Qkano <snapper@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Now I should know, rather than just guess. > > But yesterday on a rare (very very RARE( visit to a city centre I > noticed all the digital cameras in "Jessops" (a shop) window were > listed as having N-million EQUIVALENT pixels. > > Now I immediately read that as "well, actually we don't have that > many but interpolate them up to make the numbers sound better" > > Is that just cynicism ... or why don't they just say how many there > are in physical terms? I don't know what numbers they're claiming. Certainly Sigma made some inflated claims using that phrase for the SD10. I agree that the phrase sets off my bullshit-detector (remember "music power"? Or did you get to skip that in the UK?). Given that every pixel in the image resulting from nearly any digital camera is the result of interpolation (Bayer filter), the usual usage of calling that the number of pixels in the image could be attacked as inaccurate. Which is in fact what Sigma based their claim on; Bayer sensors with 10 million sites claim 10 million pixels, so our sensor with 3.4 million sites each of which separately measures three colors ought to be considered to have 10 million pixels. Nobody bought the argument, of course. Most especially nobody who ran resolution tests :-). -- 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/>
