View Single Post
Old Aug 15, 2006, 2:07 AM   #37
peripatetic
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

Quote:
How completely blind are you that you can't see that your digital camera doesn't even produce the actual resolution that it is advertised to produce? Do you honestly think that your digital image at 100% looks truly clear and sharp with no edge artifacts or anything like that? An 8 megapixel digital camera does NOT produce images with 8 megapixel resolution; far from it in fact. I tried to explain this to you before, but it was obviously far beyond your comprehensional abilities.

Hi Tod,

Ah yes your silly old assertion that because of interpolation the number of true pixels can be only 4 mp at moston a 8mp sensor.

What you are asserting there is that the interpolation algorithm gets it 100% wrong. Which is absolutely ridiculous. Sometimes an interpolation algorithm will get it 100% right, but usually less that than. How much less depends on the algorithm and the pattern.

In your original example you gave which was that you just take a picture of a red card, I'm pretty sure the algorithm would get it 100% right.

There's a lot of monumental ignorance going around. Enough for everyone, I have my share but you've got a bucketful too.

For those people who don't think bayer interpolation is any more sophisticated than taking a wild guess and couldn't possibly get you closer than 4 "true" mp out of 8 claimed mp on an 8mp sensor perhaps they can start with this article - google has a zillion more links for those interested.

http://graphics.cs.msu.su/en/publica...prog2004lk.pdf


Quote:
Again, peripatetic, in a last ditch effort, you resort to your pethetic argument that "digital is better" because "most pros use it".
Nope that's not the assertion. Most pros use it because it's better in a multitude of ways and image quality is good enough. And when your livelihood depends on it you pay more attention. It is an indicator that most pros use it, you're confusing cause and effect again.

It is a separate assertion that image quality is as good or better and that many fine art photographers (who may or may not be professionals) are turning to digital because they have come to that conclusion too.

Quote:
I assume that by "mb" you mean "megabytes".
No that was a typo I meant megapixels.

Quote:
Cameras like 5D, 1D, D2X will generally give equal or better results than 6x4.5 medium format.


No I meant the current iteration of the 1Ds i.e. the MkII - I wasn't aware you were still lurking on these forums. Thought you'd long gone otherwise I would have been more careful in my typing.



Quote:
Some of you here seem to have the misguided believe that digital camera images aren't processed when they come out of the camera
Well shooting RAW they're not. Pretty much by definition. But of course then all the math happens on your PC. But do you really think that people are so stupid that they think a DIGITAL image isn't run through a microprocessor to turn it into a picture?


Quote:
I showed you how little grain there is in a raw, 10true megapixel film scan of consumer grade, 400 speed film. Your response was that you wanted to see some mathematical evaluation of the amount of noise in the image. Ha!
Yeah how's that going? Still working on it? Made any progress?Come on Tad we're waiting.


In the meantime for anyone who is interested they can have a look at Roger Clarke's calculations. (Who incidentally has fewer statues celebrating his ignorance than I do.)

http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta...ise/index.html



peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote