Well most digicams that state 3.34 MP are truly that size. However several models of 2 companies in particular list their interpolated resolution as the actual size of the camera and state the actual CCD array size in smaller print. Kent Gittings
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Tom Rittenhouse Sent: Friday, November 23, 2001 5:20 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: OT: Interpolation (Was Re: The true cost of "free" digital?) I don't believe that is true. 600 x 1200 scanners use a 600ppi sensor and move the carriage at 1200 steps per inch. Interpolation takes one pixel and replaces it with 4, 9, 16, etc. using adjacent pixels to determing what color to make the new pixels. --graywolf ------------------------------------------------- The optimist's cup is half full, The pessimist's is half empty, The wise man enjoys his drink. ----- Original Message ----- From: Frantisek Vlcek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2001 5:33 PM Subject: Re: OT: Interpolation (Was Re: The true cost of "free" digital?) > MR> I agree with Aaron here. Besides, I prefer to scan at maximum true (optical) > MR> resolution and then experiment with interpolation in the image editig software > MR> where I can change my mind about it if I don't like how it looks. WHen you do it > MR> in the scanner you're stuck with the file that's output. > > But remember, most scanners interpolate using same approach as > digicams, who are not true "3.3MP" anyway, but the amount of > information is greater than just 1/3rd of the pixel count (refer to > the discussion on digitals... R,G,G,B Bayer type filter array). > It's by micro-stepping motor that drives the CCD along the film/paper. > In most cheaper units, interpolation along one axis (e.g. the 600x1200 > dpi scanners are 600 pixels wide CCD, but microstepped motor at 1200 > dpi) is just same as interpolating in photoshop. But in the high-end > units, it can get more information (as the whole machine is much more > precise, the microstepping motor is more precise,...). It would be > nice to test for it with the Polaroid. Just make one scann at 8000 and > same slide at 4000 and interpolate to 8000 in photoshop, and compare > in areas with lots of edges running all kinds of directions. In one > direction at least, the scanner-interpolated scan could show somewhat > more detail. > > Best regards, > Frantisek Vlcek > - > This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, > go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to > visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . ********************************************************************** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses. www.mimesweeper.com ********************************************************************** - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
