Re: Bayer sensor and MX
- From: acl <achilleaslazarides@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2008 06:20:37 -0800 (PST)
On Feb 9, 5:01 pm, "ben brugman" <b...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Paul Furman" <pa...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> schreef in berichtnews:Nwbrj.8782$Ch6.799@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thanks Ben for a nice clear explanation. This can be really effective for
astronomy but that is pushing the limits so far beyond normal photography.
For astro work they make amazing cameras for astounding prices, extra high
performance, but I have *never* heard of anyone using those cameras for
conventional photography because it just doesn't matter. If it mattered,
you would see someone using those $13,000 cooled high performance
scientific cameras for advertising diamonds or sports or Hollywood movies
or something but nobody does.
The part of the Bayer sensor is the practical part.
The part of the multiexposure to 'extract' more resolution is impractical at
least, but theoretically correct.
I'ts a nice thought experiment. :-) (No and for normal people it is totaly
unfeasable).
Actually it's not that far fetched, you can use registax to do both
stacking and what you describe.
.
- References:
- Bayer sensor and MX
- From: Sosumi
- Re: Bayer sensor and MX
- From: ben brugman
- Re: Bayer sensor and MX
- From: Paul Furman
- Re: Bayer sensor and MX
- From: ben brugman
- Bayer sensor and MX
- Prev by Date: Re: Bayer sensor and MX
- Next by Date: Re: Canon EF 75-300mm USM III f/4-5.6 Lens v/s. Tamron AF 70-300mm Di f/4-5
- Previous by thread: Re: Bayer sensor and MX
- Next by thread: Re: Bayer sensor and MX
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|