Dimitris Servis

"People in these forums complain about paying $10/month for software yet have no issue with dropping thousands of dollars annually for each iteration of new body that comes out"

It's called...

The way it currently works, people like myself that don't need PS for 99.9% of their work are forced to finance those that use it, so they don't have to pay $1000. I somehow don't think I will take...

Yes. Bye bye LR.

I don't have images with electrons. Sorry.

Shutter speed will not be the same, and assume that I can fine tune everything so that we have exactly the same number of photons/um^2 which is my assumption. I am really fond of that link. My two ...

I've stated it again and again. I don't need the usual equivalence articles. If you don't understand my questions or the Wikipedia article I can rephrase them or post a question in the discussion ...

Agreed

I don't care about the pool of signal in the rectangle. I care about the distribution. I ask simple questions: 1. Is the Wikipedia article correct? 2. Is there an appropriate size of rectangle if ...

I don't care about the raw data corresponding to the projected rectangle. What you are describing is trivial and discussed.

I think we care about noise in uniform areas of a natural image where I can actually see it. The only sensible calculation I found is this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal-to-noise_ratio_(ima ...

To me it makes absolute sense (yet, I might be wrong which is why I am asking). It is measuring the noise in the final image without concern in the breakdown of the noise and measuring some ...

The article does not measure photons. We are talking about noise in the image. There are no photons. It does not even require photosensors. Because if my assumption is true about the noise ...

Of course the mean will fluctuate. But will the measurements of SNR be roughly the same with this method? If yes, then my initial assumption regarding the sampling size is also true. Btw, in what ...

I am referring to the method in this article https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal-to-noise_ratio_(imaging) And wonder how sensitive it would be to the size of the arbitrary rectangle and the ...

No, why would it be? What I gather from that measurement method is that you get the measurements from a bunch of uniformly illuminated photosites, average and compare to the average of the ...

Doesn't help me: the way SNR is measured in this example is anyway averaging over the entire arbitrary rectangle. What difference does it make if I scale it? I would even expect that for ...

Correct, but would depend on how SNR is measured. So, I am looking at this page https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal-to-noise_ratio_(imaging) If I used this image for my experiment and removed ...

So wouldn't that mean that, all other things being equal, if I started removing photosensors from my cluster of sensors, every time the resulting image would have the same noise characteristics? ...

Hi Jim You are of course correct. What I am trying to understand is the mechanisms that might make pixels depending on eachother. So, put differently: in terms of whatever we define as final image ...

None of the answers addresses my questions. So far I got that it's a perceived thing in the image you could see in shadows but from what I read in shadows it does not play a role. So let me put it ...