Digital camera's

[P3D William Stratemeyer <wwstrat@xxxxxxxx>]

Quotes from digest 1521  <several authors>
>> Yes, but I ask again, what are you going to *process* with all that
> horsepower, when the digital imager is the weakest point in the
> system?  Not the optics, not the processing, the image capture.  All
> the sophisticated image processing algorithms in the world won't help
> you when you can't capture the original image with enough resolution.
> I spent six years working for a medical imaging company.  I know many
> of the digital games you can play to enhance contrast, or reduce
> pixellation (at the cost of resolution), but you can't enhance
> resolution that isn't there in the first place.  At best, you can
> compensate for other flaws in the system, such as distortions in the
> optics.  But you can't add resolution.
 

>> One of the limitations I left out is the fact that to capture a color
> image, you either have to take three separate exposures onto the same
> imager through color filters (not practical if you're out to emulate
> an SLR), or you sacrifice resolution once again by using R/G/B
> sensitive triads of cells (like a color TV tube in reverse) to capture
> it in one go.  So now you've cut your resolution by 3.
> 

 > >One also can just make the imaging chip bigger instead.
 
>> Assuming you mean keeping the same number of pixels, this doesn't
> increase resolution, it decreases it.  The area of each pixel goes up,
> meaning that a larger portion of the image falls on each pixel,
> resulting in an 'averaging' effect.  To get more resolution, you have
> to make the pixels smaller, which decreases their sensitivity
> following the inverse square law.  Film has the same problem; the
> finer you make the grain, the slower the film.  It still takes a
> certain number of incident photons to record an image.  Those pesky
> laws of physics again.
> 
> Why is medium-format superior to 35mm?  It uses the same film, with
> the same intrinsic resolution.  It just uses more of it.  The analogy
> with a digital imager is more pixels, not larger ones.  But now the
> problem becomes one of yield.  The larger you make your chip, the harder
> it is to get one that is 100% functional.  That drives up the cost.

 
>> People on this list complain about Kodachrome 64 being too grainy for
> 3D work.  The best digital camera on the planet is at least 2-3 times
> worse than that, and I'm probably being generous.  The technology will
> have to improve by a factor of 2-3 times JUST TO CATCH UP TO 35mm
> FILM, let alone surpass it.  This kind of improvement is not a matter
> of successive refinement; some real breakthroughs are needed.  The sad
> part is that if people are willing to settle for what's available now,
> we'll never get there.

   About 1 year ago I read an article detailing the work of a Japanese
company that developed a method to print photographs that were taken
out of focus. The idea being that all the necessary information is on 
the negative just out of place. As this was a software fix the cost to
scan, adjust then print was not probably cost effective.

    Well I was thinking, and definitely out of area of factual
knowledge. But If you take a picture with a digital camera that 
is out of focus in a known direction. 

  Then would the real(optical) image point that would normally fall
between
pixels of the capture device, now also fall on the surrounding set of
pixels
in a crosstalk, actually capturing more resolution. 

  If so and since it is all ready in digital form it seems that
processing
software solutions could be used to reconstruct a high resolution
print.  

  OK someone finally said it we should start taking out of focus
pictures.
:-)  :-)
 
.................................................................
 http://www.gate.net/~dcnelson       wwstrat@xxxxxxxx
..................................................................                    
   EnDepth  3-D Custom Lenticular printing
      
       William Stratemeyer jr.
       1308 E. Libby Dr.,  W.P. Bch. Fla.   33406  
       Ph:   (516) 434-0189  
        P100-16meg    win95    IM 3.0CD
-------------------------------------------


------------------------------