Re: Bayer sensor and MX
- From: "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2008 18:56:05 -0700
ben brugman wrote:
"Paul Furman" <paul-@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> schreef in bericht news:Nwbrj.8782$Ch6.799@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxThanks 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).
ben
Look at figure 12, a single 0.05-second exposure, at:
http://www.clarkvision.com/photoinfo/night.and.low.light.photography
then look at figure 13 on the above page, 64 0.05-second frames
added.
Which has more detail?
Roger
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Bayer sensor and MX
- From: Paul Furman
- Re: Bayer sensor and MX
- 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: Bayer sensor and MX
- Previous by thread: Re: Bayer sensor and MX
- Next by thread: Re: Bayer sensor and MX
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|