Apache-Talk @lexa.ru 

Inet-Admins @info.east.ru 

Filmscanners @halftone.co.uk 

Security-alerts @yandex-team.ru 

nginx-ru @sysoev.ru 

   


   


   















      :: Filmscanners
Filmscanners mailing list archive (filmscanners@halftone.co.uk)

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

[filmscanners] RE: Film resolution - was: Re: 3 year wait




> > As I've pointed out, at Nyquist, when the line
> > is not entirely "seen" by ONE sensors, two sensors
> > will only see a reduced part of the line ...
>
> Either something is seen by a sensor, or it isn't.

It's to what degree it sees it.  If the line does not occupy the entire FOV
of the sensor the amplitude is degraded.

>  If it can
> "not entirely"
> see something,

An example of "not entirely" seeing something is if the line is occupying
only %50 of a sensors FOV.  That is "not entirely" seeing the line with that
one sensor, and as I said, amplitude is degraded in that case.

> then the principles of the Nyquist theorem do not apply.

Well, the fact is, when sampling audio, the odds are that the Nyquist sample
rate (or anything but an infinite sample rate for that matter) won't catch
the full amplitude of the signal, it only "sees" the voltage when in time
the sample was taken, and it could be anywhere in the entire signal.

> There are no partial samples.

Who said there were?

Austin

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe 
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or 
body



 




Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.