> > colours too are guessed by the camera. > > Using a process that turns out to be remarkably close to the one used > in the human eye and brain, and hence producing photos that look > *great* to human eyes. Sorry David: that sounds like complete twaddle. Where did you read that? I'd love to follow up the reference further. >From my distant memories of the Physiology of vision I can see almost no similarities, oh, apart from the fact that what the brain "sees" has almost no 1:1 correspondance to signals recieved by the eye. But maybe you are right: after all, some digital cameras produce much sharper results than scans (as long as you ignore the in-camera covert sharpening that has been applied before you get access to the file.). PS: The eye/brain are analogue processes! :o) > > What has happened with UV and IR photography in the digital world? > > not necessarily for pictorial use but for tech and forensic? > > Photography isn't just limited to the pictorial world. > There's something of a renaissance in IR photography going on > precisely *because* of the rise of digital. But in the pictorial world the flaws don't really matter - unless you after large high-definition high-detail images without the "purple fringing". For the most part people adapt to what is possible with any medium. Forensically / scientifically you actually want the relationship between the recorded image and what was seen by the sensor to at least be predictable. Every stupid "proprietry" hidden in-camera tweak (including dealing with noise, dead/hot pixels, sharpening etc etc) weakens that relationship. > Can't get decent resolution with three sensors. It works for video > because video resolution is so low. I suspect the camera bodies ould have to be a lot bigger too? > I get much better reliability and quality and, above all, consistency, > from digital. Ultimately that's what counts. Reliability? I'll let you know in 25 years from now, assuming my analogue body lasts that long :o)
