Prev: Why Pentax dumped the aging CF card
Next: Voices
From: Rich on 28 Mar 2010 18:12
nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote in news:270320101912492482%
nospam(a)nospam.invalid:

> In article
> <405302d8-a1ba-46a2-9305-31dd1de9bce0(a)z3g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>,
> RichA <rander3127(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Maybe it's time for a sensor produced with random pixel sizes and
>> organizations? Be interesting.
>
> and stupid.

Tell it to Fuji.
From: nospam on 28 Mar 2010 18:14
In article <JOKdnSHtbdDcSTLWnZ2dnUVZ_gY3AAAA(a)giganews.com>, Rich
<none(a)nowhere.com> wrote:

> >> Maybe it's time for a sensor produced with random pixel sizes and
> >> organizations? Be interesting.
> >
> > and stupid.
>
> Tell it to Fuji.

fuji doesn't have random pixel size or organization
From: Hanz on 29 Mar 2010 05:46
On 03/29/2010 12:14 AM, nospam wrote:
> In article<JOKdnSHtbdDcSTLWnZ2dnUVZ_gY3AAAA(a)giganews.com>, Rich
> <none(a)nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>>> Maybe it's time for a sensor produced with random pixel sizes and
>>>> organizations? Be interesting.
>>>
>>> and stupid.
>>
>> Tell it to Fuji.
>
> fuji doesn't have random pixel size or organization
That's funny, they used to sell a lot of one-shot sensors with randomly
organized photo sites of varying sizes -- on rolls.
-- Hans
From: John Sheehy on 31 Mar 2010 19:24
RichA <rander3127(a)gmail.com> wrote in
news:405302d8-a1ba-46a2-9305-31dd1de9bce0(a)z3g2000yqz.googlegroups.com:

> Maybe it's time for a sensor produced with random pixel sizes and
> organizations? Be interesting.

That would make images a bit more aesthetically pleasing than using an
unfiltered uniform sensor with the same average pixel size, but it will
still be error-prone at low densities. It would simply avoid simple
repeating aliasing patterns; there would still be false detail. A system
where a white pixel can exist next to a black one (in the same color
channel, of course) can never give accurate imaging.

From: John Sheehy on 31 Mar 2010 19:30
RichA <rander3127(a)gmail.com> wrote in news:21f2ae10-efbc-4b02-a0c7-
0441abf01bec(a)30g2000yqi.googlegroups.com:

> We've seen the before and after shots from cameras on the web. I
> think it is a barrier.

If you always shoot at high f-stops, shutter speeds that are too low, or
are always out of focus, then you don't need an AA filter, even with big
pixels.

Some people *like* aliasing, because they are optically naive and don't
recognize real detail vs aliased apparent detail.

Me, personally, I get a very disturbing feeling when looking at aliased
images. Even downsampled, sharp images from the Sigma SD9 give me the
heeby-jeebies. They look like a small nearest-neighbor downsample of a
much larger image; with entire columns and rows of pixels removed, and the
remainder expanding to fill in the gaps.

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Prev: Why Pentax dumped the aging CF card
Next: Voices