George is winning.

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Georgette Preddy, Jun 1, 2004.

  1. The Sigma SD's both output 13.72MP images (4036 x 3024) when color
    interpolated to the same degree as all Bayer DSLR do by default (25%
    optical info per pixel).

    Since all Bayers are incapable of producing 100% optical resolutions,
    the SD's optional 100% optical 3.43MP photographic resolution is a
    non-issue when comparing, since no other digital camera in the world
    is advanced enough to output a true optical photograph (using
    non-interpolated colors in every pixel).
     
    Georgette Preddy, Jun 1, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Georgette Preddy

    JPS Guest

    In message <>,
    "SDs", not "SD's". Apostrophes are not for plurals.
    You have honed your statement so that it is almost true. Color is
    interpolated with the Bayer cameras, but it is only done because the
    luminance exists at a higher resolution. The Bayers, therefor actually
    have a reason to interpolate color spatially; they need full RGB bitmaps
    for display. The SDs only have 3.43MP of luminance information, the
    same resolution as the color, so they are really only 3.43MP any way you
    look at them.
    This is your own terminology, poorly thought out, only to support your
    nonsense.
    Nonsense. See my second paragraph again.
    --
     
    JPS, Jun 1, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. It's colloquial, so it's just fine.
    Bayers have MPs/3 worth of luminance data, before 25% is thrown out.
    So the same MPs/4 applies in both luminance and color--opbiously,
    since you can never have more of one than the other.
    It's common sense. Pixel count is completely unrelated to optical
    resolution. Do you think all 8 oz glasses have 8 oz's (colloquial) of
    water in them?
     
    Georgette Preddy, Jun 2, 2004
    #3
  4. Pixel count is the defining factor of resolution.

    You are a clown.

    GK
     
    grant kinsley, Jun 2, 2004
    #4
  5. Georgette Preddy

    Phil Wheeler Guest

    Uhhhh .. what is the prize? Whatever it is it cannot be worth all the
    typing he does.
     
    Phil Wheeler, Jun 2, 2004
    #5
  6. That'd be 8 oz. of water, although in a narrative it's better to spell
    out ounces.

    And yes, all 8 oz. glasses are *capable* of holding 8 oz. water.

    Colloquially yours,

    John McWilliams
     
    John McWilliams, Jun 2, 2004
    #6
  7. Georgette Preddy

    Crownfield Guest

    right.
    so a one pixel camera has all the resolution of a 22 mp digital back.
     
    Crownfield, Jun 2, 2004
    #7
  8. Georgette Preddy

    Alan D-W Guest

    Patronising little turd.
     
    Alan D-W, Jun 2, 2004
    #8
  9. Great, than all cameras have infinite optical resolution since any
    image can be interpolated to any number of pixels.

    Output pixels have absolutely nothing tho do with optical resolution.
     
    Georgette Preddy, Jun 3, 2004
    #9
  10. Apparently you don't like learning.
     
    Georgette Preddy, Jun 3, 2004
    #10
  11. Georgette Preddy

    Mark M Guest

    It would be adviseable, George, that before you try and teach anyone you
    need to pull your head out of your ... and learn a bit yourself.

    Either this has NEVER occurred to you, or you simply have no ability to see
    your own ignorance.

    Or... You're an intelligent guy who intentionally makes an ass of himself
    for sport.

    I hope--for your sake--that it's this last one.
     
    Mark M, Jun 3, 2004
    #11
  12. Wonderful, you are about to "get it."

    Yes, all 3000x2000 pixel images are "capable" of holding 6M pixels
    worth of 100% optically determined color information (which would
    require at least 18M individual RGB sensors in a 3 layer design, or
    24M in a 1 layer design). Unfortunately, a 25%-optical Bayer
    3000x2000 image only carries a maximum of 1.5M pixels worth of
    optically determined information within it, which is then
    interpolatively upscaled to 3000x2000 recorded output pixels.

    At last you understand that pixels are the medium, not the message.
    Just as 8oz glasses are the water carriers, not the water.
     
    Georgette Preddy, Jun 3, 2004
    #12
  13. No, interpolation has limits, but you fail to understand even the
    basics of math, so I won't try and explain that to you
    Anything over the number of pixels on the sensor is simply upscaling.
    Watch a VHS tape upscaled to 1080i or 720p and you will understand
    that upscaling adds no new information, it just repeats information to
    smooth the picture.

    GK
     
    grant kinsley, Jun 3, 2004
    #13
  14. unlike you who has never got it.

    a pixel is a spatial definition, how a pixel utilizes data, and the
    data it contains does not change the definition of a pixel
    interpolation, and upscaling are two different things, please learn
    the difference.
    So you finally understand that a pixel is defined as the glass, and
    data is defined as the water. unfortunatly you have been trying to
    define the water as the glass on this newsgroup by your claims that
    sigma's cameras are 13.72MP when they are, in fact, 3.43MP

    GK
     
    grant kinsley, Jun 3, 2004
    #14
  15. Good job!
    Interpolation is how all images are upscaled, not just Bayer images.
    The SD9 is a 13.72MP interpolated, 3.43MP optical DSLR.

    Bayer DLSRs are (rated-MPs) interpolated, (rated-MPs)/4 optical.

    Congratualtions, you graduated!
     
    Georgette Preddy, Jun 3, 2004
    #15
  16. Divided by 3 (4 in the case of an old 1 layer Bayer design)
    Obviously, since it takes an R, G (2G/2 in the case of a 1-layer
    Bayer), and B sensor to produce 1 optical full color pixel.
     
    Georgette Preddy, Jun 3, 2004
    #16
  17. Georgette Preddy

    Bill Funk Guest

    For that one pixel, yes. :)
     
    Bill Funk, Jun 3, 2004
    #17
  18. Georgette Preddy

    Bill Funk Guest

    Your reading comprehension problem is displayed yet again.
    WHat he said is plainly quoted above; that interpolation and upscaling
    are not the same things.
    Interpolation is *not* upscaling. Upscaling is *not* interpolation.
    So far, so good. This is, BTW, what I'be veen saying all along; I'm
    gratified to see that you now believe the same thing.
    No, you still have this wrong; you are failing to understand that each
    seperate spatial sensor site is, in a Bayer sensor, a pixel. Just
    like, in an X3 sensor, each spacially distinct sensor position is a
    pixel. Different sensors in the X3 which are in the same spatial
    position, but on different layers, are not pixels.
    Given the inability of the teacher (yourself) to understand the
    course, this doesn't mean much.
     
    Bill Funk, Jun 3, 2004
    #18
  19. Georgette Preddy

    Bill Funk Guest

    If you are likening yourself to a teacher, you should first ensure
    that you know the course material.
    You obviously don't.
    Teachers also don't just make the course material up as they go along.
    Teachers also should demonstrate good reading comprehension, which you
    obviously don't.
     
    Bill Funk, Jun 3, 2004
    #19
  20. Georgette Preddy

    Alan D-W Guest

    You patronising little dog turd
     
    Alan D-W, Jun 3, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.