Digital BW, The Print

Todd Flashner 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
>
> Who's concepts and limitations of what?
>
> Todd

The concept of increasing the real pixel count by doing 4 exposures (one with
each of the RGGB filters).  And limitations, in that one cannot do 'live'
subjects, as they move (including most landscapes) and would not ''register' in
the sequential exposures.

Harvey Ferdschneider
partner, SKID Photography, NYC





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