 | | Re: taking good photos
|
| (...) I don't think that's quite correct. If your CCD or CMOS chip has greater than 8 bits of depth on each spectral band (most do), then an on-camera digital zoom should contain more information than a post-processed zoom. For example, suppose you (...) (21 years ago, 21-May-03, to lugnet.space, lugnet.publish.photography)
| | | | | Re: taking good photos
|
| (...) ^^^^^^ Err, I mean a 48-bit image (16 bits per channel) (...) (21 years ago, 21-May-03, to lugnet.space, lugnet.publish.photography)
| | | | | Re: taking good photos
|
| (...) I think you are confusing color depth with image area resolution. If the CCD chip has an area of X-by-Y pixels and you are at maximum optical zoom, then any form of digital zoom requires interpolating between adjacent real pixels. The color (...) (21 years ago, 22-May-03, to lugnet.space, lugnet.publish.photography)
| | | | | Re: taking good photos
|
| (...) I didn't think that sounded right, but I couldn't figure out why. This sounds an awful lot like how LCD laptop screens work, where they look fine if you set the screen size according to the actual physical pixelation of the screen, but if you (...) (21 years ago, 22-May-03, to lugnet.space, lugnet.publish.photography)
| | | | | Re: taking good photos
|
| (...) I don't think I am. :-) I'm not saying that the end result of a 2x-downsampled 10x digital zoom will look any better in 24-bit color than a native 5x optical zoom would look in 24-bit color. It won't. What I'm saying is that a 2x-downsampled (...) (21 years ago, 2-Jun-03, to lugnet.space, lugnet.publish.photography)
| | | | | Re: taking good photos
|
| (...) While there is more color fideltiy at higher bit-depths, above a certain point the human eye can't tell the difference. 24-bit is also termed "true color" because it's 16.7 million color range is close to the limit of what the human eye can (...) (21 years ago, 2-Jun-03, to lugnet.space, lugnet.publish.photography)
| |
