On Tue, 25 Jun 2002 16:47:29 -0400, "Dirk J. Bakker" wrote:

>Neuman - Ruether wrote:
>
>>On 24 Jun 2002 21:05:53 -0700, bowman38@charter.net (ralph
>>bowman) wrote:

>>Ummmmmmm...
>>"700 lines" is impossible with the Mini-DV format, as lines
>>are counted in video... (540 [vertical] lines horizontal
>>resolution is the medium maximum, which the VX2000 most
>>closely approaches of the available cameras seen so far

>Yeah, right. Why is one's advantage 'wasted' on the medium and not the
>others?
>
>Dirk Bakker

The answer RB gave (which I was responding to) was
comparing "apples and oranges": the on-tape resolution
of the VX2000 with the "imager" resolution of the
JVC 300 (take this as the combination of lens,
CCD-capability, and associated electronics). The D25
format limit is 540 lines, but improving the resolution
"up-stream" does in fact improve the final on-tape
resolution's "degree of approximation" of 540
lines - but the 540 lines (or whatever the actual
exact value is) format limit of D25 is the absolute
limit, never to be actually reached in practice...
The poster was claiming that the JVC 300's "700"
lines was an improvement over the VX2000's "520", but
this was false, as presented, since one was the
"before tape" resolution, the other, the "on tape"
resolution, and these cannot be compared - it would
be like saying that camera A's lens has an aerial
resolution of 400 lpi, and camera B's lens has a
60 lpi resolution on film, therefore camera A's lens
is better (this is not a true statement...).