Re: labels/original intent of post

From: Cari Machet (email suppressed)
Date: Sun Jul 02 2006 - 15:03:42 PDT

dearest sam

i was referencing kodak made tests
that were made to compare digibeta beta sp and 16mm super16
and 35 in comparison to HD
(i am not aware of a 70mm test)
one section was a dimly lit corridor of an exterior btwn building type
the corridor had water on the ground
film captured what the water reflected
video did not
really showed how little video picks up

i think that is less information sam
not that i don't think what ur talking is interesting
talk to me about the dalsa origin
why would u imply it could be not considered video
it uses the same as digital - ccd
i am not so sure it is the lens capture but the processor or sensor
(or that there is one)
that matters so... 35 away - no mas
i just think that the artifacts of pixel (square/rectangle)
are too much for my eye
i am for vector
tell us how to reproduce our beyond amazingly perfect optical system
and then we are somewhere - huh?
maybe less specialized or uni-shapes - more of a combo (pu-pu platter)

are u of the mind that virtual reality will b mastered?
i think more in terms of replication


On 7/2/06, Sam Wells <email suppressed> wrote:
> > video has less information on screen - period
> Well I'm not so sure, (there is no way a Dalsa Origin - if you want
> to include that under video - could be said to output less
> information than a Super 8 camera with Ektachrome in it) but I'd
> rather talk about image structure; what is granular and changing
> frame to frame, what is blocks, how does granularity get sampled into
> blocks - - pixels, how many needed to sample, what scales up better
> digitally, scaling vs optical magnification, etc
> PS I do prefer the _kind_ of information film captures
> -Sam
> __________________________________________________________________
> For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.

For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.