From: Ray Fischer on
David J Taylor <david-taylor(a)> wrote:
>"nospam" <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote in message

>>> We start with 4Mp of red and blue, we end up with 12Mp of red and blue.
>>> Irrespective of what else is used in the interpolation that is *STILL*
>>> interpolation and upsizing.
>> interpolation yes. no upsizing since it's already the correct size.
>Each sensitive element is the same physical size as the resulting RGB
>pixel, yes. But the spacing of the pixels is not. For each of the 12M
>output pixels, there are only 3M red sensitive locations, at twice the
>physical spacing of the 12M pixels. Therefore the red information in
>between those red-sensitive pixels is obtained by spatial interpolation.

No. No pixels are being added to the image. Additional information
is being added to existing pixels. No additional pixels are being

Ray Fischer

From: nospam on
In article <hr610n$15j$1(a)>, David J Taylor
<david-taylor(a)> wrote:

> "Pixel" may have a number of meanings - there is the element in a JPEG
> file which has three components (R, G & B), and there is the region on a
> sensor which received light and turns it into an electrical signal.

they're all spatial elements of an image.

> The
> latter are sometimes called sensels, although that's not a term I tend to
> use a lot.

very few people do, but the number is the same.
From: nospam on
In article <4bd6875d$0$1616$742ec2ed(a)>, Ray Fischer
<rfischer(a)> wrote:

> No pixels are being added to the image. Additional information
> is being added to existing pixels. No additional pixels are being
> added.

well put.
From: David J Taylor on
"nospam" <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote in message
> the spatial location of any given pixel is the same, it's the contents
> that is interpolated. think sparse matrix. it's not upsizing a small
> 3mp matrix into a bigger 12mp matrix.

I prefer to think of the process as spatial interpolation of missing
information, as upsizing may have a physical connotation, which could be


From: Martin Brown on
Ray Fischer wrote:
> Martin Brown <|||newspam|||> wrote:
>> Ray Fischer wrote:
>>> Kennedy McEwen <rkm(a)> wrote:
>>>> Ray Fischer
>>>>> David J Taylor <david-taylor(a)> wrote:
>>>>>> "Ray Fischer" <rfischer(a)> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:4bd3ec93$0$1610$742ec2ed(a)
>>>>>>> David J Taylor <david-taylor(a)> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> however, the total number doesn't change. there are 12 million on the
>>>>>>>>> sensor and 12 million in the image, or however many the sensor has.
>>>>>>>> There are 12 million monochrome pixels on the sensor,
>>>>>>> No, there are 4.6 million pixels. Any other claim is a lie.
>>>>>>>> interpolated to 12
>>>>>>>> million colour pixels. The sensor only has 3 million red pixels, but
>>>>>>> Learn what "pixel" means.
>> I suggest that you learn what a pixel means - that would help.
> You're too much of a stupid ashsole to be condescending.

Are you another sock puppet of the P&S troll?
>> The Bayer grid contains filtered photosensor sites. It takes the data
>>from several of these to construct any pixel in the final image.
> An outright lie.

You are *too* stupid for words. Clueless! I hope that my explanation is
clear to anyone who actually wants to learn about the Bayer mask.

The final image in a DSLR camera is always RGB format. There might be
one somewhere that will do luminance as monochrome but it still requires
data from multiple sensor sites to reconstruct that image.
> You're "confused" becuse you think that a pixel must have a certain
> amount of color information. In fat it need contain no color information
> at all.
>>>>>> This part of the thread had evolved to being about Bayer in a hypothetical
>>>>>> 12MP DSLR, and whether or not spatial interpolation was involved.
>>>>> A pixel is a picture element. You cannot split up the color
>>>>> componenets of a pixel in some arbitrary way and then claim that a
>>>>> single pixel is really three, four, or a thousand pixels.
>>>> So a Bayer CFA sensel, being an incomplete picture element,
>>> WRONG.
>>> It's not incomplete. There's no such thing as an "incomplete" pixel.
>>> A monochrome pixel is still a pixel.
>> IA monochrome pixel is a pixel, but only if the image can be interpretted
> Wrong.
> No "if".

You really need to go back to basics. Whoever told you what you so
fervently believe is completely out of step with imaging conventions.
>> A Bayer mask image looks pretty strange if
> Non sequitur. The definition of pixel has nothing to do with any
> sensor type.
>> By any reasonable definition
> You're not reasonable.
>> There are 12M sensor sites,
> Irrelevant.
>> In common computer imaging usage a pixel is generally taken to mean a
>> monochrome image of 8, 16 or 32 bits, or a colour pixel with either
>> palletted 8 bits, 16bits (R,G,B = 5,6,5), 24bits (8bits for each of
>> R,G,B), 48bits (16 bits each for R,G,B).
> LOL!
> Tell us: Where did you get your degree in computer science? Where
> did you get your education in computer graphics? I got mine from
> Stanford and Cal Poly and from working in the graphics business.

You are not a good advert for the quality of their teaching then.

Martin Brown