On Dec 13, 2012, at 10:17 AM, John Francis wrote: > On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 12:53:22PM -0800, Larry Colen wrote: >> >> On Dec 10, 2012, at 12:40 PM, P. J. Alling wrote: >>>> >>>> On the flip side, I don't know why image processing software can't bin the >>>> smaller pixels, when resolution isn't needed, to produce the same effect >>>> as larger pixels. Arguably, equivalent noise and higher resolution by >>>> being better able to guess which spikes are noise and which are part of >>>> the signal. >>> >>> Some cameras do exactly that. I can't remember which off the top of my >>> head right now. >> >> I'd rather have the feature in lightroom, unless there is some hardware >> related reason to do it in the camera. > > I think you already have. From a mathematical standpoint I have difficulty > seeing how this is in any way different from simple image size reduction > (with a suitable filter kernel).
I expect that normal downsizing is usually with some sort of boxcar filter, where the data is simply averaged, rather than analyzed for anomalous spikes and such. > > You can't really make use of signals sampled above the Nyquist limit for the > final image without risking aliasing. > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. -- Larry Colen [email protected] sent from i4est -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
