----- Original Message ----- From: Alan Zinn <azinn@netbox.com> To: List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students <photoforum@listserver.isc.rit.edu> Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2003 9:06 PM Subject: C. Burkett URL > > FYI > Stuff about Burkett's "traditional" v. digitial issues. > > http://www.fortune.com/fortune/ontech/0,15704,560361,00.html > > Been beat to death here before but have a look. > Alan Much has been said before. The section that grabbed me was: <<< day you'll find countless photographers who are using medium to medium-high resolution sensors, like the CCD in our D1X, that take a 5.9 megapixel image that can be interpolated up to 10 megapixels." In other words, the image sensors in today's high-end digital cameras add information to the shot that the camera otherwise can't see. >>> Digital or analogue, one fact that has not (and never will) change is that you cannot recreate information that is not there. It's a form of magical thinking (in the digital arena) that somehow anything can be done with a fast enough processor. If you take 4 million samples you only have 4 million data points. Everything else is empty bloat. You cannot, and never ever will be able to do meaningful upward interpolations - meaningful in the sense of filling in the gaps with what should have been there. Already in those 5.9 million (quoted above) 2/3 of the reported information from the Bayer grid is already guesswork. If the camera can't see it, it can never be put back. Bob
