Digital BW, The Print

Paul D. DeRocco wrote:

>
> But the eye is all that matters. Your statement makes me wonder whether
> you're using your camera for art or for lab measurements.
>
> I know what constitutes a "difficult" image, because my old Minolta D7
> didn't have such a good interpolator. It would show color noise on fine
> lines, like individual hairs. The 10D's internal interpolator, and the one
> in the latest Adobe Camera Raw, are much better than that. They can indeed
> render detail down to the pixel level, so they're not simply 
> smoothing, but
> I have yet to see anything out of them that the eye would recognize as a
> wrong pixel. Now, if you took a picture of some sand, roughly matching the
> grain size to the pixel size, I'm sure it wouldn't render the color of 
> each
> grain as precisely as the Foveon chip, but who cares, as long as it looks
> like sand? Where it matters is where the eye would see the difference.


I want the best possible sensor (be it film or a CCD) before I start. 
This is why I normally use a 4x5 or if I use a 35 mm I use a fine grain 
thin emulsion film.  I don't shoot low light, I don't shoot sports. For 
the subjects I tend to shoot, quality image is essential. That way I am 
not too concerned about being limited by the the sensor. My stero system 
has response up to 20 kHz. I can't hear 20 kHz, but I can hear the 
difference if I filtered the output to 10 kHz before sending it to the 
speakers on some music. Same thing with image "frequency."

>
>
>
> Yes, that's BECAUSE there's no anti-alias filter over it.

Yep and the reviewer commented that it didn't seem to require one.

Truman