Digital BW, The Print

Paul D. DeRocco writes:

> But the eye is all that matters.

Viewing conditions matter just as much, and what satisfies the eye under
one set of conditions may be hopelessly inadequate under other
conditions.

> Your statement makes me wonder whether
> you're using your camera for art or for lab measurements.

Your close approach to a personal attack makes me wonder how much
objective data and reasoning you can muster to support your position.

You're entitled to an opinion, but there's no shame in admitting that it
_is_ just an opinion.  And subjective opinions cannot be objectively
proved "right" or "wrong."

> They can indeed render detail down to the pixel level ...

No, they cannot.  They can pretend, but they cannot show detail that
wasn't in the original capture.

> ... I have yet to see anything out of them that the eye would
> recognize as a wrong pixel.

Compare the interpolated image to the original scene, and you may be
surprised.

> 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.

The eye will see the difference if it looks closely.  Then it matters.

It's interesting to see all the effort being wasted on trying to prove
that matrix filters are just as good as systems that capture every color
for every pixel.  The fact is, they aren't.  And the same people who are
trying to prove that they are will probably be the first to say how
terribly inferior matrix filters are once they have a camera in hand
that really does capture all colors for all pixels.

I've seen this all happen in video, years ago.