On Fri, 04 Jan 2002 08:54:03 GMT, "Alexander Ibrahim" wrote:

>Ugh...you post stuff like this and I think "Sony Zealot"

We've been around this before....
Methinks it is clear you are the "Canon zealot", and
I report what I see/find... Give this nonsense a rest, already. I wrote (but you removed...), "The 'increased
vertical resolution' applies only to stills taken as
frame-grabs during moments of motion - the resolution is
actually somewhat reduced for motion-video for both static
moments and during motion (as you [the original poster]
have noticed).

>This notion that the Canon FRAME mode lowers spatial resolution is
>patently untrue, and this can be seen on its face.

I wrote, in a later post,"This has often been reported - it
has something to do with not having true progressive-scan at
1/30th second, resulting in a need for interpolation, as I
recall..."
LA wrote, in a later post, "The best explanation I have
seen is here:
http://www.dv.com/magazine/2000/1100/wilt1100.html
It includes diagrams of exactly which pixels are averaged to
produce the illusion of progressive scan, and resolution
chart samples. [...] As for getting PS-captured DV data
through the interlaced format tape and onto a PS monitor
looking better than if it was captured in interlaced mode,
it is not likely today."
I do recommend going to the URL above and reading it,
before claiming wonderous virtues for your favored Canon
that cannot be realized in the real world...

>In fact, if you compare stills from NORMAL and FRAME modes, you will
>see INCREASED resolution from FRAME mode.

This just isn't true, if you are shooting non-moving
material, the only reasonable way to compare these;
otherwise, you must display on compatible display types,
and then you will see both the slightly degraded spatial
resolution of "frame mode", and the noticeably degraded
temporal resolution of "frame mode", relative to the
interlaced display. For grabbing stills from the motion
video, the issues are different (and I suspect, the reason
for the below...).

>In case you want to complain about that notion, NIST, Sarnoff
>Institute and NASA have all verified this, both obviously by looking
>at the resulting images and mathematically if you care...
>
>Heck the U.S. Air Force even uses XL-1's in FRAME mode for aerial
>surveillance on some platforms for this reason!!! (No I don't know
>which platform and no they don't actually use the WHOLE XL-1, just the
>imaging block and tape transport...and yeah they use film for still
>images.)

And the BBC uses VX2000s... (and both are irrelevant
observations...;-)
As I've tried to say before, I don't care if you like the
XL-1, or not, but quit claiming I'm a "Sony zealot", when
it is you who rises to defend "grand ol' Canon" when any
flaw/shortcoming is pointed out (which *is* OK, if you have
a *supportable* arguement...;-). BTW, I guess you didn't
notice that I did ***not*** say anything like "Sony can do
frame-mode better than Canon" - yet, somehow, what I did
say becomes for you somehow "pro-Sony".
Stop being silly, please - it interfers with having useful
exchanges from which we all may learn...