Sigma/Foveon Questions
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: SI Facescape
Next: FF camera with mirrorless design
From: Ray Fischer on 28 Apr 2010 02:09 Kennedy McEwen <rkm(a)kennedym.demon.co.uk> wrote: > Ray Fischer >> No pixels are being added to the image. Additional information >>is being added to existing pixels. No additional pixels are being >>added. >> >Only by your limited definition of pixel. You seem to think that you can make up whatever definition you like. > I have already pointed you to >the accepted reference which clearly states that there are several >definitions of the term. None of which agree with your lunacy. > Arguing that only one is valid is no better >than arguing that one fairy story is truer than another. "Declare victory and run away." -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net
From: Ray Fischer on 28 Apr 2010 02:09 Kennedy McEwen <rkm(a)kennedym.demon.co.uk> wrote: >In article <260420101919030895%nospam(a)nospam.invalid>, nospam ><nospam(a)nospam.invalid> writes >>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. > >No size change need occur when you upsize an image from 3Mp to 12Mp >either. You are an idiot. -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net
From: Ray Fischer on 28 Apr 2010 02:26 David J Taylor <david-taylor(a)blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >"Ray Fischer" <rfischer(a)sonic.net> wrote in message >[] >> 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. > >"Pixel" may have a number of meanings - Only when you're trying to justify your incorrect interpretation. >- there is the element in a JPEG >file which has three components (R, G & B), That's not a pixel. > and there is the region on a >sensor which received light and turns it into an electrical signal. That's not a pixel either. > The >latter are sometimes called sensels, although that's not a term I tend to >use a lot. Becuase you're "confused". >How does your definition of a pixel compare with this one? > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pixel Quite well. I understand the difference between a pixel and the data used to represent the pixel. They're not the same thing. -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net
From: David J Taylor on 28 Apr 2010 03:09 "Ray Fischer" <rfischer(a)sonic.net> wrote in message news:4bd7d114$0$1667$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net... > Kennedy McEwen <rkm(a)kennedym.demon.co.uk> wrote: [] >>No size change need occur when you upsize an image from 3Mp to 12Mp >>either. > > You are an idiot. > > -- > Ray Fischer > rfischer(a)sonic.net Consider printing a 3MP image at 10 x 8 inches, for example. You get print A. Now upsize the image to 12MP in your image processing software, and print it out again at 10 x 8 inches. Print B. Prints A and B are the same size, but the image has been increased in resolution in between. So an upsized image, but at the same size. "Size" can equally refer to the number of pixels as to the final print size. Cheers, David
From: David J Taylor on 28 Apr 2010 03:13
"nospam" <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote in message news:270420101329388853%nospam(a)nospam.invalid... > In article <9tagpWF9ny1LFw7+(a)kennedym.demon.co.uk>, Kennedy McEwen [] >> There can be several picture elements, ie. pixels, at exactly >> the same spatial co-ordinates of multispectral images. I work with >> some >> images which have 128 pixels with exactly the same spatial coordinates! > > examples please. One imager I work with has 11 pixels at each spatial coordinate: http://www.esa.int/esapub/bulletin/bullet111/chapter4_bul111.pdf and there are 3712 x 3712 coordinates in an image. Cheers, David |