Digital vs. Analog part 72

[P3D Jim Roberts <xjim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>>I think that the real solution would be to capture multiple images with
>>existing digital devices and synthesize the in-between resolution based on
>>the multiple samplings of an existing scene. Multiple captures of
>>instantaneous information would have far more content than any single
>>capture (3D has more content than 2D) and be much faster than any multiple
>>pass system that can only be used with unmoving subjects. Theoretically 
>>this could be done automatically in *real time* and further filtered or
>>enhanced by hand after the initial capture. 

I kind of hate to open my mouth again, but some of my graduate research
dealt with alternative sampling arrays for CCDs.  We found that simply by
arranging the sensors hexagonally (without changing density), resolution was
improved for
many image types.  This is because most natural objects, for instance, have
very few horizontal and vertical straight lines in them, and the hexagonally
arranged sensors allowed for less 'sharing' of sensors.  This is probably
more analagous to the 'on demand' placing of silver on film emulsion than an
array of sensors in rows and columns. 

On a totally unrelated note, but much more on-topic, I was in an antique
shop this morning and picked up an overpriced Keystone of the moon.  They
also had
Keystones of Saturn and Mars, and a Bierstadt of the full moon, if anyone wants
them.  They are all overpriced, too (I think $17 for the Keys and $12 for
the Bierstadt.)  After all the recent discussion of photographing the moon,
I wanted to own one, even at triple the value.  There is visible relief in
the craters, by the way, confirming everyone's calculations.

Jim