From: Bruce Maccabee <email@example.com> Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 19:07:25 -0500 Fwd Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 11:09:38 -0500 Subject: Re: 'Rods' - On The Learning Channel >From: Roger Evans <firstname.lastname@example.org> >Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 15:52:32 +0000 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <email@example.com> >Subject: 'Rods' - On The Learning Channel >>From: Bruce Maccabee <firstname.lastname@example.org> >>Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 10:30:55 -0500 >>Fwd Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 13:05:08 -0500 >>Subject: Re: 'Rods' - On The Learning Channel >>>From: Roger Evans <email@example.com> >>>Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 11:02:28 +0000 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <firstname.lastname@example.org> >>>From: Jose Escamilla <email@example.com> >>>Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 13:15:46 +030>0 >>>Fwd Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 15:57:23 >>annel> Thanks for the message.... >Previously, Bruce wrote: and, sorry for.... <snip> >>Jose says his big test was to use the electronic zoom to zoom in >>on the central section of a 6 ft long section of the ribbon >>(marked by black lines?) from a distance of 100 ft. The angle >>between the 6 ft marker was tan^-1(.06) = 3.4 degrees. His zoom >>may have restricted the field of view even more. At any rate, he >>would get the bolt in only 1 frame. >Hey! I guessed right!<g> Yup >>His test showed overall >>blur...perhaps not surprising. It should be compared with the >>blur of the ribbon image. However, in any case, the motion smear >>of the bolt was only about 1% of its length so any noticeable >>blur was due to the camera/optical system and not the motion.> >Hi Bruce, >I could be wrong, but I think Jose implied that he was using the >digital (as opposed to optical) zoom for maximum magnification. >Would such "false" enhancement of the image size affect your >calculations? >Just curious.... Shouldn't make any difference in th calculations of how large the image should be due to motion smear (about 1% longer than its size when there was no motion). It was my impression that the test here really was of the digital zoom....would it work the way an optical zoom would? Of course the digital zoom is "cursed" by the digitization which sets a "minimum resolvable size" (pixel) at the focal plane. This could explain why the zoomed image was (apparently) blurredall around. (Looked at carefully I expect the edges of the image actually woul have looked "blockish" or "pixelized"..... made up of small square areas, each being an image pixel. No doubt about it: optical zoom is superior (if the optics are good). Note for the interested: use your paint program of any version and look at a .bmp or .gif or some other format picture. When the picture completely fits on th screen it looks "good." The pixels are too small to be (easily) resolved by the (typical) eyeball. No start blowing it up (use the "magnifying glass:" symbol or the zoom). With enough blowup you will eventually see that th picture is made up of square areas and within each area the color and brightness are constant. The color and brightness will change from on area to the next at the edges of objects. This zoom done on the computer is comparable to the electronic zoom in videocameras.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp