Digital BW, The Print

on 10/9/2002 11:34 AM, DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com at
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com wrote:

> Message: 20
> Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 13:05:28 -0400
> From: "Austin Franklin" <darkroom@...>
> Subject: RE: Re: OT: The Foveon talk I mentioned at the San Fran. get tog...
> 
> Claude,
> 
>>> The term "fidelity" is a very amorphous term.  Would you please
>> define> EXACTLY what you mean by it?  There is quite a bit of
>> misunderstanding about> what that term really means, and it has
>> absolutely nothing to do with> "looking good".
>> 
>> Agreed. Ask any Pro Videographer if he's rather use a single chip or
>> 3 chip camrera for better color response. No contest. Until the X3
>> chip, it wasn't feasible. This is revolutionary technology.
> 
> Video and still imaging are ENTIRELY different things.  Video can handle the
> "amorphous" images it gets from three sensors...and as far as "better color
> response", that's another one of those things like "sharpness".  A two pixel
> cameras is sharper than any photograph you can get!  But, that's
> meaningless.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Austin

 

Austin,

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

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


-Bruce

Visit my website at:
http://home.earthlink.net/~smthopr

> 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

> 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.

Hi Austin, 

The defects being interlace? What about shooting video in non-interlaced
mode. Each frame is identical (no interlace). 30 frames per second. While
the Sony I  played with was a lower frame rate and during playback it was
not smooth to watch, the Canon at 30fps I'm told is movie like.

Just curious,
Carolyn

> > 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.
>
> Hi Austin,
>
> The defects being interlace? What about shooting video in non-interlaced
> mode. Each frame is identical (no interlace). 30 frames per second. While
> the Sony I  played with was a lower frame rate and during playback it was
> not smooth to watch, the Canon at 30fps I'm told is movie like.

Hi Carolyn,

The sensors to operate that fast, have to give somewhere, and one of the
degradations is noise.

Regards,

Austin