Ditch the LCD for EVIL cameras
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: It's official! Sony couldn't fix the NEX lens problem.
Next: Two Nikon lenses, 70-200mm/16-85mm used at opposite extremes
From: Pete on 7 Jun 2010 14:44 On 2010-06-07 16:25:13 +0100, C. Werner said: > On Mon, 7 Jun 2010 13:49:28 +0100, "whisky-dave" > <whisky-dave(a)final.front.ear> wrote: > >> >> "John A." <john(a)nowhere.invalid> wrote in message >> news:2gpp06le9d640i18ihqmvr3rroa45rjnjj(a)4ax.com... >>> On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 08:27:05 +0100, Bruce <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> >>> wrote: >> >>>> >>>> >>>> Would that be a head up display display display display? >>> >>> At this point I think we're at a single pixel. >> >> I wonder if we can split the pixel like we split the atom ;-) >> > > The "pixel" is already a compilation of 4 sub-pixel components (in the case > of an RGGB Bayer array sensor). Each pixel you see in the final image are > comprised of 2 Greenons, 1 Redton, and 1 Blueyon. (Well, actually, many > more of each than that, but for simplicity's-sake we'll reduce it to 4.) > You can't, per se, accurately split them back up into their original > sub-pixel components again but they do exist. The strong and weak photosite > forces prevent accurately splitting them again into their original values. > You can get approximations of their original sub-pixel components (proving > they once existed), but not their original sub-pixel weights. > > Some surmise that the sub-pixel components further from the central > sensor-mass have less weight (less force), and therefore are less likely to > stick to their neighbors. They think this is what causes them to fly off > into their individual colors at the corners and edges of the sensors. (CA > artifacts) It's all very quantumy and beyond the scope of these two > paragraphs. Superb. I really like you explanation of CA. I hope you will find the time to write something along the lines of sales literature for a quantum compensated camera system. -- Pete
From: C. Werner on 7 Jun 2010 17:25 On Mon, 7 Jun 2010 19:44:20 +0100, Pete <available.on.request(a)aserver.invalid> wrote: >On 2010-06-07 16:25:13 +0100, C. Werner said: > >> On Mon, 7 Jun 2010 13:49:28 +0100, "whisky-dave" >> <whisky-dave(a)final.front.ear> wrote: >> >>> >>> "John A." <john(a)nowhere.invalid> wrote in message >>> news:2gpp06le9d640i18ihqmvr3rroa45rjnjj(a)4ax.com... >>>> On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 08:27:05 +0100, Bruce <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Would that be a head up display display display display? >>>> >>>> At this point I think we're at a single pixel. >>> >>> I wonder if we can split the pixel like we split the atom ;-) >>> >> >> The "pixel" is already a compilation of 4 sub-pixel components (in the case >> of an RGGB Bayer array sensor). Each pixel you see in the final image are >> comprised of 2 Greenons, 1 Redton, and 1 Blueyon. (Well, actually, many >> more of each than that, but for simplicity's-sake we'll reduce it to 4.) >> You can't, per se, accurately split them back up into their original >> sub-pixel components again but they do exist. The strong and weak photosite >> forces prevent accurately splitting them again into their original values. >> You can get approximations of their original sub-pixel components (proving >> they once existed), but not their original sub-pixel weights. >> >> Some surmise that the sub-pixel components further from the central >> sensor-mass have less weight (less force), and therefore are less likely to >> stick to their neighbors. They think this is what causes them to fly off >> into their individual colors at the corners and edges of the sensors. (CA >> artifacts) It's all very quantumy and beyond the scope of these two >> paragraphs. > >Superb. I really like you explanation of CA. > >I hope you will find the time to write something along the lines of >sales literature for a quantum compensated camera system. I would have delved into the "uncertainty principle" when explaining why they can't be split into their accurate sub-pixel elementals again, but then someone would have had to kill and not kill a cat, along with all that entails. Far too much work for those that would never have need to understand it anyway. For any of you that would like to recreate the experiments that found these sub-pixels: just swing your camera around by its strap real fast. (You might want to invest in a diamond-fiber strap to withstand the centripetal forces involved.) Try reaching a terminal velocity of at least 1/10th the speed of light. Then smash it into an iron, rhodium, tungsten, and titanium reinforced concrete structure. The sub-pixels will come flying out every which way. Have another camera ready to record them.
From: Peter on 8 Jun 2010 08:11 "C. Werner" <none(a)noaddress.com> wrote in message news:cm2q06hc0jf6gmup0ajva386eq3src71fd(a)4ax.com... > It's all very quantumy and beyond the scope of these two > paragraphs. > Another new word hits the group. <G> About three years ago as part of a course in protocols, I was asked to comment on a presented suggestion that quantum computing would make the SIP protocol obsolete. My opening comment was, substantively, that the subject of quantum computing was so complex that the presenter selected it to avoid probing questions. BTW My conclusion was that SIP is actually fundamental to proper operation of a quantum environment. But that topic too is way beyond anything of interest to the vast majority here. -- Peter
From: Pete on 8 Jun 2010 09:42 On 2010-06-08 13:11:55 +0100, Peter said: > "C. Werner" <none(a)noaddress.com> wrote in message > news:cm2q06hc0jf6gmup0ajva386eq3src71fd(a)4ax.com... > >> It's all very quantumy and beyond the scope of these two >> paragraphs. >> > > Another new word hits the group. <G> I've heard the word before so I totally missed its significance here. I'm still highly amused by imagining the Redtons and Blueyons not sticking to the Greenons hence colour fringing, furthermore, the possibility of explaining it to someone then hearing them say "That makes sense. I'd always wondered what caused it." > About three years ago as part of a course in protocols, I was asked to > comment on a presented suggestion that quantum computing would make the > SIP protocol obsolete. My opening comment was, substantively, that the > subject of quantum computing was so complex that the presenter selected > it to avoid probing questions. BTW My conclusion was that SIP is > actually fundamental to proper operation of a quantum environment. But > that topic too is way beyond anything of interest to the vast majority > here. I'm interested in your conclusion. Not because I know much about it, rather, I would like to understand a little about it. I watch a documentary on quantum cryptography and have been interested to learn about quantum computing ever since. -- Pete
From: Peter on 8 Jun 2010 09:44
"Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message news:2010060806022643658-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom... > On 2010-06-08 05:11:55 -0700, "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> said: > >> "C. Werner" <none(a)noaddress.com> wrote in message >> news:cm2q06hc0jf6gmup0ajva386eq3src71fd(a)4ax.com... >> >>> It's all very quantumy and beyond the scope of these two >>> paragraphs. >>> >> >> Another new word hits the group. <G> >> >> About three years ago as part of a course in protocols, I was asked to >> comment on a presented suggestion that quantum computing would make the >> SIP protocol obsolete. My opening comment was, substantively, that the >> subject of quantum computing was so complex that the presenter selected >> it to avoid probing questions. BTW My conclusion was that SIP is actually >> fundamental to proper operation of a quantum environment. But that topic >> too is way beyond anything of interest to the vast majority here. > > Oh! How I miss Feynman. > Just imagine how long ago was it that he first predicted that digital computing would become obsolete? -- Peter |