RE: colorsync-users digest, Vol 3 #1348 - 14 msgs
RE: colorsync-users digest, Vol 3 #1348 - 14 msgs
- Subject: RE: colorsync-users digest, Vol 3 #1348 - 14 msgs
- From: "Mark Rice" <email@hidden>
- Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 18:57:56 -0400
I suppose that to measure resolution correctly, we should go back to the old
film method of taking and printing a picture with a certain number of line
pairs per millimeter, and see what can be observed, or more scientifically,
to measure MTF (Modulation transfer function).
Mark Rice
email@hidden
Correct, but quoting the number of R sensors only isn't representing the
truth either. The array delivers more information than that. How that factor
can be represented is harder to define. Sony's CCD with the greens split in
two shows an approach that may end in even more different spectral filters
on the chip and quoting the resolution of one hue only will then be even
less meaningful.
The same applies to your inkjet analogy, it will not be 10080 DPI but the
quality can be better at 1440 dpi with 7 colors. One shouldn't express it in
DPI though. That's the main problem. The buyers usually don't check beyond
the resolution numbers so
printer- scanner- camera- manufacturers shape the specs of their products to
what the customer understands and can brag about.
Mediocre reviews and testing add to that. Nothing new of course, the CPU
industry has to quote frequencies first to get attention.
See AMD's CPU names etc.
I guess it is the fixation of people with high positive numbers, suggesting
quantity, that plays a role here. If quality is expressed by a negative
number, that would decrease with every step in technology, sales probably
would stagger.
The Konica Minolta A2 has - 0.4 better noise if compared to the A1. Don't
think you will get that across. A far better idea would be to quote dynamic
range numbers no longer in log. Lots of zeros that then can be replaced with
Ks. Humans love that.
Fovean started nice with the correct resolution number and the 3x added. I
got the impression that their quotings are inflated as
well now. Sigma uses 10 M x3 in their ads. No good either.
DPreview says that the Fovean sensor delivers about twice the resolution if
compared to the same "quoted" resolution Bayer sensor. So dividing the
quoted numbers by two on the Bayer sensors could be a better representation
for the moment. With the different arrays Fuji uses, the Sony added hue,
the sensor size differences, it all isn't very meaningful, a good test on
true optical resolution and moire says much more. The German photo
magazines and DPreview are on the right track in my opinion
_______________________________________________
colorsync-users mailing list | email@hidden
Help/Unsubscribe/Archives:
http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/colorsync-users
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.