11-26-2010, 12:56 PM
[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1290773926' post='4470']
Regarding Nyquist - you can look a bit beyond the barrier if you're test target is known. You cannot if you've no idea of what you're measuring of course. The K10D does naturally not deliver a resolution beyond that - especially considering Bayer. It's just about measuring a lens potential (FWIW, the big one provides resolution figures beyond Nyquist in their lens tests as well).
[/quote]
Now I'm really confused
Everything I've ever done in electronics shows that a signal cannot be recovered below the Shannon sampling limit without multiple signal copies and pre-stacking.
Your statement "You cannot if you've no idea of what you're measuring of course" implies to me that you are using your mind to interpolate the missing data from the random dots above Nyquist.
This isn't usable data as without the reference you cannot reconstruct so is of zero practicable use in signal recovery.
It would also mean your data is not reproducible by a third party and cannot therefore be ratified or quantified as to accuracy.
The fact others do it, the same applies if your reporting data above Nyquist then you are interpolating that data (ie it isnt there) and as such are no longer producing a photograph but a piece of art or for a better word a lie.
ie the final image is a poor approximation of the original not a copy.
Regarding Nyquist - you can look a bit beyond the barrier if you're test target is known. You cannot if you've no idea of what you're measuring of course. The K10D does naturally not deliver a resolution beyond that - especially considering Bayer. It's just about measuring a lens potential (FWIW, the big one provides resolution figures beyond Nyquist in their lens tests as well).
[/quote]
Now I'm really confused
Everything I've ever done in electronics shows that a signal cannot be recovered below the Shannon sampling limit without multiple signal copies and pre-stacking.
Your statement "You cannot if you've no idea of what you're measuring of course" implies to me that you are using your mind to interpolate the missing data from the random dots above Nyquist.
This isn't usable data as without the reference you cannot reconstruct so is of zero practicable use in signal recovery.
It would also mean your data is not reproducible by a third party and cannot therefore be ratified or quantified as to accuracy.
The fact others do it, the same applies if your reporting data above Nyquist then you are interpolating that data (ie it isnt there) and as such are no longer producing a photograph but a piece of art or for a better word a lie.
ie the final image is a poor approximation of the original not a copy.