On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 3:33 PM, Larry Colen <l...@red4est.com> wrote: > Interesting, I misunderstood. I thought that each final site was an > interpolation of three or four adjoining sites. Since it wasn't something I > had the opportunity to do anything about, I didn't study it as deeply as I > might. In a similar vein, I'm not as well versed on optical design as I > might be as if I'd taken a course in it college.
I studied neither digital image capture and processing nor optical design in college. I studied them on my own both before (well, digital image capture and processing didn't exist before I started college, at least not to people who didn't already have a college degree... :-) and after. > I figured that each filter cut out about 2/3 of the spectrum, which would be > about a stop and a half, but I wasn't letting a strict adherence to fact > interfere with my hyperbole. The filters used in the Bayer mosaic have a lower filter factor than the filters necessary to do the same job in front of the lens. The chrominance interpolation calculations include factors for 'spill over bias' as it is not sensible to cut sensor sensitivity by as much as needed for a full spectral cut. >> I'd rather have the flexibility. I've worked with monochromatic >> digital capture cameras way back in the digital dark ages (1980s) and >> have NO interest in going back there. I want the ability to manipulate >> chrominance to luminance translation at rendering time, not at capture >> time, with a larger, more robust captured dataset. > > One could apply the same argument to the lightfield camera. One could, once the technology reaches a plateau of accessibility and usability that the modern Bayer mosaic sensor camera has. That will take a while. To build a 12 Mpixel lightfield camera requires about 100 Mphotosite sensor capture as a base minimum. > Until I'm making my living, or at least substantial income, from photography, > if I'm being honest with myself, my cameras are toys. That's fine for you. My cameras are the tools of my avocation at this point in time, and the tools of my career income at other times in my life. They are certainly not "toys" to me. If you're referring to Godfrey's cameras, they are not the equivalent of "Godfrey's toys" ... My toys are rather different things, most of which I've discarded so as to afford better camera equipment. > And it was exactly that implication that got the laugh I was aiming for. I didn't find it funny, or ironic. I found it an inaccurate ascription. Photography to me is fun and can be approached light-heartedly, but it is also quite serious. I don't do it as a mental health palliative, and I do take exception to someone implying that that perspective applies as my perspective. Sorry. -- Godfrey godfreydigiorgi.posterous.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
