On Thu, 20 Feb 2003 18:50:10 GMT, "ralford"
<ralford@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>First, let me say the obvious, the Ruether site:
>http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/default.htm is a true
treasure of
>information.
>
>However, I am confused by the term motion-artifacting
used in
>http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/default.htm. [?] I have been unable
>to find a description in the section on video image Char
and faults:
>http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/vid_pict_characts.htm
>
>Since it is supposed to be obvious in some images, and I
can't find it,
>perhaps I can cease my quest for the ideal camera :)
>
>Cheers, and thanks again for all the useful information.
>Richard
Thanks for the comments. It is difficult to illustrate
all motion-effects with stills, but in
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/vid_pict_characts.htm, I do name
and attempt to illustrate most. See
"Stair-Stepping",
"Moire-Patterning", "Mosquito Noise",
and (optional...;-),
"Progressive Scan Effects" - these all describe
undesirable
motion effects with DV (though they are not all limited to
DV), in addition to possible exaggerated contrasty
horizontal-edge "flapping" effect (most common in
the
high-pixel-count 1-CCD camcorders, but impossible to show
in stills - but it is VERY annoying!). These vary in type
and prominence with different camcorder models, and the
best I can do is describe how obnoxious they are in the
images of the particular models shown (see:
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/camcorder-comparison.htm
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/sony_dcr-vx2000.htm
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/camcorder--comparison.htm).
Someday, when D25 can be put on the 'net without further
compression, I may get around to showing these effects in
motion. As for Sony cameras showing the least
motion-artifacting, those would be the least-sharp
low-end 1-CCD models and the top-end (and much sharper)
3-CCD models. Worst I've seen for motion-artifacting: the
Canon GL1 and the Sony 1.5 megapixel 1-CCD models...
Was this any help?