[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

response- CRT paper

the following is from Jerry.Rodgers at bfi.org.uk 
if you'd like to reply to him directly, please direct it to that
address and not to the address indicated in this message's headers,
thank you.  (hopefully, soon Jerry will be able to use the TIG
directly and not go through the administrator)

--- Forwarded mail from Jerry Rodgers <Jerry.Rodgers at bfi.org.uk>

Date: Mon, 02 Nov 1998 11:30:19 +0000 (GMT)
From: Jerry Rodgers <Jerry.Rodgers at bfi.org.uk>
Subject: The Paper.

Gentlemen, hello,

First, I am my own man and have my own thoughts.

Secondly, Hi to the old acquaintances, I have memories of a 
great times.

Thirdly, Why did I diliberately open myself to ridicule?

Fourthly, You all got an old unedited copy(spelling errors), 
sorry for that. However, the theme is unaltered. This not a 
climb down, it is true. Those who know me will accept this. 
In preparing papers I always have a "rough thoughts" file 
into which I stream ideas warts and all, clearly the one you 
got-again sorry.

I opened with a simple model, with errors(delibirate), of a 
crt whose workings have not changed for many years. What I 
was focusing on(excuse the pun) was encompassed in two 
sentences namely " Can it complete in a commercial market 
against CCD?" and "we can not allow sentiment to come into 
this". I wanted to use this model as question.

Why did I do this? I was interested in the response such a 
paper would generate. BOY, DID IT HAPPEN!!

To continue:

The core to this is the realisation that our customer base 
now has a choice whether we like it or not. They will 
dictate what happens to their product an hence to what we 
are driven to do. They/we had no choice for 22 to 25 years, 
what now? Can we afford sentiment in an environment such as 
this? I feel not. Sad as it may be, I feel we have to be 
dispassionate, analytical and commercially sensitive. 
Please, I am not trying to be arrogant or patronising!

TIG is a great platform for true analysis substantiated with 
proven rigorous argument of what any manufacture says. 
Sentiment, again, can not come into this in my view.

Scans are just the tip of the iceberg.

I am not questioning anyones professionalism, I just wanted 
to open an argument on topic, hence the manner of MY 

Hello Mike(Orton- mine is a pint), good to hear from you. 
Yes, you noticed it (as others did I am sure). You are 
absolutely correct of course, it is arctan 0.33 (18.25 deg), 
and the correct spot delinearisation, in this model, is 
closer to 7%(plus/minus 1%) if we take secondary emission at 
impact into account. Why I included "space charge" was 
loosely to introduce Lenght L.

This is more like it! This is what, in my view, TIG should 
be about! Cold facts, unbiased FAIR clinical response to ANY 
manufactures claims. Maybe I have missed some good 
disclosures in the past, I know I have seen some vague ones.

One more question, why KLONE?

As my memory recalls, M. Plancks' equation said:

	W = hv	Where	W is the energy.
			v is c/lambda or freq. of light.
			h is w/v ergs. secs.

"h" is 6.62x 10 to minus 27. 

I do not recollect any unit of measure known as OXYMORON!

Thank you all for the response to a bit of devilment, it has 
been an eye opener.

Please, lets keep it open and fair.

Best wishes to all, no offense meant!


--- End of forwarded message from Jerry Rodgers <Jerry.Rodgers at bfi.org.uk>

Thanks to Time Logic's Jim Lindelien for support in 1998.
No product marketing allowed on the main TIG.  Contact rob at alegria.com
1008 subscribers in 38 countries on Mon Nov  2 08:26:15 CST 1998 
subscribe/unsubscribe with that Subject: to telecine-request at alegria.com
complete information on the TIG website http://www.alegria.com/tig3/