I 4 1 am not disputing you, GC
I 4 1 am not disputing you, GC
CC, Image editing OK.
Having thought about this for a second I think me and John King are actually saying the same thing but in different ways. Having been programming since... I dunno, around 1984... I've worked throughout that time on bitmaps (including weird stuff like Amiga's HAM mode) from a programming and hardware level quite a lot. Yeah, most camera sensors have a Bayer filter over the sensor, so each "sensor site" (assuming an 8-bit sensor/ADC) can have one of 256 different values. But in this scenario I don't call each "sensor site" a "pixel". It's not a "pixel" until after the raw data has been processed, IMO (in a typical 8-bit sensor with a Bayer filter there are 4 different sensor sites representing one pixel). I think this is where we've got our wires crossed. I'm calling a pixel the single "dot" that results from processing the sensor data. I think it's probably that John King is talking about sensor sites and referring to those pixels -- if I'm wrong I apologise, but I think this conversation/confusion is probably just a semantic misunderstanding.
Craig
Yes, I've seen plenty of arguments about "pixels" and "photosites"...
Craig, I've felt all along that we were talking at cross purposes - I.e. in heated agreement with each other, using different words.
@rexboggs5 You are welcome, Rex. I have a huge amount of literature and URLs pertaining to bit depth and colour spaces. So many that it would be a thread bomb if I could find them all ...