EnigmA Amiga Run 1997 July/EnigmA AMIGA RUN 20 (1997)(G.R. Edizioni)(IT)[!][issue 1997-07 & 08][EAR-CD IV].iso/lightwave/lwmlist/95.lightwave-10/001446_owner-lightwav…mail.webcom.com_Wed Oct 25 18:53:04 1995.msg

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: <[e-mail]>
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 <[e-mail]>
To: Mark Thompson <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: GLOW and FIELD RENDERING QUESTION
In-Reply-To: <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk



On Tue, 24 Oct 1995, Mark Thompson wrote:

> Dave Paige <[e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]> sent this message.
To Post a Message           : [e-mail]
Un/Subscription Requests To : [e-mail]
(DIGEST)                 or : [e-mail]
Administrative Items To     : [e-mail]