Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 25 of 25

Thread: Digital Camera Sensor Technologies

  1. #21
    Senior Member zoossh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    8,725

    Default Re: Digital Camera Sensor Technologies

    maybe you would like to reflect on or enlightened us on how does this unviewable data integrity translate into something important to you?

  2. #22

    Default Re: Digital Camera Sensor Technologies

    Quote Originally Posted by zoossh View Post
    maybe you would like to reflect on or enlightened us on how does this unviewable data integrity translate into something important to you?
    A camera can be used for many purposes.

    For some purposes visual fidelity is important, but you must know what is it you are imaging to know the adequacy of what you are getting in the image. This fidelity requirement is measured in terms of resolution. And therefore we can learn a lot about reality with digital imaging, incomplete and imperfect as they may be, eg from the Hubble space telescope, to medical X rays, to traffic light and speed cameras.

    For some purposes it is not, eg picture making. There a camera is just another tool, like a pencil or a brush. Certainly an artist never intends nor is expected to portray reality, but more to communicate his experience or sensation of reality, for example.

    In other words what and whether "reality" is important depends on what your purposes are in using a camera. Or put another way, why are you doing photography? I'm in it to make beautiful pictures, that's all.
    Last edited by espion; 11th March 2007 at 12:15 PM.

  3. #23
    Senior Member zoossh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    8,725

    Default Re: Digital Camera Sensor Technologies

    Quote Originally Posted by espion View Post
    A camera can be used for many purposes.

    For some purposes visual fidelity is important, but you must know what is it you are imaging to know the adequacy of what you are getting in the image. This fidelity requirement is measured in terms of resolution. And therefore we can learn a lot about reality with digital imaging, incomplete and imperfect as they may be, eg from the Hubble space telescope, to medical X rays, to traffic light and speed cameras.

    For some purposes it is not, eg picture making. There a camera is just another tool, like a pencil or a brush. Certainly an artist never intends not is expected to portray reality, but more to communicate his experience or sensation of reality, for example.

    In other words what and whether "reality" is important depends on what your purposes are in using a camera. Or put another way, why are you doing photography? I'm in it to make beautiful pictures, that's all.
    thank you. i think i understand where you are coming from.

  4. #24

    Default Re: Digital Camera Sensor Technologies

    Quote Originally Posted by zoossh View Post
    ... and i dun get what the article you post got anything to do with the retina can be manipulated like photography to produce the images ...
    Of course the URL I posted says a lot more things than just the discussion here.

    But the most immediate and relevant thing is the fact that a seeing eye is not enough to see a picture. The mind is involved too.

    And this is also very true for imaging, especially digital for the raw data collected by the camera sensor is a RAW file, which cannot be viewed. There is a need to interpret the 12bit numbers in each pixel to make a picture, eg colour and brightness. This is done by the in-built camera processor or in your PC.

    Such processing can be liken to the mind in the case of a human being: the mind is needed to interpret the sensations each rod and cone is receiving before you "see".

    And if the mind is corrupted then of course what you see is "manipulated".

  5. #25
    Senior Member zoossh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    8,725

    Default Re: Digital Camera Sensor Technologies

    Quote Originally Posted by espion View Post
    Of course the URL I posted says a lot more things than just the discussion here.
    perhaps it says a lot, but i can't see the relevance.

    Quote Originally Posted by espion View Post
    But the most immediate and relevant thing is the fact that a seeing eye is not enough to see a picture. The mind is involved too.
    But the most immediate and relevant thing is the fact that a seeing eye is not enough to take a picture. The mind is involved too.

    i think we might be talking about different things. if you want to compare with regards to capturing of image on our eyes/sensor rather than choosing what to look/at (which what we are talking about is capturing of image on our eyes versus sensor), then what we see thru photographing is different from we see thru our naked vision. try opening your eyes, look at the front with your normal focal length and angle of view, can you try to imagine what it is like to be shooting at 10mm focal length in your mind, have your eyes adapted to that, sees the activities in front of you like what a 10mm focal length would be, and not see what is really in front of you? you can't. that is the difference between seeing the real world versus seeing thru photography. the reason why photography appeals is becos it opens up what we cannot see with our eyes, capturing images different from what we see with our eyes and reflecting on a different medium in that fixed image which we can then see on the medium.

    Quote Originally Posted by espion View Post
    And this is also very true for imaging, especially digital for the raw data collected by the camera sensor is a RAW file, which cannot be viewed. There is a need to interpret the 12bit numbers in each pixel to make a picture, eg colour and brightness. This is done by the in-built camera processor or in your PC.
    i guess if you are talking about raw data and extra higher data integrity, it is not so much about whether they are important in the resultant image viewing. if they can't be seen, they can't be seen. but probably on the aspect of photo-enhancement, whereby alteration of data may open up unviewable gaps and show up as viewable gaps. so far you have not brought this up, i think data integrity is not important for no good reason, it is important only if there is a practical point, which i think is with regards to substantial amount of post processing.

    it is just like when the frequency for TV viewing, there is no point of it being higher than what our eyes can see. only when you try to take a picture of your TV, than you see that you may get into this gap and show it up. so unless taking pictures of your TV displaying a show is an important part of your life, then having a higher frequency is not important. hence in terms of your other suggested purposes, i do agree with you. and in terms of photography, i think the data integrity may be important for post processing, but exactly how much data integrity we need for smoothen our post processing requirements, that i;m not sure.

    Quote Originally Posted by espion View Post
    Such processing can be liken to the mind in the case of a human being: the mind is needed to interpret the sensations each rod and cone is receiving before you "see".
    not exactly. as i say the human eye and brain process it like a video mode, there is no such thing as shutter duration and accumulated exposure. you can't have the same capture of exposure the way the eyes/brain do the same way the lens/shutter/sensor do.

    Quote Originally Posted by espion View Post
    And if the mind is corrupted then of course what you see is "manipulated".
    not sure what you mean. manipulation is an intended effect, so it doesn't seem to have any metaphorical relationship to corruption.
    Last edited by zoossh; 11th March 2007 at 02:21 PM.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •