[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: response- CRT paper
- To: "telecine internet group" <telecine at alegria.com>
- Subject: Re: response- CRT paper
- From: "Martin Euredjian" <martin at hollydig.com>
- Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 18:52:27 -0700
- Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 20:52:24 -0600
- Resent-From: telecine at alegria.com
- Resent-Message-ID: <"1hEutC.A.zdE.2-mP2" at sun>
- Resent-Sender: SmartList account <slist at alegria.com>
- Resent-To: multiple recipients of <telecine at alegria.com>
>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.
The biggest problem with this line of reasoning is that, to a greater
extent, it is the clients who decide what technology will be used to create
their show. Clients couldn't care less about what Nyquist, you or I have to
say. They are after that intangible "look" and "feel" of an image. Show
them the pictures. That they understand. Coulombs, ergs or nanoseconds
don't intersect with their definition of reality.
Having said that. It is my opinion that CCD technology is very promising
and, as proven by machines such as the Spirit, very much a real choice
today. Knocking down CRT's, however, is not the way to convince anyone of
their viability. Particularly after they have seen what C-Reality can do.
What I like about CCD's is the fact that they are semiconductors. To me
this means that achieving higher price/performance ratios is within the
realm of what we know possible. Also, semiconductor research has been one
of the hottest and fastest moving areas in electronics (physics?). This in
contrast with CRT research --particularly in the narrow field of their use
Not to mention all these $300 1024x768 CCD still cameras coming out all over
All of this tells me that, in the future, we should expect monster
high-speed CCD arrays with a processor-per-pixel architecture,
ultra-low-noise, amazing repeatability, huge dynamic range and the ability
to simulate just about any "look and feel" a client might want.
Yet, on the other hand, let's say that ten years from now,
super-high-resolution active matrix displays are possible and common. I'm
thinking something that can develop a very bright image with a resolution
of, say, 10000x10000 pixels in a 10 by 10 cm area. Well...then we throw
out our CRT's and install these displays in their place!
So, then, maybe the question should be: Is the APPROACH a long-term viable
The choices are: (1) Scan with a beam of light (CRT, Laser, ?)
(2) Full-frame CCD array
(3) Single line CCD array
I think they all are.
1- This is my (never) humble opinion and nobody else's.
2- Anything stupid I say is probably due to a genetic defect.
3- No manufacturers pay me (see -2- above).
ToddAO - Hollywood Digital, CA, USA
tel: (213) 465-0101
martin at hollydig.com
martinfx at msn.com
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 20:51:27 CST 1998
subscribe/unsubscribe with that Subject: to telecine-request at alegria.com
complete information on the TIG website http://www.alegria.com/tig3/