----- 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
Bob,
Now that's an interesting twist on "The evidence of things not seen." ...by the camera. Is it analogous to "capturing" what my mind interpolated from imperfect optical data when observing the original scene - a backwards Impressionist painting. All the little daubs of paint get filled and blended. Ah yes, much more real! :-)
AZ
Build a Lookaround! The Lookaround Book, 2nd ed. NOW SHIPPING http://www.panoramacamera.us
