Except when it refers to bytes of memory or, more recently, pixels in an image, which case it means 2^20. This has been true for at least five decades (i.e. since people "invented" bytes).
And my 17x11 600 dpi print has 67.3 pixels, so that means I can tell people my camera takes 67 megapixel pictures????
This gets at the heart of the misunderstanding many "Bayer people" have. Your monitor does not have 2M red, 2M green and 2M blue. It has a lot more than that, because there are several phosphor dots for each pixel (at least at reasonable monitor resolutions). This is called "dot pitch".
My Dad always told me it was a five sided piece of glass. More like a prism silvered on some sides (i.e. it reflects on the inside, not the outside) than a mirror.
Sorry, I was thinking of a Pentax, of course.
Back when I worked for Cummins Electronics (a Michigan based operation of the Indiana based Cummins Engine) our top level manager was Ron Temple. Next thing you know, some coworkers came up with "Indiana Joe and the Ron Temple of Doom".
I've been tinkering with some new terms to describe this...
No. The mirror angles duplicate those in a glass pentaprism, but in the glass prism, light strikes two of the five sides perpendicular and can pass through, and three sides at angles so it's reflected. Mirrors reflect all light regardless of angle, so two of the five mirrors have to be "missing" for light to be able to enter and exit.
As soon as you start labeling people like this, most people stop following your arguments. You should be more careful. I've read some of your other posts, and you usually have valid points. Work on that reputation, not the one that alienates folks because they think you've dismissed them as "Bayer people" who have a "misunderstanding".
That's quanta, not really spatial resolution. The combination of monitor and video card really does have 2 million displayable pxels, each of which has a red, ggreen, and blue parameter.
Again, try to avoid prejudicial terms like colors "guessed from neighboring pixels". Foveon sensors need color guessing too, to compensate for the metamerism issues.
That is a good example of a "definition" vs. a "convention".
You should join the "MegaSomethings" and "MegaPops" thread.
Sarcasm accepted...
I have "refined" nothing. The luminance availiable from a Bayer array is entirely dependent on the spectral distribution of the subject. For a mostly red scene, luminance (or any information, for that matter) is availiable from 1/4 the sensors. For a green scene, 1/2 the sensors. For a grey scene, all the sensors.
I can't tell you where to get one, but your attitude is beginning to make me want to tell you where to put one.
So, you decided the obvious thing to do to a thread that is already too long and drifting too much was to throw in your own off topic contribution.
True. I am chastened. I do try not to use words that have a "slant" to them. I will have to try harder.
Again, I apoligize. I do most of my work on Imax images (where 6MP is pretty low) so I jumped to the erroneous conclusion that you really were looking at a 6 megapixel monitor (just not thinking clearly) and that you thought two million were red (i.e. were confusing pixels with phosper dots). I now understand what you meant, and I agree.
On this one, I'm not so sure I should feel guilty: perhaps i should have said "interpolated" but -- and the last thing I want is to start yet another argument over subtle distinctions of definition -- "interpolation" is very close to "intelligent guess". But I do concede the point: it is a "slanted" way of putting it.
Hey! I never knew that. Thanks for the link.
Joe, thanks for reacting to my needling.
