On Sat, 05 Jan 2002 08:04:03 GMT, "Alexander Ibrahim" wrote:

>Sometimes I wonder about you David...

Likewise, I'm sure...! ;-)

>It isn't enough that NASA, the Air Force and others have measured
>higher still image resolution from FRAME mode on the Canon...and that
>they have selected it for that reason and use.

As I said, for ***********stills**************, this is
likely true, but not for motion-video... (an easy concept...).

>You still stick to your claim that the opposite is true.
>
>Well, I have seen it with my own eyes, blown up for the world to see:
>
>An image from a NASA high altitude aircraft showing the XL-1 imagers
>raw data in interlace and FRAME mode...the FRAME image was clearly
>superior in resolution.
>
>As to MOTION...the plane was moving over 600 miles per hour...

As I said, for frame-grabs of *motion*, frame-mode would likely
be sharper, but not for its inherent sharpness superiority, but simply
for its lack of interlacing (parts of the image separated in time...) - but
of a ***still object***, a frame-mode image shot with the Canon
should produce a lower resolution image than if shot interlaced-mode...
(see the AW URL, below).

>You want to say some nonsense about lower res go ahead, just remember
>it is nonsense.

Oh, OK.......;-)
I refer you, again, to:
http://www.dv.com/magazine/2000/1100/wilt1100.html
I think Adam Wilt generally knows what he is talking
about...;-)
And, BTW, if those folks at NASA are using just the Canon
imaging block, I wonder why they didn't just get it from
the source, Panasonic...;-)