Digital BW, The Print

Hmm, that raises an interesting point.  A scanning back operates like 
a film scanner, with seperate RGB sensors scanning the image.  I have 
not thought about this before, but I assume this means that there is 
therefore no interpolation with a scanning camera back, so its 
resolution should be regarded as 3 times that of an equivalent single 
shot sensor.  Would that be right?

Bit OT, but I'd be interested in the answer :-)
--
Quentin

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., SKID Photography 
<skid@b...> wrote:
> Ok, I'll jump in here.
> 
> First, I vote for the Sonys.  We have one of the smaller ones, and 
if we could
> afford it, we'd get one of the 'top of the line' models.  Their 
drawback is
> needing to use Sony's relatively small and 
expensive 'Memorysticks', and the
> biggest plus is their battery system.  At least 3 straight hours of 
shooting
> with the LCD screen active.  I don't think any other camera brand 
can claim
> that.
> 
> That said, the subject of megapixel size of *all* these capture 
devices is a big
> lie, that all the manufacturers seem to get away with.  They claim 
a pixel count
> for *each* sensor.  When in reality, it takes an R, G, & B 
component to make up
> each pixel.  What this means is that there is a phenomenally large 
amount of
> interpolation going on in all of these cameras.  And these capture 
chips use an
> R-G-G-B, not just RGB.
> 
> That in turn, explains why these digital cameras (actually filmless 
cameras, as
> the 'captures' are analog, and then 'written' digitally after the 
fact) are good
> at certain types of scenes and terrible at others.
> 
> The digital cameras are good when there are areas of broad tone 
(where the
> algorithms can interpolate the spaces 'between' the actual captured 
information
> without too much error), and are terrible when there is a lot of 
fine detail
> (like the information between the branches in a forest in the 
winter).  They
> *are* good at hard edges (like branches), but are not good at 
interpolating the
> color information between the branches.
> 
> Harvey Ferdschneider
> partner, SKID Photography, NYC
> 
> 
> Jerry Olson wrote:
> 
> >  Mike, do you think that the Sonnar lens on that camera is up to 
Zeiss
> > standards? It seems the price of the Sony is incredibly low with 
a good
> > zeiss lens on it. 35mm Zeiss lenses of that type run over $2000.
> >
> > Jerry
> >
> >
> >
> > Michael Kravit wrote:
> > >
> > > I just bought the Sony 5 megapixel for my son as a College 
Graduation gift.
> > It is an awesome camera.
> > >
> > > Mike
> > >   ----- Original Message -----
> > >   From: shashinka@a...
> > >   To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y...
> > >   Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2002 2:22 PM
> > >   Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Shooting Digitally
> > >
> > >   In a message dated 1/16/02 3:13:38 PM, willym@b... writes:
> > >
> > >   << I am considering the S1, as well as the Olympus E-20.  
Have you
> > produced
> > >   any
> > >   quad prints from S1 photos?  How large have you tried 
printing?  What are
> > >   the limitations of the S1?
> > >
> > >   Thanks for any guidance you can give.
> > >
> > >   Bill Morse
> > >   PhotoProspect
> > >   Cambridge, MA 02139 >>
> > >
> > >   Check out dpreview.com for some great reviews.  You'll see 
that the Sony 5
> >
> > >   megapixel camera did much better in sharpness and lack of 
shadow noise as
> > >   compared with the E-20.  I'm not sure about the other Sony 
specs though.
> > >
> > >   Andy Darlow
> > >
> > >   Photography, Digital Print Consulting and Custom Editions
> > >   Andrew Darlow Images International
> > >   www.andydarlow.com
> > >   andy@a...
> > >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]