Demystifying Digital Camera Specifications
Here:
https://www.provideocoalition.com/panavision_posts_demystifying_digital_camera_specifications_videos/
is a blog by Jim Feeley that mentions a video presentation by John Galt of Panavision and Larry
Thorpe of Canon titled "Demystifying Digital Camera Specifications".
The link that Jim Feeley provides is dead. I've searched for a current link so that I could share it
here but I couldn't find the video.
I have it, either complete or as 7 parts.
20-08-10 19:04 397,590,171 Demystifying Digital Camera Specifications
.mkv
20-08-10 18:51 76,493,280 Demystifying Digital Camera Specifications,
Pt 1 .mkv
20-08-10 18:54 43,846,576 Demystifying Digital Camera Specifications,
Pt 2 .mkv
20-08-10 18:56 46,831,671 Demystifying Digital Camera Specifications,
Pt 3 .mkv
20-08-10 18:57 106,638,385 Demystifying Digital Camera Specifications,
Pt 4 .mkv
20-08-10 18:57 45,627,889 Demystifying Digital Camera Specifications,
Pt 5 .mkv
20-08-10 18:58 28,933,720 Demystifying Digital Camera Specifications,
Pt 6 .mkv
20-08-10 18:58 49,218,650 Demystifying Digital Camera Specifications,
Pt 7 .mkv
Anyone who wants one or all should contact me.
-OR-
Part 1 is on youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqq8QKMmtYg
I assume the other parts are there, too.
On 10/04/2020 05:00 AM, Anatoly wrote:
On Sat, 3 Oct 2020 21:22:38 -0400
"Mark Filipak (ffmpeg)" <[email protected]> wrote:
Here's what I visualize:
Imagine a heat map -- one of those colorful images ...reds and
yellows and greens and blues. Then, imagine a screen in front of it,
between you and the heat map. The screen is the final samples (ex:
720x480).
Now write down temperature for every cell of your screen and draw x-Y
plot: temperature vs cell number in grid line.
That's sampling.
I think you'll agree that neither the screen nor the underlying heat
map are serial in nature. Oh, they're transported as a sort-of raster
That doesn't really matter. Now you have x-Y plot of some function and
you can process it mathematically as you wish.
I totally agree.
-- that's for sure -- but that's not how they're made and I don't
think that Fourier applies.
Then you must dont't think that you can JPEG compress your screen
image, because all JPEG/MPEG-like things works that way.
Compression and resolution aren't related. Compression that is lossy spoils resolution, but that
doesn't mean that there's a functional relationship between them.
You know, I'm going to remove reference to Nyquist. I don't think spacial image resolution is
related to frequency at all. I don't think that the photons that fall on one pixel affect the
photons that fall on nearby pixels in any way -- I'm discounting quantum mechanics for the
pixel-to-pixel distances involved. That 'said', if the resulting image is scanned, rastered into
lines of pixel values and sent as a serial analog signal, then Nyquist definitely applies. But
that's not what's happening in a CCD or in the human eye.
There is an exception. If a CCD's photosensors are 'read' and analog-to-digital converted serially
(one photosensor at a time) -- and that is probably the case -- then Nyquist most definitely
applies, but it applies to the analog-to-digital conversion, not to some fictional analog
'frequency' within the image.
I think people have taken a temporal channel concept (Nyquist) and have tried to stretch it to fit a
spacial situation. I don't buy it. Photons that are broadside loaded into a camera (or into an eye)
is not a serial stream (i.e. not a raster). Nyquist doesn't apply.
Thank you. Do you think I should just post the whole thing? I can't.
Not here, but maybe on github?
Not github. I'm a human being. Github is for Martians.
--
What if you woke up and found yourself in a police state?
African-Americans wake up in a police state every day.
_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-user mailing list
[email protected]
https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-user
To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
[email protected] with subject "unsubscribe".
