Posted by Jan Panteltje on 11/22/06 11:56

On a sunny day (Wed, 22 Nov 2006 00:27:13 +0100) it happened Martin Heffels
<is.itme@oris.ityou.info> wrote in
<cm27m21pbujg3u9nv4bb7al6c5a68hv5vi@4ax.com>:

>On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 22:33:13 GMT, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Well I cannot argue with [anybodies] experience.
>>Maybe there are other factors at work, but the theory stands.
>
>Your theory rambles :-)) A 35mm film, or let's make it worse, 65mm I-MAX,
>converted to DVD would look horrible then, if one follows your theory.

Well, that depends on the film scanner, I have seen horrible quality :-)
If for example it was a flying spot scanner (I am old) that I have experience
with, then there was not even digital involved, and the quality outstanding.
If the scanner is digital, uses one of those sensor arrays, and the with of
that array is the same as the number of horizontal pixels you have in
your format, or the sensor has say the _double_ number, it would give
_exactly_ the same result.
If it had an odd multiple (say 1.5 x the number) you would have a lot of
processing to do, it would not get any better.


>The actual theory is, the better the input quality, the better the output
>quality. And the even goes with downsampling HDV to DV.

It must be clear to you that then you have tricked yourself, it only
means the original format stuff was not 100% quality :-)

>cheers
>
>-martin-

[Back to original message]