Re: Bayer sensor and MX

Roger N. Clark wrote:
ben brugman wrote:

"Paul Furman" <paul-@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> schreef in bericht news: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).

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?

"Figure 8, with an exposure time of 1 second in one exposure, has less noise than the 3.2 second [stacked] equivalent of the image in Figure 13... ...This illustrates that while you can dig signal out of the noise with multiple exposures, longer exposures can produce better results."

So the image produced with stacking is worse with more time? The only reason I can imagine to use it is maybe to increase dynamic range so the highlights don't blow with shorter exposures, or doing astro pics with simple gear where you need short exposures or the stars make trails.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Why not make the sensor larger?
    ... 16 frames ... there were enough photons in those 16 exposures ... I understad some of the problems with doing what Doug propsed, ... Since no current cameras can shoot 16 frames in under a ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
  • Re: too much light
    ... but it might be too dim for digital cameras. ... one area where film cameras may have an advantage. ... Digital cameras (DSLRs with their large pixels) have far ... Noise from long exposures ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
  • Re: Why .avi format ?
    ... but even most high quality video cameras have high readout noise. ... It is intrinsic to the CCD sensors available, ... >I opine that while it is true that longer exposures will produce higher ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: long shutter speeds
    ... >> Same thing with cameras. ... since the slowest shutter speeds are commonly in ... long exposures usually have a noise reduction (aka dark frame ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
  • Re: Tips on taking better night photos
    ... > We're talking about exposures measured in seconds. ... Most cameras these days don't - at least none of my digital cameras ... So when manually pressing the shutter release ... > Tip 2: Take Control Shots ...
    (rec.photo.digital)