Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"
|    sci.optics    |    Discussion relating to the science of op    |    12,750 messages    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
|    Message 11,494 of 12,750    |
|    Phil Hobbs to Salmon Egg    |
|    Re: Nyquist spatial sampling and pixeliz    |
|    11 Nov 13 11:27:35    |
      From: pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net              On 11/10/2013 12:12 AM, Salmon Egg wrote:       > In article <292ab5ee-061b-4ea3-aa77-193901cc792d@googlegroups.com>,       > laloum.eric@gmail.com wrote:       >       >> Dear All,       >>       >> Is it possible that an image is correctly sampled according to Nyquist (2 to       >> 3 pixel per resolution element) but nevertheless show some pixelization       >> effect when sufficiently zoomed ?       >> I guess both issues (Digital sampling and pixellisation) are highly       >> related...and it's quite easy to conceive that correct Nyquist sampling is a       >> necessary condition for avoiding pixelization, but is it also a sufficient       >> condition ?       >>       >> I would say no but can't explain why ;-(       >>       >> Thanks,       >>       >> Eric       >       > As most such things do, it depends on details. The sampling theorem and       > reconstruction from samples depends upon the signal being band limited.       > The bandpass shape is often referred to as a brick wall. Such a filter       > is not realizable.              It's pretty realizable in optics, where evanescent fields die away       exponentially with distance.              >       > While you do not give details, it is possible that higher frequencies       > left in the incompletely filtered image may introduce artifacts in the       > reconstruction. The reconstruction works because the reconstruction       > waveform is also not realizable. It goes from -ƒ to +ƒ for x and y       > coordinates. This means that there always will be some error.       >       > I believe Hamming,when at Bell Labs, did a lot of work on this       > particular problem.       >              At NA=1, you can in principle reconstruct the propagating part of the       fields exactly.              Cheers              Phil Hobbs                     --       Dr Philip C D Hobbs       Principal Consultant       ElectroOptical Innovations LLC       Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics              160 North State Road #203       Briarcliff Manor NY 10510              hobbs at electrooptical dot net       http://electrooptical.net              --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05        * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca