I guess what I'm thinking is, there's a difference between interpolation and a raw pixel. Interpolation is still a *guesstimate* and in the end does not really fill in *what* was missing. It fills in *something*. I don't think their can be any substitute for raw pixel count.
Tom C. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Isaac Crawford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, October 22, 2001 8:55 PM Subject: Re: Pentax Digital NEWS - FULL STORY from AP 27th OCT. > Patrick White wrote: > > > > "aimcompute" writes: > > >I guess it makes sense. Up to now. digital photography has never really > > >been about "quality". > > >I find the Fuji Super CCD technology somewhat of a joke. You can't end up > > >with more raw material than you start with. > > The Nikon D1x uses interpolation in one direction (the width I believe) > without any obvious problems. > > Isaac > - > This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, > go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to > visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . > - > This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, > go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to > visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
