|From: LUKEY@WordPerfect.com
|Date: Fri, 04 Feb 1994 12:35:47 -0700
|>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|animations are
||better on film because the resolution of "film" is inherently higher than a
||monitor. Nevermind that the original source was a computer and a monitor
||(clue for the morons, most "dance music" is mastered digitally now).
|Uh.... not quite. The resolution of film is higher. And animations
|done for film work are done at much-higher-than-video resolutions.
|I think you missed his point. He wasn't talking about a tv-screen,
|he was talking about a high resolution monitor. Regardless of how
|much resolution you can get on film, it's not going to get any better
|than the original source output (the computer).
And you missed mine: the original source output (the computer)
generates images that are very high-resolution for professional
animation. Higher than your typical monitor, if they're going
to end up on film.
His example was bad, though his point has merit. This example
might actually be a better argument for his point. You could
compare vinyl to video: both formats lose something from the
original master.
This has totally lost all relevance to dance music. People
who want to be grumpy assholes on either side of the analog/
digital debate should probably do it in private email.
---
C J Silverio ceej@netcom.com ceej@well.sf.ca.us
"He must be an oddity, I think," said she. "I cannot make him out.
There is something very pompous in his style. Can he be a sensible
man, sir?" --Pride & Prejudice.