On Mon, 20 Aug 2001 19:41:27 -0500, "JD" wrote:
>"Neuman - Ruether" wrote in message
>news:3b8198b1.13864530@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu...

>> >Careful filtering (and limiting the amount of detail), can mitigate
>> >the mosquito effect, but that trades one form of quality for
>> >another.
>> >
>> >Another way of describing that effect is that DV can only represent
>> >a certain amount of detail before the effects of the truncation of
>> >the transform becomes noticeable.

>> Yes, mosquito effect is easy to get with fine textures
>> and detail, especially with a sharp-imaging camera like
>> the VX2000, but I have never seen it on text, as the
>> original poster claimed...

>Okay -- now I understand!!!
>
>Properly anti-aliased text is also going to be properly managed
>for detail. If text was just rendered at full resolution, without
>consideration for too much high frequency stuff, then you'd
>get the mosquitos. My guess is that high detail graphics
>that are properly filtered for NTSC would be close to that needed
>for DV?
>
>So, yes, low quality implementation of a source would make DV
>look worse than it is. As you already know (and I am not really
>trying to explain to you -- never feel like I am preaching to you,
>but I am meaning to make sure that the other readers know what
>is going on, giving you a chance to disagree as you desire!!!),

Preach away - contrary to popular opinion, I still
have a *lot* to learn...!

>text rendering (or other graphics) has certain limitations for proper
>NTSC (or PAL) appearance. DV simply provides another set of
>limitations, but those limitations are probably rather small when
>compared to the grosser limitations of composite video. In fact,
>even if a few additional issues need to be considered, I doubt that
>the differences associated with the needed detail limitation for
>DV would be noticeable on NTSC composite.
>
>I think that we all know that DV can be made to look
>bad, but as the devices used with DV are optimized for it, I suspect
>that the issues stressing the format will become less and less
>a consideration. The cool thing is that even though DV can be
>abused by mistake, in general and in practical situations where the
>format isn't being intentionally abused, it is
>very good, and has a WONDERFUL price/cost/performance ratio. (Price
>of the gear is wonderfully inexpensive, the cost of using it like tape is
>fairly inexpensive, and it performs pretty darned well.)
>
>John

Thanks for the valuable comments!
Yours is a refreshingly direct way of explaining
things, and it made me think, "of course!" a
few times...;-)