Toralf Lund wrote:
On 14/09/14 16:31, Igor PDML-StR wrote:
Zos,
I guess, you were asking about the reference to the effective
resolution of the lenses combined with a sensor.
Here is the link:
http://petapixel.com/2014/09/04/why-i-want-to-switch-to-nikon-but-cant-tony-northrup-throws-gas-on-the-canikon-debate/
(from the thread "OT? In case you are having some insomnia tonight..." )
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg703996.html
He starts talking about the interplay of the high resolution lenses
and the sensor shortly after 4:00.
Personally, I'm too lazy to look up that right now, but I'm thinking
that it might make sense to have a sensor resolution of up to 8x the one
of the lens. I'll leave it as an exercise to find out how I came up with
that number (told you I was lazy.) But I'm also wondering if one could
make that 6x instead, and also reorganise the sensor (see above.)
Nyquist rate times the bayer pattern.
Double should be good enough to get unaliased luminance data, but you
need to look at the sample rate for each color. What you are really
asking for is that each color be sampled at over the nyquist rate.
I wonder if there are pathological cases where the repeating pattern is
at 45 degrees and you need another 1.4 times the resolution to avoid
aliasing.
--
Larry Colen [email protected] (postbox on min4est)
--
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.
