>dhaynie_at_jersey.net (Dave Haynie) wrote in message news:<40bf6739.136754772_at_news.jersey.net>...
>> On Mon, 31 May 2004 23:45:19 +0000 (UTC), davem_at_cs.ubc.ca (Dave
>> Martindale) wrote:
>>
>> >georgette_preddy_at_yahoo.com (Georgette Preddy) writes:
>> >
>> >>The SD9 is...
>> >>3.43 MP full color
>> >>13.72 MP monochrome
>>
>> >Wrong. The SD9/SD10 are 3.4 MP for all possible subject matter, colour
>> >or monochrome. There are only 3.4 million sensor locations.
>
>Incorrect, all the sensors have locations. Is that a strange concept
>for you? Is your world 3D or 2D?
they only have 3.43MP locations when it comes to resolution, the Z
axis means nothing in 2D photography.
>
>> Say "only 3.4 million pixels". That IS the definition of pixel, it
>> always has been, and always will be. I'm typing this on a monitor with
>> 1,920,000 pixels. They happen to be 24-bit RGB pixels, but
>> independently of the color, there are exactly 1,920,000 pixels
>> on-screen. The fact of their being 24-bit doesn't triplicate them; if
>> I ran a program that imposed a Bayer color scheme on the screen, I
>> would still have exactly 1,920,000 pixels. That is what pixels are.
>> >
>> >>The low end Canon 10D is only...
>> >>1.5 MP full color
>> >>6.0 MP monochrome
>>
>> >Wrong. The 10D has 6 million sensor locations, and acquires 6 MP of
>> >luminance information. It acquires the equivalent of 1.5 MP worth of
>> >*colour difference* information, not colour information.
>
>The number of complete RGB triples is the absolute insurmountable
>limit of full color resolution (which is all that matters) with any
>sensor using a 3 color model. This inludes the F828, btw, which
>converts every E reading to 50/50 Green/Blue.
Actually resolution is entirely dependent on pixel count. Resolution
is defined by pixel count in digital imaging. Remeber data/pixel is
irrelevent in defining a pixel.
Your misunderstanding of how the human visual system works also plays
hell with your arguments.
>
>> And, while it's maybe not obvious to fools and children, but anyone
>> who's well versed in imaging, video, or even (like me) has taken
>> several college course in cognative psychology,
>
>You took several college course?
>
>> will understand that
>> color information is far less important to the human imaging system
>> than spatial information. All forms of video you're likely to see are
>> decimated in color, 4:1, and yet, no one notices (if anything, you
>> notice how much better the color on DVDs or HDTV is, simply because
>> it's ONLY 4:1).
>
>You absolutely cannot use the "double green" sensor count of a Bayer
>sensor quantitatively, without producing a green shifted image. You
>can get double the green component's measurement accuracy for each
>complete RGB triple, a small qualitative increase, that's all.
>
>And even so, Bayer are so ridiculously far behind Foveon in sensor
>power, even with "double-green" count (which is of no quantitative
>value) Foveon has a massively higher green sensor count in absolute
>terms than a tiny 6MP interpolated monochrome Bayer sensor, like the
>diminutive Canon 10D CMOS.
You're a clown, and likely only one of a handfull of people who
actually believe that.
