ðòïåëôù 


  áòèé÷ 


Apache-Talk @lexa.ru 

Inet-Admins @info.east.ru 

Filmscanners @halftone.co.uk 

Security-alerts @yandex-team.ru 

nginx-ru @sysoev.ru 

  óôáôøé 


  ðåòóïîáìøîïå 


  ðòïçòáííù 



ðéûéôå
ðéóøíá












     áòèé÷ :: Filmscanners
Filmscanners mailing list archive (filmscanners@halftone.co.uk)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: filmscanners: film vs. digital cameras - wedding/commercial photography



> > > So from a photographic perspective, a Pixel, is the whole Quad -
>
> > I certainly disagree with that...

> Well, I agree with it.
> Lets see this from a basic perspective. Image a chip with just 4 sensors,
two green, > one red and one blue.
> A camera manufacturer (and you I assume) would see this as a 4 pixel chip.
> I (and Karl I guess) would see it as a 1 pixel chip. Anything else is a
lie.

Only the color information is shared amongst multiple pixels NOT the edge
information.  That does not make the four pixels one pixel.  Do the
geometry.  Each of the four sensors is capable of sensing an entirely unique
"section" of the image.  Why is that so hard to understand?

Take the four pixels, a 2x2 box, and say the left two are sensing only
black, and the right two, only white.  What are the four resultant values
going to be?

Television works more or less the same way, having some fraction (1/4th?)
the color information to the edge information.  And I believe human eyes
also work similarly, resolving less color information than edge information.




 




Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.