Digital BW, The Print

> Austin,
>
> Video and still imaging are exactly the same, the only difference is how
> many images one takes per second.

No Bruce, they are NOT the same thing.  They are viewed entirely
differently.  Take a look at your VCR and freeze frame an image.  Moving
they look far better, since the defects in each image are not apparent, as
the moving image will "smooth" these defects out.  When looking at a still
image, you are looking at ONE image, and any defects are in and of that one
image.

Also, the imaging sensors for video are typically different, and of much
lower image quality.  They are interline sensors, which have lower imaging
fidelity, but higher frame rates.

> However, you are very technically knowledgeable. What to you mean by
> "amorphous" images? And why should video "handle" it?

Video IS amorphous.  As I said above, there are many image defects in the
single frames that get smoothed out because of the nature of video.

Also, the alignment of the video cameras that use three sensors is FAR less
than for that of a still image camera using three sensors.  As I said, the
image defects don't show up as apparently with video as they do with still.

Austin