John,
This is certanly true. In fact I know that I could design a system that
would work this way. But now we are really not talking simple. 

Jim Hannon
http://soli.inav.net/~jmhannon/
42,11.90N,91,39.26W
WB0TXL

On Thu, 31 May 2001, The Lahrs wrote:

> There is no reason why the resolution could not be better, if one could 
> resolve,
> say, the difference between the center of the beam being directly on a 
> particular
> pixel, or some fraction of the way between two pixels.
> Just a thought.  The proof will be in the seismogram produced!
> John
> 
> At 05:41 AM 5/31/2001 , Jim H. wrote:
> >  In the case of Kodaks biggest 14000 pixels less than 12 bits of 
> > resolution. This is truly a not so simple solution.
> 
> John C. Lahr
> 1925 Foothills Road
> Golden, CO 80402
> Phone: (303) 215-9913
> john@........
> http://lahr.org/john-jan/science.html
> __________________________________________________________
> 
> Public Seismic Network Mailing List (PSN-L)
> 
> To leave this list email PSN-L-REQUEST@.............. with 
> the body of the message (first line only): unsubscribe
> See http://www.seismicnet.com/maillist.html for more information.
> 

__________________________________________________________

Public Seismic Network Mailing List (PSN-L)