Sigma/Foveon Questions
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: SI Facescape
Next: FF camera with mirrorless design
From: Ray Fischer on 27 Apr 2010 01:52 David J Taylor <david-taylor(a)blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >"Ray Fischer" <rfischer(a)sonic.net> wrote in message >news:4bd49347$0$1611$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net... >> David J Taylor <david-taylor(a)blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >> >> >>>>> .. where you find the basic spatial interpolation described, along >>>>> with >>>>> enhancements. >>>> >>>> interpolation yes, spatial no. there are n pixels going in, n pixels >>>> coming out. >>> >>>It is spatial. Typically there are n red sensing pixels, but 4n RGB >>>output pixels. >> >> Are you nuts? > >No, I'm describing what happens in the typical 12MP DSLR, Sensors are not pixels. They are completely independent concepts. You are confused because you think that because a pixel isn't what you think it _should_ be then it must not be a pixel. It's like insisting that because 2+5 is not equal to 6 then 6 must not be a proper number. -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net
From: Ray Fischer on 27 Apr 2010 01:53 Kennedy McEwen <rkm(a)kennedym.demon.co.uk> wrote: >In article <4bd4da29$0$1602$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net>, Ray Fischer ><rfischer(a)sonic.net> writes >>Kennedy McEwen <rkm(a)kennedym.demon.co.uk> wrote: >>>In article <250420101139237939%nospam(a)nospam.invalid>, nospam >>><nospam(a)nospam.invalid> writes >>>>In article <hr1mch$9de$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, David J Taylor >>>><david-taylor(a)blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote: >>>> >>>>> .. where you find the basic spatial interpolation described, along with >>>>> enhancements. >>>> >>>>interpolation yes, spatial no. there are n pixels going in, n pixels >>>>coming out. >>> >>>There are only x picture elements in and 3x picture elements coming out. >> >>Are you nuts? >> >No, you seem to be trolling again though. The fact that you keep throwing in new terms and making up new rules is ample evidence that the only troll here is you. -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net
From: David J Taylor on 27 Apr 2010 02:24 "nospam" <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote in message news:260420101919030895%nospam(a)nospam.invalid... > In article <7v6BpuB8vh1LFwKH(a)kennedym.demon.co.uk>, Kennedy McEwen > <rkm(a)nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >> We start with 4Mp of red and blue, we end up with 12Mp of red and blue. >> Irrespective of what else is used in the interpolation that is *STILL* >> interpolation and upsizing. > > interpolation yes. no upsizing since it's already the correct size. Each sensitive element is the same physical size as the resulting RGB pixel, yes. But the spacing of the pixels is not. For each of the 12M output pixels, there are only 3M red sensitive locations, at twice the physical spacing of the 12M pixels. Therefore the red information in between those red-sensitive pixels is obtained by spatial interpolation. Isn't 3M => 12M upsizing? Cheers, David
From: nospam on 27 Apr 2010 02:42 In article <hr5vur$sas$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, David J Taylor <david-taylor(a)blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote: > >> We start with 4Mp of red and blue, we end up with 12Mp of red and blue. > >> Irrespective of what else is used in the interpolation that is *STILL* > >> interpolation and upsizing. > > > > interpolation yes. no upsizing since it's already the correct size. > > Each sensitive element is the same physical size as the resulting RGB > pixel, yes. exactly. > But the spacing of the pixels is not. each pixel has the same spacing, although the filter in front of it varies. > For each of the 12M > output pixels, there are only 3M red sensitive locations, at twice the > physical spacing of the 12M pixels. there are other pixels in between the red pixels. > Therefore the red information in > between those red-sensitive pixels is obtained by spatial interpolation. > Isn't 3M => 12M upsizing? the spatial location of any given pixel is the same, it's the contents that is interpolated. think sparse matrix. it's not upsizing a small 3mp matrix into a bigger 12mp matrix.
From: David J Taylor on 27 Apr 2010 02:42
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer(a)sonic.net> wrote in message news:4bd67baa$0$1648$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net... [] > Sensors are not pixels. They are completely independent concepts. > > You are confused because you think that because a pixel isn't what you > think it _should_ be then it must not be a pixel. It's like insisting > that because 2+5 is not equal to 6 then 6 must not be a proper number. > > -- > Ray Fischer > rfischer(a)sonic.net "Pixel" may have a number of meanings - there is the element in a JPEG file which has three components (R, G & B), and there is the region on a sensor which received light and turns it into an electrical signal. The latter are sometimes called sensels, although that's not a term I tend to use a lot. How does your definition of a pixel compare with this one? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pixel Cheers, David |