New Kodak Sensors See Well in Dark - claims a 1 - 2 f/stop advantage

Kennedy McEwen wrote:

which is why I suspect a PC
World graphic artist screw up.

No, it is not. See:
http://1000nerds.kodak.com/
(if after June 14, search for the June 14 article
"Color Filter Array 2.0")

Roger

In article , "Roger N. Clark (change
username to rnclark)" writes
Kennedy McEwen wrote:

which is why I suspect a PC World graphic artist screw up.

No, it is not. See:
http://1000nerds.kodak.com/
(if after June 14, search for the June 14 article
"Color Filter Array 2.0")

Cool, I'll call mine the Kennedy Array after all then, as it doesn't
appear in any of their examples. ;-)

Interestingly that page shows exactly the point I was making about the
new array being a 4x4 unit cell and therefore lower resolution compared
to the Bayer array. The Kennedy Array keeps that 2x2 resolution. ;-)
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's ****ed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)

Paul Allen wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 04:17:53 -0500
Ron Hunter wrote:

David J Taylor wrote:
New Kodak Sensors See Well in Dark - claims a 1 - 2 f/stop
advantage.

See:

http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,13...s/article.html

David


If it works as described, it just might fix my single complaint about
my wife's camera, poor low light operation. We shall see.

Ah, but it does not fix your wife's camera. My wife noticed right away
that this was an opportunity to spend money, not a solution for my
biggest complaint about my camera. :-)

Paul Allen

Who needs an excuse to spend money? You planning to have it buried with
you? Grin.

I don't plan to rush right out and buy a new camera when they come out,
but by then my old DX6440 might be showing signs of obsolescence. And,
if the pictures are better, and it will, doubtless, have better
features, it might be time to pass the old camera to a great niece, or
retire it to the camera collection in the drawer.

[A complimentary Cc of this posting was NOT [per weedlist] sent to
Kennedy McEwen
], who wrote in article :
WBWG
BWGW
WGWR
GWRW

You need a complete 4x4 array of pixels to guarantee you get all of the
colour information, compared to a 2x2 pixel array for the Bayer matrix.
As you point out, this produces extremely poor colour resolution, as

Nonsense. You just have a wrong mental picture. Redraw what you
wrote shifted 1 horizontally:

BWGW
WGWB
GWBW
WBWG

Well that isn't what I wrote above shifted one pixel left. For a start,
it doesn't have any red!

Mea culpa: I completely missed the red sites - both on the picture,
and on your rendering. My apologies.

That contains all the colours? Doh! Where did the red go?

You realize that with WBG, there is absolutely no need for red...

Of course. you can "estimate" that blue (or red in the example above)
from the difference between the two whites and the red and green pixels,
but it doesn't work very well. Just calculate the noise on that
resulting blue (or red) sample!

Not so. See my calculations of the noise for a sensor with
white/yellow/cyan cells on this newsgroup.

Of course, this is not what *I*
consider optimal: white/cyan/yellow, as in

WC
YW

repeated.

Subtractive filtering doesn't seem to have become too popular on
sensors. It has been tried, but has always been found wanting for one
reason or another compared to the simple Bayer matrix, mainly due to
similar reasons as above.

Do you remember some places to look at? I suspect that they just
lacked an intelligent demosaicing algorithm; without such algorithm
the noise - indeed - is going to be higher than with additive sensor.

Thanks,
Ilya

On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 09:47:31 -0500, GoKiting wrote:

On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 08:11:24 GMT, "David J Taylor"
wrote:

New Kodak Sensors See Well in Dark - claims a 1 - 2 f/stop advantage.

See:

http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,13...s/article.html

This whole thing is ludicrous. What a lame "invention" or advancement
if I ever saw one. If I was in the patent office I'd be laughing my ass off
at their feeble attempts to think creatively.

. . .

This inefficient flat-sensor **** with the ancient and crippling bayer crap
has got to go! Consumers buying into and supporting what Kodak is feebly
trying here is only going to prolong our agony.

Ah, I see that the resident CHDK sock puppet returns to avenge his
exposure a month ago, where he was good enough to say :

I love ****ing with the resident paranoid trolls.

On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 11:14:03 -0500, A very backwards GoKiting wrote:

Ah, I see that the resident CHDK sock puppet returns to avenge his
exposure a month ago, where he was good enough to say :


Ah, I see that the resident troll that only lives by keyboard, has NEVER taken a
photo in his/her life because s/he's too busy typing on usenet all its life and
can only parrot what it's read online, one of the many thousands of arm-chair
photographers that plague this newsgroup, is STILL vying for attention from
anyone and everyone because its life is so ****ingly empty and sad.

I'd put you on my kill filter, but it's fun watching you jump every time I say
how high. Even a resident troll like yourself can be the source of some minor
online amusement.

My oh my, speak of online amusement. You're also too stupid to
get that old phrase right. The imperative is "Jump!", not "How
high?"





JUMP!!!

ASAAR wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 09:47:31 -0500, GoKiting wrote:

On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 08:11:24 GMT, "David J Taylor"
wrote:

New Kodak Sensors See Well in Dark - claims a 1 - 2 f/stop advantage.

See:

http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,13...s/article.html
This whole thing is ludicrous. What a lame "invention" or advancement
if I ever saw one. If I was in the patent office I'd be laughing my ass off
at their feeble attempts to think creatively.

. . .

This inefficient flat-sensor **** with the ancient and crippling bayer crap
has got to go! Consumers buying into and supporting what Kodak is feebly
trying here is only going to prolong our agony.

Ah, I see that the resident CHDK sock puppet returns to avenge his
exposure a month ago, where he was good enough to say :

I love ****ing with the resident paranoid trolls.

I believe that would actually be masturbation. Goodbye,
Allen

On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 14:01:13 -0500, GoKiting wrote:

I'd put you on my kill filter, but it's fun watching you jump every time I say
how high. Even a resident troll like yourself can be the source of some minor
online amusement.

My oh my, speak of online amusement. You're also too stupid to
get that old phrase right. The imperative is "Jump!", not "How
high?"



BWAHAHAHAAHAHAAAAAAAAA!!!

He fell for it! Whatta maroon!

So you say . . . all the while further exposing your true self to
the ng.

GoKiting wrote:

heavily edited, for brevity

This inefficient flat-sensor **** with the ancient and crippling bayer crap has
got to go! Consumers buying into and supporting what Kodak is feebly trying here
is only going to prolong our agony.


Hello, GoKiting:

Okay. If you're not trolling, then why don't you take Canon, et el, to
task, for also failing to advance sensor technology, more rapidly?

As it is, your post appears to be a thinly disguised, anti-Kodak rant.


Cordially,
John Turco

On 14 Giu, 10:11, "David J Taylor" -this-
bit.nor-this-part.co.uk wrote:
New Kodak Sensors See Well in Dark - claims a 1 - 2 f/stop advantage.

See:

http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,13...s/article.html

David

OK,and now we wanna a new P880 with the same body/lens but with a new
sensor....hiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii