Bob Talbot <BobTalbot@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> > 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. Check up on the numbers of rods and cones, and the visual response to high frequencies in just one color vs. high frequencies in B&W. >>>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.). It can certainly complicate *testing*, in particular. And I feel I don't really have any scientific basis for how I approach sharpening. I really need to know more about it. > PS: The eye/brain are analogue processes! :o) The universe is quantized, hence reality is essentially digital! :-) >> > 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. The astronomers and space scientists have found digital works *really well* for their needs. > Every stupid "proprietry" hidden > in-camera tweak (including dealing with noise, dead/hot pixels, > sharpening etc etc) weakens that relationship. Yep. The problems are in using consumer digital cameras, not in anything really inherent in digital imaging. >> 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'd think so; and heavier. (My remarks about low video resolution relate to the need for precise alignment of the three sensors; more achievable at video resolution than at the kinds of resolution still photographers want.) >> 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) For example, I found that one of my analog camera bodies was underexposing 2/3 stop at the start of a trip to England in 1987. Luckily I got some of the slides developed in the first week of the trip! That's a problem that would be caught in digital in *minutes* rather than *days*. I can more reliably take home the photos I think I'm taking home. -- David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b@xxxxxxxx>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/> RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/> Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/> Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
