Bayer sensor and MX

acl <achilleaslazarides.DeleteThis@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> I'd say that four exposures double S/N, etc. No?

Quite. I don't know why I said three.

More specifically, each doubling of the number of averaged exposures
gives you 3db of additional s/n.

--
Jeremy Nixon | address in header is valid
(formerly jeremy.DeleteThis@exit109.com)
 >> Stay informed about: Bayer sensor and MX 

Sosumi <sosumi.TakeThisOut@home.nl> wrote:

> Do you even understand the meaning of "sharp" in this context?
> According to one of many meanings of sharp in the American Heritage
> Dictionary:
> "Having clear form and detail: a sharp photographic image."
>
> It doesn't get any more clear than that.
> A picture with noise is *not* clear and detail is lost. Add more noise and
> even more detail is lost.

You are confusing the amount of visible detail with the sharpness of that
detail.

> Or do you want to say, that adding noise to a picture doesn't have an
> effect on the sharpness?

Increasing noise can make an image appear sharper.

--
Jeremy Nixon | address in header is valid
(formerly jeremy.TakeThisOut@exit109.com)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/100mph/
 >> Stay informed about: Bayer sensor and MX 

In article <ieudnb6G4Y3Dii3anZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d.DeleteThis@novis.pt>, Sosumi
<sosumi.DeleteThis@home.nl> writes
>
>All you have to do is look at the pictures I put here at 100%. The MX are
>much smoother and clearer than the single shot ones.
>That is sharper.

No it isn't.

>You should look at a dictionary or encyclopedia; there are more meanings to
>sharp then just a knife.
>

While a dictionary will tell you that cats are four legged furry
animals, it does not mean that all four legged furry animals are cats -
and on the day that you meet a grizzly bear you might wish you had
learned that!

Sharpness certainly makes images clearer, however all clearer images are
not necessarily sharper images! Using your dictionary only gets you
part of the information. You seem to think that's all you need.

Furthermore, in general, sharpness reduces smoothness, as anyone
familiar with Photoshop or similar programs will be only too aware.
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)
 >> Stay informed about: Bayer sensor and MX 

Sosumi <sosumi DeleteThis @home.nl> wrote:

>> I am, however, beginning to suspect that you're not interested in
>> learning.
>
> Maybe you're not a good teacher?

Maybe not, but I can't think of any way to further simplify the concept:
"sharpness" and "amount of detail" are completely different things.

> All you have to do is look at the pictures I put here at 100%.

You realize that you weren't the first person to think of all this, right?
I've been combining multiple exposures for years. I am quite familiar with
what it does.

> The MX are much smoother and clearer than the single shot ones.
> That is sharper.

No, it's not.

You had much the same reaction when people tried to tell you that combining
bracketing with in-camera exposure averaging was pointless. Maybe if you
stop stamping your feet and insisting that you know everything, you might
actually learn something and realize what your multiple exposure discovery
is doing for you.

--
Jeremy Nixon | address in header is valid
(formerly jeremy DeleteThis @exit109.com)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/100mph/
 >> Stay informed about: Bayer sensor and MX 

Jeremy Nixon <~$!~( )@( )u.defocus.net> wrote:
> Sosumi <sosumi.TakeThisOut@home.nl> wrote:

>> Do you even understand the meaning of "sharp" in this context?
>> According to one of many meanings of sharp in the American Heritage
>> Dictionary:
>> "Having clear form and detail: a sharp photographic image."
>>
>> It doesn't get any more clear than that.
>> A picture with noise is *not* clear and detail is lost. Add more noise and
>> even more detail is lost.

> You are confusing the amount of visible detail with the sharpness of that
> detail.

To be more precise, he's confusing an improvement in the
signal-to-noise ratio with an improvement in the spatial frequency
response. Both of these increase the image quality, but they aren't
the same thing.

Andrew.
 >> Stay informed about: Bayer sensor and MX