|
|
This topic comprises 5 pages: 1 2 3 4 5
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Comparison of digital formats
|
|
|
Adam Martin
I'm not even gonna point out the irony.
Posts: 3686
From: Dallas, TX
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 06-27-2001 07:17 AM
Didn't eat my Wheaties this morning. Running slow on both dynamic and static (including the home) pages. Other sites load fine. Started poking around at about 7:45 am Eastern ... In fact, I've typed all this and pasted the code below and the .gif files on the post page are still opening.code:
Pinging www.film-tech.com [207.168.10.69] with 32 bytes of data:Reply from 207.168.10.69: bytes=32 time=118ms TTL=240
Reply from 207.168.10.69: bytes=32 time=116ms TTL=240
Reply from 207.168.10.69: bytes=32 time=117ms TTL=240
Reply from 207.168.10.69: bytes=32 time=117ms TTL=240
code:
Tracing route to www.film-tech.com [207.168.10.69]
over a maximum of 30 hops: 1 2 ms 3 ms 3 ms 10.1.1.254
2 <10 ms <10 ms <10 ms 10.100.1.252
3 2 ms 2 ms 2 ms 206.141.185.1
4 8 ms 7 ms 7 ms 199.179.99.1
5 10 ms 9 ms 9 ms 199.179.0.242
6 17 ms 17 ms 17 ms atm3-0x6.nap1.mich.net [198.108.22.230]
7 18 ms 17 ms 18 ms acr2-serial6-1-0-0.chicagochd.cw.net [208.172.1.169]
8 19 ms 18 ms 18 ms corerouter2.willowsprings.cw.net [204.70.9.146]
9 107 ms 105 ms 103 ms core3.willowsprings.cw.net [204.70.4.25]
10 22 ms 19 ms 19 ms atm1-0.chi-c100.gw.epoch.net [206.220.243.61]
11 72 ms 72 ms 72 ms pos0-1.sfo-c000.gw.epoch.net [155.229.123.141]
12 73 ms 73 ms 75 ms pos8-0.pao-c001.gw.epoch.net [155.229.57.197]
13 82 ms 83 ms 81 ms pos3-0-0.lax-c100.gw.epoch.net [155.229.120.50]
14 113 ms 112 ms 112 ms pos0-0-0.dal-m100.gw.epoch.net [155.229.123.126]
15 117 ms 116 ms 116 ms 209-101-238-138.dal-m100.cust.gw.epoch.net [209.101.238.138]
16 119 ms 117 ms 118 ms www.film-tech.com [207.168.10.69] Trace complete.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evans A Criswell
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1579
From: Huntsville, AL, USA
Registered: Mar 2000
|
posted 06-27-2001 09:48 AM
quote:
Now to describe the NASA system, as I remember it. I couldn't find the old paper abstract, and I am not a math whiz, so I'll try to describe the concept in lay terms.The first part was a recognition that each lens is different and it was ideal if the original lens could be on hand to examine it's individual characteristics. However, the general concept could be applied to any lens that had an out-of-focus image.
Thanks, Jerry, for providing the details on that NASA sharpening algorithm in your earlier post. I have 2 books consisting of nothing but important papers in the fields of image enhancement and restoration, and several of the articles deal with the topic of deblurring. One specifically deals with deblurring using the principles of optics. This is such a neat area because much of the research, besides just being for theoretical interest, is very practical and applicable in the real world. By the way, my research work at the University of ALabama in Huntsville is funded by NASA contracts. In fact, I believe every bit of work I've done for the past 13 years has been through contracts with NASA. That's one reason I was so interested in knowing which approach NASA was using for that deblurring. Marshall Space Flight Center, here at Huntsville, has an excellent library with one of the best collection of technical journals in the southeast. The coolest thing I got to see (a couple of months ago) was a lens fabrication facility out at MSFC. Both mirrors and lenses were manufactured there. I saw some of the largest lenses I'd ever seen. 17-inch diameter lenses were sitting around, and one large machine had a lens that was 30 or 32 inches in diameter (and 4 to 6 inches thick), and it was so clear that the lens itself was hard to see in the machine. On another day, we had visited a very large facility where satellite sensors and embedded processors were made, and the building had a huge high-bay area. Being a movie buff, when looking around, the thought came to mind about how some of those huge lenses and the huge wall of that high-bay area could be used for some giant film format. Sorry for the delay in response, Jerry, but for some reason, I did not see the replies from June 23rd and on in this thread until this mroning, which I cannot explain, since I keep up with this site at least a couple of times a day. ------------------
Evans A Criswell
Huntsville-Decatur Movie Theatre Info Site
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
William Hooper
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1879
From: Mobile, AL USA
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 06-29-2001 03:43 AM
Running about 2 minutes for a page load on T1 tonight, 5 if you want images, too:
Target Name: www.filmtech.com
IP: 207.217.96.35
3 5 ms T1-s0-Capital-s2-DTMOB.zebra.net [209.12.14.245]
4 9 ms 905.Hssi4-0-0.GW1.NOL1.ALTER.NET [157.130.68.65]
5 17 ms 132.ATM3-0.XR1.HOU4.ALTER.NET [152.63.96.106]
6 17 ms 193.at-2-0-0.TR1.HOU7.ALTER.NET [152.63.99.146]
7 57 ms 132.at-6-1-0.TR1.LAX9.ALTER.NET [152.63.4.162]
8 68 ms 297.ATM6-0.XR1.LAX4.ALTER.NET [152.63.112.173]
9 60 ms 193.ATM6-0.GW4.LAX4.ALTER.NET [152.63.113.89]
10 60 ms earthlink-gw.customer.alter.net [157.130.231.222]
11 59 ms f5-0-0-cr02-pas.neteng.itd.earthlink.net [207.217.1.44]
12 59 ms v296-dnr01-pas.neteng.itd.earthlink.net [207.217.2.126]
13 61 ms www.filmtech.com [207.217.96.35]
quote:
Adam - trying pinging www.film-tech.com the next time you have a problem and let me know what the delay is. Is there any way of testing this from some point outside the MS proxy box?
This is a cute little freeware program called Ping Plotter (available at ZDNet)
http://www.zdnet.com/downloads/stories/info/0,,34738,.html It can be set up to ping repeatedly at intervals you set up, average them, & then show the results graphically to see where the bottleneck may be. It can copy the data as text to the W9x clipboard, or copy it as a graphical representation. Whoah, looka here! Target Name: www.filmtech.com
IP: 207.217.96.29 3 5 ms T1-s0-Capital-s2-DTMOB.zebra.net [209.12.14.245]
4 8 ms 905.Hssi4-0-0.GW1.NOL1.ALTER.NET [157.130.68.65]
5 15 ms 132.ATM3-0.XR1.HOU4.ALTER.NET [152.63.96.106]
6 15 ms 193.at-2-0-0.TR1.HOU7.ALTER.NET [152.63.99.146]
7 57 ms 132.at-6-1-0.TR1.LAX9.ALTER.NET [152.63.4.162]
8 66 ms 297.ATM6-0.XR1.LAX4.ALTER.NET [152.63.112.173]
9 62 ms 193.ATM6-0.GW4.LAX4.ALTER.NET [152.63.113.89]
10 60 ms earthlink-gw.customer.alter.net [157.130.231.222]
11 263 ms f8-0-0-cr01-pas.neteng.itd.earthlink.net [207.217.1.75]
12 59 ms v200-dnr01-pas.neteng.itd.earthlink.net [207.217.2.30]
13 58 ms www.filmtech.com [207.217.96.29]
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jerry Chase
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1068
From: Margate, FL, USA
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 09-08-2001 11:08 PM
Evans, I was just cleaning out some bookshelves and came across at least part of what I had remembered:"As early as the sixties, NASA reported on a precise technique to refocus poorly focused images based on weighted averaging" It is labeled "Supplemental Information Package for HQN-10542" Correction filters remove defects in optical images. Perhaps that will help you find it. Patent NASA Search result
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 5 pages: 1 2 3 4 5
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
Printer-friendly view of this topic