home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: rec.video
- Path: sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!agate!dog.ee.lbl.gov!hellgate.utah.edu!asylum.cs.utah.edu!lchoqu
- From: lchoqu%asylum.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Lee Choquette)
- Subject: Re: Re: Photo CD
- Date: 30 Dec 92 16:17:30 MST
- Message-ID: <1992Dec30.161730.12110@hellgate.utah.edu>
- Organization: University of Utah CS Dept
- References: <Bzrv3F.Dr7@ra.nrl.navy.mil> <760011@hprnd.rose.hp.com> <1992Dec30.150715.28668@siemens.com>
- Lines: 19
-
- In article <1992Dec30.150715.28668@siemens.com> aad@siemens.com (Anthony Datri)
- writes:
- > The bandwidth and transfer rate aren't there yet. As has been said many
- > times, resolution isn't the only measure of picture quality. With a digital
- > medium, you get discrete pixels in two directions, where with the current
- > analog media you only have discrete features in one dimension. While
- > "resolution" might be higher with a digital medium, the overall perceived
- > quality might be lower if the horizontal pixel boundaries are visible.
-
- Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this the purpose of a reconstruction filter,
- to even out the pixel-to-pixel transitions? With an "ideal" filter, a digital
- picture should look just as good as an analog picture with the same resolution.
- With a filter close to ideal, the digital picture shouldn't need much more
- resolution than the analog. What sort of filtering, if any, does PhotoCD use?
- (Sorry if this topic has already been covered, and I missed it.)
- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
- . . . . Lee Choquette . . . . . . . . . .The early worm . . . . . . . . .
- . . . .lchoqu@cs.utah.edu . . . . . . . . . gets eaten. . . . . . . . . .
- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
-