Digital BW, The Print

Bob writes:

> If the color information is 'significantly
> interpolated' and the luminance is 'slightly
> interpolated', my logic tells me that all
> the pixels contain interpolated information,
> i.e. the info in each pixel comes partly from
> neighbouring pixels.

They do, but it's not the wholesale interpolation involved in the Fuji claim
(if I understand the Fuji claim correctly).

> Surely the Fuji, with its staggered lines of
> sensors (similar to some Epson scanners that
> have staggered lines of sensors), is an
> intermediate case.

Staggering the sensors doesn't make much difference.  If they were twice as
long as wide, you could interpolate to generate twice as many pixels as
photosites; not really an increase in resolution, but just a necessary
interpolation because the pixels in digital images must always be square.  A
number of digicams have been in this category, IIRC.

> It doesn't seem the same to me as the simple
> interpolation to massive sizes that cheap
> scanners often offer.

Whatever it is, interpolation to greater resolutions than that provided by
the CCD is always hype.

> By staggering the sensors in alternate
> rows, doesn't this enable better interpolations?

For some cases, but not for others.  I'm not sure what kind of staggering
you have in mind, but some types of arrangements can reduce aliasing of
certain elements of certain images.  However, the overall resolution is the
same.

Photosites that are arranged in straight rows produce aliasing when certain
image elements strike them, such as nearly vertical or nearly horizontal
lines.  A random arrangement of photosites would never show aliasing.
However, arranging them randomly still does not increase resolution.

> Agreed 12 mpixel chips would be better, but
> they are next years cameras.

We'll see.

> I don't see how that can be done without
> significant interpolation.

It can't, but that type of interpolation changes resolution only slightly.

> I wish people would just view images from the
> 'standard viewing distance'; it would make life
> a lot easier. But unfortunately experts always
> seem to get their noses down to the prints, or
> even whip out their loupes, so I reckon I need
> my 24 mpixels to keep them, and myself, happy.

Then you must continue to shoot film for the time being, and slow film at
that.