Digital BW, The Print

Todd Flashner wrote:

>  on 1/29/02 12:48 AM, SKID Photography wrote:
>
> > Todd Flashner wrote:
> >
> >> on 1/28/02 11:19 PM, Austin Franklin wrote:
> >>
> >>> You are also confused by pixels vs sensors.  Digital imaging sensors use
> >>> FOUR sensor cells to make ONE color pixel...so if you want to get the same
>
> >>> amount of color information, you need four times the amount of sensors!
> So,
> >>
> >>> 4 x 22.1 is reasonably close to my claim of 100M pixels.
> >>
> >>
> >> Question: I assume this is only true for one shot cameras, but not the 4
> >> shot models, a la Leaf and Sinar?
> >>
> >> Just curious.
> >>
> >> Todd
> >
> > If you are referring to the 'scanning backs' yes, that is how they get
> around
> > that sensor/pixel problem.  But, as I understand it, those cameras are not
> as
> > versatile because of the time it takes to scan.
> >
> > Harvey Ferdschneider
>
> No, I'm referring to 4 shot backs, which make 4 separate exposures per
> capture, one for each color. This eliminates color interpolation. These are
> for still-lifes primarily, for the obvious reason that movement between
> exposures is a problem.
>
> One difference between (among many) 4shot backs and scan backs is that scan
> backs need continuous light sources, ie, tungsten, HMI, florescent, etc,
> while 4 shot backs can also utilize strobe.
>
> Todd
>
>

I assume it's the same concept and same limitations.

Harvey Ferdschneider
partner, SKID Photography, NYC







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]