|[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]|
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: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]On Behalf Of > Kennedy McEwen > Sent: Saturday, June 15, 2002 7:05 PM > To: email@example.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.