Re: Digital vs. Analog part 72

[P3D Larry Berlin <lberlin@xxxxxxxxx>]

>Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 13:05:21 -0600
>From: P3D Jim Roberts  writes:
>.......................
>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. 

*************  Thanks for mentioning this. Since this is essentially *old*
information it makes it hard to understand why it hasn't already been
adapted into digital imaging devices. This connects heavily to 3D in that
any such system can render 3D output with it's information as easily as it
can produce a high resolution 2D output. Leave it to the one-eye's that run
business and they will leave out the bit about this method's inherent
adaptability to 3D imaging. 

>
>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.  .....

(why are some folk on P3D saying this is off topic??? I've heard lots of
questions about what could possibly exceed the standards of 35mm film and
make possible a 3D technology that goes beyond what was established in the
'50's. This is very much *ON-TOPIC* imho)

Larry Berlin

Email: lberlin@xxxxxxxxx
http://www.sonic.net/~lberlin/
http://3dzine.simplenet.com/


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