ðòïåëôù 


  áòèé÷ 


Apache-Talk @lexa.ru 

Inet-Admins @info.east.ru 

Filmscanners @halftone.co.uk 

Security-alerts @yandex-team.ru 

nginx-ru @sysoev.ru 

  óôáôøé 


  ðåòóïîáìøîïå 


  ðòïçòáííù 



ðéûéôå
ðéóøíá












     áòèé÷ :: Filmscanners
Filmscanners mailing list archive (filmscanners@halftone.co.uk)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Future of Photography (was filmscanners: real value?)



I know that professional Video CCD cameras use (or at least did... I'm 
somewhat out of touch today) separate chips for each of the two or three 
colors (RGB) with some type of beam slipper (some used two and used 
subtractive math to "figure out" the third, I believe).  That allowed 
for smaller chips, since each was only responsible for one color, and 
then they were superimposed upon each other, like color separations. 
Would this not work for digital stills, or is the resolution so high 
they couldn't get registration?

Art

Austin Franklin wrote:

>> One other thing that just occurred to me: aren't there three
>> or four pixels
>> on the CCD for each actual pixel seen in the image?
> 
> 
> Yes.  That is only for color information though, not for edge information.
> The edge information exists in each individual pixel.  This arrangement of
> RGBG is called a 'Bayer' pattern.  The extra G is for contrast.  There are
> algorithms that easily take this information and pretty much give you full
> resolution data by extrapolating the color information over all four pixels,
> and keeping the edge information pretty much intact.  Color information
> isn't near as important as edge information as far as our eyes are concerned
> though...
> 





 




Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.