[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE>spot vs line analyser for telecine



                      RE>spot vs line analyser for telecine        8/9/97

>Is this why, to some eyes, CCD telecines have a video look? Because they
>are generating rigid, rectangular, hard-edged pixels, whereas flying spot
>telecines are inherently smoother?

I don't agree, modern CCD machines such as Spirit do not have a "video look" maybe the old Marconi and early BTS, but not modern ccd machines.

>And, if so, does this mean that SCAN'dAL from the TWiGi people, which
>changes the shape of the URSA spot, will give the most natural
>anti-aliasing of all, because it will provide a smooth transition from line
>to line, pixel to pixel?

SCAN'dal , which works well, in my humble view is designed for the vertical part of the image and not for the horizontal, so smoothes frequencies in the vertical prestore domain (elliptical spot) . I think this is what you mean?

Pre store sampling with CCD's at higher than video pixel rates will give fine results.

Remember that the final image will be resolved into hard 720 x 576 (625) pixels in the store.

I guess my point is that the CCD versus CRT argument is long dead, both technologies can give great results.
I can't think of a commercial Hi rez scanner for motion picture visual FX that uses CCD's that has a "video look". I don't know of a CRT machine for this appliction either, even with it's "film look" ;-)

Paul





+++
	Thanks to Kat Dalton for support of the TIG
---
      TIG subscriber count is 846 on Mon Sep  8 05:43:48 PDT 1997
   archives and much more at http://www.alegria.com/telecinehome.html
     mailinglist digest available.... unsubscribe via a message to
        'telecine-request at alegria.com' with Subject: unsubscribe