Michel Adam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >In marketingspeak, 'effective' might as well mean 'we are faking it'. > >But it sounds better. > >If there is real vanilla in your ice cream, you can be sure that the marketing >droid who will design the label on the packaging, and the publicity campaing >will make sure to mention it. On the other hand, only the long arm of the law >will force him to disclose that it is artificial. > >So, are all of these pixels representing 'measured' data points, or are some >of them derived on the fly from others? > >Hypothetically, given the choice between 'interpolated' and 'guessed', >who could blame them if they decided on a third one, 'effective' ? > >They would be insane if they did not trumpet the maximum 'un-arguable' >resolution of 6+ megapixels, if it was really un-arguable.
No, they'd be lying. The "maximum un-arguable" number of pixels is *greater* than the effective number. This is standard terminology with digital cameras. The *ist D uses the same CCD as the Nikon D100. The total number of pixels is 6.31 million. The total number of *effective* pixels is 6.11 million. The 200,000 pixels outside the image area are used for dark reference. Virtually all digital camera pixel counts are specified this way. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
