Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="RockyNH_RIP" data-source="post: 537623" data-attributes="member: 10784">Good Question John....In the set above, the 1st was a direct capture...&nbsp;&nbsp; the others were extracted...Viewing all in lightroom, no real discernible difference....&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; the resolution is higher in the direct image:Direct -----------------------------------&nbsp; &nbsp; 3992x2242Extract from 1080 Processed --------&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; 1920x1080&nbsp; (that is what the extractions above are)Extraction from un-processed vid ---&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; 2701x1520John, have not done any real pixel peeping as that is not my style but I have been pleased with the images in all 3 resolutions for my purposes (scenic).&nbsp;&nbsp; I would not crop or blow up anymore than I would not crop or enlarge any further than you would any other 12 megpxl or 8 megpxl image.No Real difference for normal purposes of scenic aerial stills.....&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Hope this helps a bit and thank you for reviewing and asking questions.Pat in GA</blockquote>

[QUOTE="RockyNH_RIP, post: 537623, member: 10784"] Good Question John.... In the set above, the 1st was a direct capture... the others were extracted... Viewing all in lightroom, no real discernible difference.... the resolution is higher in the direct image: Direct ----------------------------------- 3992x2242 Extract from 1080 Processed -------- 1920x1080 (that is what the extractions above are) Extraction from un-processed vid --- 2701x1520 John, have not done any real pixel peeping as that is not my style but I have been pleased with the images in all 3 resolutions for my purposes (scenic). I would not crop or blow up anymore than I would not crop or enlarge any further than you would any other 12 megpxl or 8 megpxl image. No Real difference for normal purposes of scenic aerial stills..... Hope this helps a bit and thank you for reviewing and asking questions. Pat in GA [/QUOTE]

Verification