X-Trans is NOT Random

Started Sep 8, 2012 | Discussions thread
mbb101
Junior MemberPosts: 37
Like?
Re: Impossible and yet it is.
In reply to rattymouse, Sep 9, 2012

It is with much trepidation that I enter this debate but I think the first thing to say is of course the Xtrans is not a randomly distributed array that is clear.

So the real complaint from ratty seems to be that the company should not use imprecise language to sell their products and maybe they shouldn't. However all of us are at times imprecise with language and it seems to be a lot worse when we deal with logic systems such as mathematics, science and the law.

For instance the use of the word infinite is probably the least understood and most abused word in the English language. Most people use the word to mean very large which is not what it means at all. A space may have an infinite number of points in it but the space itself can be very small. So that a continuous line 1 nanometre in length is undoubtedly an extremely small line but there are an infinite number of points on the line. Similarly a line a million metres long is undoubtedly an extremely long line (at least on the human scale) but not only does it have an infinite number of points on it it has exactly the same number of points as the 1 nanometre line. So that expressions like almost infinite, nearly infinite are completely meaningless but are often used simply to mean very big. Lots of marketing departments talk about the almost infinite variations of.... This is not a lot different from talking about random when they mean less ordered.

It seems to me that whilst the language is imprecise there was no intention to mislead.

Although of course there are ways of producing images which are considerably less ordered even than an XTrans sensor is and that is by using a stochastic method, this is what happens on an ink jet printer. To the eye if you take a magnified look at the distribution of ink droplets on paper there appears to be no discernible pattern. In reality it is not truly a random distribution of dots, because it will use a complex algorithm to determine the distribution, but it appears to be so. Would a printer manufacturer be lying simply because he called the distribution of ink droplets random I don't think so. But they would be imprecise.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow