>
> ""Actually, it's not. Film is actually "digital" in nature. A movie that you
> see in the theater is a "sample" of the scene taken every 1/30 (or 1/24,
> depending on format and media) of a second. This is no different than
> sampling a sound pressure every 1/44100 of a second. Still, you don't hear
> folks coming out of the woodwork saying that they're only going to go to see
> plays because movies don't reproduce the full quality of the work. That's
> because designers, after trying 10 frames per second (back with Charlie
> Chaplin and such) found that 30 frames per second was enough to fool the
> human eye into believing that it was seeing an accurate reproduction of
> reality"".
Film isn't digital. Digital refers to the use of ones and zeros to store information.
Don't confuse sampling with digital storage of the samples.
Film is a means of storing images in a manner that our eyes can detect without the aid
of
any type of converter. By the same token, I suppose that it was wrong of me to equate
video with digital.
But video does not store information as different colors and shades and scales of gray.
That was the point I was trying to make.
Perhaps it would be best to keep sound and sight separate all together. Because I
can't
think of any way to store sound so that it can be heard with out some sort of
converter.
While sight can be stored on film and readily seen by the eye with out the need for any
type of converter.
As for as motion pictures go, the number of frames needed to produce flicker free
movies is
simply a factor of the biological characteristic of persistence of vision.
G'day,
LAS
-----------------------------------------------------------------
To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word
"unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
