Re: Nikon D300 HDR out of the camera !!

John Sheehy wrote:
> Paul Furman <paul-@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
> news:Zkszj.19705$0w.4535@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
> 
>> John Sheehy wrote:
>>> "Charles" <charlesschuler@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in 
>>> news:LM6dnYaD4fw8ClHanZ2dnUVZ_oSunZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>
>>>> Reds are often blown out.  Typical of all DSLRs. 
>>> That's typical of conversions.  The RAW data blows out very rarely in
>>> the red channel; it is only the attempt by the converters to render
>>> very saturated reds that blows them out. 
>>>
>>> Many a digital photo with red flowers has been severely under-exposed
>>> to prevent a blow-out, unnecessarily.
>> Odd that red & green are opposite on the color wheel but diagonal in a
>> sensor and double the number of green pixels. <scratching head>
> 
> They're not exactly opposite.  Cyan is opposite red, and magenta is 
> opposite green.
> 
> Part of the range between blue and red on a color wheel would be totally

> invisible, if it were fully saturated, as visible light does not use a 
> full octave.

Ah so the artist's color wheel is anthropomorphisized, not a scientific 
relation****p?

I'm a landscape architect who has spent a lot of time rendering greens 
onto drawings and I can tell you it's just amazing how many subtle 
greens people can distinguish. We always complained there weren't enough 
shades of green colored pencils. My most recent reminder was quickly 
choosing a green from a Pantone color chip then getting the print back I 
was astounded how wrong the choice was. We went back to the Pantone set 
& there simply wasn't anything close to what would have been 
appropriate. We did find something close but it took a lot of hunting.

How about a color system that has more bits of green distinction than 
red or blue?

> There is no meaning to the order of colors in the red/green*2/blue 
> elements in a CFA.  The only consideration is that since there are more 
> greens (probably because noise and detail in the green channel are more 
> noticeable), that the greens be equally distibuted, and they can only be

> done so with such a pattern:
> 
> g*g*g*g*
> *g*g*g*g
> g*g*g*g*
> *g*g*g*g
> 
> After you do that, the relative placement of red and blue are
irrelevant, 
> because the pattern is the same, just ****fted some, if you swap blue and

> red.
>