At 09:26 PM 10/9/01 -0500, Jim Choate wrote:
On Tue, 9 Oct 2001, Dynamite Bob wrote:
[Reformatted for legibility. Please take the few moments required to ensure materials submitted are readable. KMSelf]
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-000080591oct09.story?co ll=la%2Dnews%2Da%5Fsection
Still images can be derived from many video frames with better resolution than you think.
It's actually pretty standard.
My 15 year old Amiga Video Toaster uses several frames to generate each still.
It's common practive in astronomy to 'stack' multiple images in order to bring out detail. They can sometimes stack quite a few frames, 25+
I think the point is that the source frames were moving. REquiring serious correlation to stack the right frames. Quite different from an earth-motion-compensated tracking telescope stacking frames. If you are filming a nonmoving object you can get very large S/N by accumulating frames. If the object is moving its much harder --esp if moving in 3D. I once did some research programming for MD/researchers who film Xray movies of clogged hearts (cineangiography at Cedar Sinai '90-93), who found better recognition of problems if you fixate the feature of interest. Doing so automatically is nontrivial. Similarly with the work described, e.g., Yo-yo cranking on the fiddle. But your Toaster experience is correct.