RE: Digicam

["gary" <gsellani@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I stated what in error twice? I never brought up the pre-filter for imaging.
You did. I try to stick with the theory, and you bring up side issues that
simply cloud the discussion.

Mash dacs? Why bring that into the discussion?

If you can't argue in a straightforward manner, I don't see the point of
discussing the issue. Right? I rather teach a pig to sing.


Outta here....


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-scan@leben.com [mailto:owner-scan@leben.com]On Behalf Of
> Kennedy McEwen
> Sent: Saturday, June 15, 2002 7:05 PM
> To: scan@leben.com
> Subject: Re: Digicam
>
>
> If you knew that, why did you contradict it?  What you term a diatribe
> was actually an attempt to explain something which you had clearly
> stated in error - TWICE!!

> The hold function of the DAC is only ONE representation of the sampled
> output and by no means unique.  Further, as I made clear in my original
> response to your analogy, in order to compensate for any DAC hold
> function, you must have sufficient resolution to define the detail of
> that hold function - that can only be done by interpolation, since the
> individual samples themselves are insufficient.  This is, if you like,
> much more analogous to an oversampling DAC and noise shaping digital
> filter.
> --
> Kennedy
>

-
Turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use accurate
subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for list instructions.