer..... just FYI Yes it's a third party drive, just like I'd have to fit in my Windows PC.

Back on topic, it's amazing how so many people assume DVD is 'HD'. Perhaps it's that the industry did such a great marketing job early on, telling you how DVD was the ultimate in picture quality etc. How long has Blu-ray been out now? There are still so many people who have no idea what Blu-ray is about or why they'd even want/need it. They are used to DVD quality and frankly most are very happy with it. It's not until they see Blu-ray and DVD side-by-side that they finally understand the difference. Even then, for many people the difference is not enough to make them want to spend more money. They are watching the content (movie), not the production quality.

 

[Gary Huff]

Still not getting it, are you? He said he had a Mac, so why would I mention the Windows PC side of things? Careful there, Exact, your fanboy is showing.