home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
Light ROM 4
/
Light ROM 4 - Disc 1.iso
/
text
/
maillist
/
1995
/
1095.doc
/
001446_owner-lightwav…mail.webcom.com_Wed Oct 25 18:53:04 1995.msg
< prev
next >
Wrap
Internet Message Format
|
1995-11-07
|
2KB
Received: by mail.webcom.com
(1.37.109.15/16.2) id AA016032384; Wed, 25 Oct 1995 18:53:04 -0700
Return-Path: <owner-lightwave@mail.webcom.com>
Received: from access5.digex.net by mail.webcom.com with ESMTP
(1.37.109.15/16.2) id AA015972377; Wed, 25 Oct 1995 18:52:57 -0700
Received: (from davep@localhost) by access5.digex.net (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA02618 ; for ; Wed, 25 Oct 1995 21:45:56 -0400
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 1995 21:45:55 -0400 (EDT)
From: Dave Paige <davep@access.digex.net>
To: Mark Thompson <mark@fusion.MV.COM>
Cc: lightwave@mail.webcom.com
Subject: Re: GLOW and FIELD RENDERING QUESTION
In-Reply-To: <9510250713.AA00i5p@fusion.mv.com>
Message-Id: <Pine.SUN.3.91.951025214438.2199A-100000@access5.digex.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-lightwave@mail.webcom.com
Precedence: bulk
On Tue, 24 Oct 1995, Mark Thompson wrote:
> Dave Paige <davep@access.digex.net> asks:
> > Why would field rendering reduce your resolution by half, you get the
> > same number of horizontal lines per frame, field rendering or not?
>
> But you get half those lines for each field, and any fast moving object
> will become spatially aliased due to the reduction in vertical resolution.
> Stationary objects will of course look fine.
True, of course, but that's what happens to anything recorded using an
interlaced video system.
Dave
--
Dave Paige <davep@access.digex.net> sent this message.
To Post a Message : lightwave@webcom.com
Un/Subscription Requests To : lightwave-request@webcom.com
(DIGEST) or : lightwave-digest-request@webcom.com
Administrative Items To : owner-lightwave@webcom.com