[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Clearview, etc
Here is a response to "Joe Beats" I'm considering submitting:
At 11:48 AM 1/6/96 -0800, you wrote:
>>From what I have seen of Clearview, it does do a respectable job of
>dealing with aliasing, but not free of charge, picturewise.
Perhaps it could be said that nothing is free of charge, picturewise?
There is no free lunch. However, restrained usage of such devices can
produce very dramatic and usable improvements.
>The main limitation upon clearview like solutions is, as was mentioned
>elsewhere, the resolution going in.
> Yours in mystery,
It is indeed important to have a high quality signal going into a box such
as Clearview. The Digital Deflection and some signal path bandwitdth and
noise improvements help make this possible. On a couple of occasions, I have
conducted some informal double blind testing with a tape that Dave brought
comparing a down converted high definition transfer, a Mark III Digital
Deflection transfer with no processing, and the same material and scenes
transferred on a the same Mark III using Clearview. While it was easy for
people to spot the normal transfer, it was extremely difficult for them to
tell any difference between the down converted high def transfer and the
Clearview transfer. In fact, some favored the look of the Clearview transfer
over the down converted transfer. To be fair, I must state that the the Mark
III transfers were done by one colorist, and the down converted high def was
done by another colorist. The color match was extremely close.