File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
http://nightskypictures.com/lrgb.htm

anyone think that would work for doing long exposures at night just as a complicated way to reduce noise?
>> Anonymous
looks like it works fairly well. I wouldn't use it for anything requiring scientific accuracy tho.
>> Anonymous
Well, you can't do it with any DSLR other than the Sigmas with Foveon chips (and that's a maybe). You need an imager without the bayer-pattern filters on it.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
This thread is now about Sam Abell, btw.
>> Anonymous
>>211890
Sam Abell's win, but the OP pic is by Jim Nachtwey.
>> Anonymous
>>211899
OK so now it's about the two of them.

GO.
>> op
>>211869
no idea what the fuck your talking about

is that something to do with splitting up R G B?
could you do that with filters?
could you do that with the channels tab in PS?
>> okto !.ZlrOYZhsk
>>211948
You need to learn how a digital camera works.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayer_filter
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charge-coupled_device
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_sensor
>> Anonymous
>>212032
i see no need to learn that
this doesnt answer my questions.
>> okto !.ZlrOYZhsk
>>212257
>i see no need to learn that
That's probably because you're an ignorant dipshit.
>this doesnt answer my questions.
If this is the case, you lack the mental capacity to receive answers to your questions.

It's either that, or you can't read because of all the semen in your eyes. Or maybe you just can't read, and incidentally also have semen in your eyes.
>> Anonymous
why would i need to know about the sequence they position RGB pixels on a sensor? that doest help me
take picture.

i didnt even bother with the CCD one, or the sensor one i know what a sensor is and about how it works.
please tell me how know any of this techno babble bull shit helps you be a better photographer. please.

just because you know how a cameras sensor works it doesnt mean you can take pictures, even half way decent ones

so either post a picture where you used this trivial knowledge or shut the fuck up.

these links had NOTHING to do with my questions (can you do this with filters, can you do this with channels in PS) if you dont have the mental capability to understand that then your the fucking retard.
>> Anonymous
>>212472
Seriously okto, get the fuck out of here. You're not funny, you're not helpful, and your pictures suck. You're the worst new triptroll around here.
>> Anonymous
>>212487

Mainly, because no, you can't do it with filters, and no, you can't do it in post and yes, you have semen in your eyes.
>> Anonymous
>>212472
Seriously. Leave.
>> Anonymous
>>212487

You can't do it with filters or in post because there are filters on the photodiodes. The reason the technique works is because you capture a high-spatial-frequency grayscale image and rely on the characteristic that grayscale images have low noise.

You can't shoot a 100% pixel grayscale image in a DSLR because all the pixels have filters in front, and so only capture colored light. There's no way to extract straight luminance data from that except by converting in post, and that still relies on averaging the bayer pattern.

What you need is a grayscale CCD and R/G/B filters, then make four exposures. Won't work with any color CCD that I know of except MAYBE the foveon because you could sum all the exposures at a photosite and hypothetically use that as a luminance value.

Answer your question, fag?
>> okto !.ZlrOYZhsk
>>212603
Really? Which images are you referring to, the ones I've never posted here?
F- for form, C- for effort.

You've outdone yourself at overly-aggressive fucktardedness, Anon. Douchebag wanted to know what the fuck a Bayer filter was, and whether he could counteract its effects with shoop. How does the Wikipedia article on Bayer filters not precisely answer those questions?
>> Anonymous
>>212644
yes it does, i dont understand why it was so hard for someone to just say that in the first place. anon is fucking retarded.

>>212680
yes thats exactly what i asked for, information on something i didnt even know existed.
and is that post link supposed to be to>>212487?
if so i was saying to post a picture where you used this info, not referring to a different picture that you never posted because you dont know how to use a camera.


this thread can now die, as long as okto can stop trying to defend himself.
>> sage sage
>>212684
sage goes in the pissy bitch field.