Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/10/13

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]
Subject: [Leica] Re: pixel count, was Paperless???
From: "Shawn London" <srlondon@yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 13:03:15 -0400
 
Thanks for setting the story straight.  You can never complain when someone
else makes your argument seem more persuasive.  : )

> Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 21:51:35 -0700
> From: Jim Brick <jim@brick.org>
> Subject: [Leica] Re: pixel count, was Paperless???
>
> Hi Shawn,
>
> Almost all correct. But it takes four (4) physical pixels to represent one
> (1) image pixel. It's 4:1, not 3:1. So it's worse than many folks think.
>
> The reason is that sensors use a Bayer pattern, which takes into account
> the most prevalent color mix that mother nature gave us. The pixel sequence
> is:
>
> RGRGRGRGRGRGRGRGRGRGRGRG
> GBGBGBGBGBGBGBGBGBGBGBGB
> RGRGRGRGRGRGRGRGRGRGRGRG
> GBGBGBGBGBGBGBGBGBGBGBGB
>
> There are two green pixels for every one red and one blue pixel. They are
> in a quadrant contained in two pixel rows.
>
> RG  RG  RG
> GB  GB  GB
>
> So real resolution is one quarter of stated resolution.
>
> Jim