ðòïåëôù 


  áòèé÷ 


Apache-Talk @lexa.ru 

Inet-Admins @info.east.ru 

Filmscanners @halftone.co.uk 

Security-alerts @yandex-team.ru 

nginx-ru @sysoev.ru 

  óôáôøé 


  ðåòóïîáìøîïå 


  ðòïçòáííù 



ðéûéôå
ðéóøíá












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

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

[filmscanners] RE: Digi, film and scanning in movies



> From: Edward Gosfield III
>
> I think a lot of the difference in the look of digital versus
> analog is due
> to the shorter focal length lenses used, to cover the relatively smaller
> 'film' plane.  These lenses have different DOF for the same acceptance
> angle, and have different diffraction characteristics as well, not to
> mention whatever design idiosyncracies are imposed in matching the
> characteristics of pixelated image planes and detector spectral
> sensitivity.

Another difference is that, at least in broad daylight, digital camcorders
seem to use a much faster shutter speed, making it possible for the eye to
see discrete images. When things move, it's better if each frame is exposed
for the majority of the frame duration, so that the frames are connected by
motion blur. This of course isn't an inherent problem with digital, but it's
something I've noticed about early implementations.

--

Ciao,               Paul D. DeRocco
Paul                mailto:pderocco@ix.netcom.com

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.