Well, not really. The title is more than a little misleading - although there's only a single 'pixel', the value at that pixel is recorded some 30,000 different times, with a different optical transform of the source being applied each time. Then they apply a reconstruction algorithm to find the most probable original source image. So what we have, basically, is a lossy compression algorithm. Even assuming the recorded 'pixel' value is no larger than the pixels of the original image (which I rather doubt) the compression ratio is around 30:1. While that's not to be sneezed at, it comes at the cost of significant degradation in image quality, judging by the example image shown in the quoted article.
On Fri, Oct 06, 2006 at 09:40:31PM -0400, Paul Stenquist wrote: > Interesting. And it demonstrates that digital technology is far from > its zenith. Something to think about when you hear the whines about > how low noise and high resolution are impossible without large sensors. > Paul > On Oct 6, 2006, at 9:31 PM, Perry Pellechia wrote: > > > When a single pixel may be all you need: > > > > http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003&articleID=0003FA95- > > AAB6-1526-AAB683414B7F0000&ref=rss > > or/ > > http://tinyurl.com/kezzp > > > > I hope you find this interesting too. > > > > Perry. > > -- > > <----------------------------------------------------> > > Perry Pellechia > > > > Primary email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Alternate email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Home Page: http://homer.chem.sc.edu/perry > > <----------------------------------------------------> > > > > -- > > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > PDML@pdml.net > > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
