Sigma/Foveon Questions
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: SI Facescape
Next: FF camera with mirrorless design
From: Ray Fischer on 28 Apr 2010 04:12 David J Taylor <david-taylor(a)blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >"Ray Fischer" <rfischer(a)sonic.net> wrote in message >news:4bd7d114$0$1667$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net... >> Kennedy McEwen <rkm(a)kennedym.demon.co.uk> wrote: >[] >>>No size change need occur when you upsize an image from 3Mp to 12Mp >>>either. >> >> You are an idiot. > >Consider printing a 3MP image at 10 x 8 inches, for example. "No SIZE change need occur when you UPSIZE an image" -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net
From: Ray Fischer on 28 Apr 2010 04:14 David J Taylor <david-taylor(a)blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >"nospam" <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote in message >news:270420101329388853%nospam(a)nospam.invalid... >> In article <9tagpWF9ny1LFw7+(a)kennedym.demon.co.uk>, Kennedy McEwen >[] >>> There can be several picture elements, ie. pixels, at exactly >>> the same spatial co-ordinates of multispectral images. I work with >>> some >>> images which have 128 pixels with exactly the same spatial coordinates! >> >> examples please. > >One imager I work with has 11 pixels at each spatial coordinate: > > http://www.esa.int/esapub/bulletin/bullet111/chapter4_bul111.pdf That cite says that you're an idiot. >and there are 3712 x 3712 coordinates in an image. And 3712 x 3712 pixels. -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net
From: nospam on 28 Apr 2010 04:24 In article <hr8mv8$tah$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, David J Taylor <david-taylor(a)blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote: > 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. upsizing doesn't add any detail so the resolution isn't going to be any different.
From: David J Taylor on 28 Apr 2010 04:25 "Ray Fischer" <rfischer(a)sonic.net> wrote in message news:4bd7ee67$0$1595$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net... [] >> http://www.esa.int/esapub/bulletin/bullet111/chapter4_bul111.pdf > > That cite says that you're an idiot. > >>and there are 3712 x 3712 coordinates in an image. > > And 3712 x 3712 pixels. > > -- > Ray Fischer > rfischer(a)sonic.net > Ray, rather reluctantly, as you appear unwilling to listen to what others are trying to explain to you, and as you persist in name calling rather than in reasoned argument, I will no longer engage in discussion with you on this topic. David
From: nospam on 28 Apr 2010 04:32
In article <hr8n74$uku$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, David J Taylor <david-taylor(a)blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote: > 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. the word pixel appears only once in the entire document and it says 'image data' for 4 visible/near-infrared and 8 infrared channels, not pixels. it's a 13.7 megapixel sensor (3712 x 3712), with each pixel having 12 components. it is *not* 165 megapixels. |