[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: spot vs line analyser for telecine
- To: 'multiple recipients of' <telecine at sun.alegria.com>
- Subject: RE: spot vs line analyser for telecine
- From: "Case, Dominic" <dominic_case at atlab.com.au>
- Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 17:35:21 +1000
- Old-Return-Path: <dominic_case at atlab.com.au>
- Resent-Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 00:37:06 -0700 (PDT)
- Resent-From: telecine at sun.alegria.com
- Resent-Message-ID: <"97rH3C.A.U6E.bs6E0" at sun>
- Resent-Sender: telecine-request at sun.alegria.com
- Resent-To: multiple recipients of <telecine at sun.alegria.com>
Dick Hobbs writes . . .
>Is this why, to some eyes, CCD telecines have a video look? Because they
>are generating rigid, rectangular, hard-edged pixels, whereas flying spot
>telecines are inherently smoother?
This is an interesting thought: but mustn't we also consider the display
device, which, although illuminated by a continuously (and so smoothly)
varying beam, necessarily divides the image field up into "pixels" of
individual colour, each separated from its next neighbour of the same
colour by a discreet space of black mesh and another phosphor dot?
I'd have thought that this would interfere considerably with the
smoothly varying signal generated by a flying spot telecine. Of course
on a black and white monitor it's a different story . . .
But I'm sure that there's more to this . . . which someone can cast some
Thanks to Kat Dalton for support of the TIG
TIG subscriber count is 846 on Mon Sep 8 00:36:59 PDT 1997
archives and much more at http://www.alegria.com/telecinehome.html
mailinglist digest available.... unsubscribe via a message to
'telecine-request at alegria.com' with Subject: unsubscribe