Other collecting activities?

From: Sean 'Captain Napalm' Conner <spc_at_conman.org>
Date: Wed Apr 21 03:01:52 2004

It was thus said that the Great Tony Duell once stated:
>
> > Even if you take a normal fine-grain silver halide image, under average
> > conditions, you'd have about 15M pixels (I found that in a few
> > references on the web). That's about 5 times more than a 3.1M pixel
> > digital image -- except they're analogue pixels, in a sense; the size
> > and colour are infinitely variable, not variable in discrete steps.
> > Moreover, 3.1M pixels in the camera aren't 3.1M pixels in the final
> > image. It depends how they're used, but in the camera, you typically
> > need three pixels, one for each of R, G, and B, to get one RGB pixel in
> > the image. Some techniques use even more (the Bayer algorithm uses 4).
>
> Argh!. You mean they fiddle the figures? I'd assumed that a 'pixel' was
> an RGB triad, not a third of one. So you mean you may only get 1 million
> points in the image from a 3.1M pixel camera?

  My 3.1M pixel camera gives me pictures that are 2048x1536 in size, so yes,
you do get an image with 3.1 million pixels in it, but I suspect that the
CCD is larger than 2048x1536 and some interpolation is done. I have seen
pictures from a 15MP camera (I forgot who) that were gorgeous (huge things
... the jpegs alone where ridiculously huge) but it isn't on the market yet
(test camera). Also, I read an article about Sports Illustrated using
digital cameras (high end SLR units) and their workflow---now much faster
due to the "development" time being negligable.

  -spc (Wouldn't mind having a B&W digital camera ... )
Received on Wed Apr 21 2004 - 03:01:52 BST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Oct 10 2014 - 23:36:30 BST