From: David J Taylor on
> no. it might be slightly better than just letting the printer handle
> it, but do you really think there will be more detail in the upsized
> one?

There is more apparent detail, but whether it is accurate or not is
another matter. In satellite images we do find that providing a 2:1
interpolation (e.g. from 3MP to 12MP) does make fine detail more easily
discerned (than simple pixel replication).

Cheers,
David

From: David J Taylor on
"nospam" <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:280420100709042417%nospam(a)nospam.invalid...
[]
> it may be a very accurate pixel, but it's still a *single* pixel and it
> differs from foveon because each measurement is independent.
>
> with foveon, the layers are tightly intertwined. unlike the pretty (and
> misleading) pictures in their ads, the layers do *not* measure red,
> green and blue, that's only a result of (here it comes), interpolation.
> in fact, there is more interpolation with foveon than there is with
> bayer which is comical, actually.

Agreed.

[Although I would prefer not use the term "interpolation" to describe the
3 x 3 matrix processing to convert the three Foveon sensed values into
three RGB values. Something like "colour correction", perhaps?]

David

From: nospam on
In article <hr9gpr$p44$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, David J Taylor
<david-taylor(a)blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote:

> > it may be a very accurate pixel, but it's still a *single* pixel and it
> > differs from foveon because each measurement is independent.
> >
> > with foveon, the layers are tightly intertwined. unlike the pretty (and
> > misleading) pictures in their ads, the layers do *not* measure red,
> > green and blue, that's only a result of (here it comes), interpolation.
> > in fact, there is more interpolation with foveon than there is with
> > bayer which is comical, actually.
>
> Agreed.
>
> [Although I would prefer not use the term "interpolation" to describe the
> 3 x 3 matrix processing to convert the three Foveon sensed values into
> three RGB values. Something like "colour correction", perhaps?]

well, it *is* interpolating the overlapping spectra to figure out the
incident colour is (and not all that accurately either).
From: Alfred Molon on
In article <280420100736582849%nospam(a)nospam.invalid>, nospam says...
> In article <hr9gpr$p44$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, David J Taylor
> <david-taylor(a)blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>
> > > it may be a very accurate pixel, but it's still a *single* pixel and it
> > > differs from foveon because each measurement is independent.
> > >
> > > with foveon, the layers are tightly intertwined. unlike the pretty (and
> > > misleading) pictures in their ads, the layers do *not* measure red,
> > > green and blue, that's only a result of (here it comes), interpolation.
> > > in fact, there is more interpolation with foveon than there is with
> > > bayer which is comical, actually.
> >
> > Agreed.
> >
> > [Although I would prefer not use the term "interpolation" to describe the
> > 3 x 3 matrix processing to convert the three Foveon sensed values into
> > three RGB values. Something like "colour correction", perhaps?]
>
> well, it *is* interpolating the overlapping spectra to figure out the
> incident colour is (and not all that accurately either).

It's three separate spectral measurements per pixel, while a Bayer
sensor has only one.

Also, Bayer does not measure luminance at the pixel level, while a full
colour sensor does.

In any case we were talking about *spatial* interpolation, which Bayer
does to generate the final image.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
From: Ray Fischer on
David J Taylor <david-taylor(a)blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>"nospam" <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote in message
>> In article <hr8n74$uku$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, David J Taylor
>> <david-taylor(a)blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> One imager I work with has 11 pixels at each spatial coordinate:
>>>
>>> http://www.esa.int/esapub/bulletin/bullet111/chapter4_bul111.pdf
>>>
>>> and there are 3712 x 3712 coordinates in an image.
>>
>> the word pixel appears only once in the entire document and it says
>> 'image data' for 4 visible/near-infrared and 8 infrared channels, not
>> pixels.
>>
>> it's a 13.7 megapixel sensor (3712 x 3712), with each pixel having 12
>> components. it is *not* 165 megapixels.
>
>If you look at the physical sensor, there are (IIRC) three detectors for
>each of 11 channels, so does that make it a 33 pixel sensor?

Once again you confuse "pixel" with the data used to represent the
pixel. Is a single RGB pixel really 24 pixels buecause it uses 24
bits to represent the color? That seems to be your argument.

>Where it differs from the Bayer sensor is that at each spatial location,
>11 different spectral bands are sensed. so that at each location there
>are 11 independent measurements.

Now explain why that is of any relevance at all.

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer(a)sonic.net