OT nitpick [resolution] [LWN.net]

OT nitpick [resolution]

Posted Sep 3, 2004 17:12 UTC (Fri) by ekj (subscriber, #1524)
In reply to: OT nitpick [resolution] by kreutzm
Parent article: Pointless ideology?

You are correct, offcourse, but the thing is, that's not the sort of "resolution" marketed by camera-manufacturers.

My digital Camera is marketed as delivering pictures with a "resolution" of 2500x1800 or something of the sorts, that means simply the numbers of pixels coming out of the camera. There's no way in hell you'd be able to take a picture of a black-white checkerboard with that number of squares on it, and have the individual squares resolve black/white, that picture would appear a fairly uniform grey. (and the fact that the camera outputs lossy jpeg ain't the only reason for that)

My limited, admittedly amateur testing seems to show that the real "resolution" in the sense of "can resolve an object this small" is at most half of the advertised resolution.

(Log in to post comments)

OT nitpick [resolution]

Posted Sep 16, 2004 22:24 UTC (Thu) by job (subscriber, #670) [Link]

The pictures that digital cameras take are interpolated. A camera that
advertises 6 Mpixels is 2 M red senors, 2 M green and 2 M blue. (Strictly
not true of course, there are more blue sensors than red I think.) So the
resolution is indeed correct but the colors are all interpolated.
Measuring this in the way you describe is probably pretty difficult.

This is true for all cameras, consumer all the way up to pro. Resolution
may be further damaged by crappy optics, but this is of course less true
the more high end you get. There is one sensors that actually uses a true
3 Mpixels resolution, from a company called Foveon, but as far as I know
only Sigma actually made a camera with that. It turned out to be a hard
sell because of the perceived lower resolution (you know how it is, the
3GHz CPU must be faster than the 2GHz one), so in the end they renamed it
to 9 Mpixels just to go with the lingo.