The article contains an excess of terms most people would not understand if they were to come across this article.
Take the anti-aliasing article for comparison. It explains the terms and concepts in detail. This article on the other hand expects you to know all of these terms and concepts, rather than explain them.
Help and feedback would be appreciated.
- I agree. I sure don't understand this! Uber-Awesomeness (talk) 23:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with both sides on this, however, this is a technical area - and naturally has to contain jargon. Personally I think the article needs very little remedial work, but does require expansion. Bloodholds (talk) 20:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
- Is it misleading to say "sharply cut off aliasing"? wouldn't reducing aliasing be the opposite of sharpening?Goatonastik (talk) 23:28, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
In the section on Optical anti-aliasing filters, it says that "fill factor alone ... can provide a significant anti-aliasing effect" Isn't that false? Don't you need an AA filter of some kind to eliminate signal that's higher frequency than the pixel pitch, regardless of whether the pixels are 100% coverage? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 20:50, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- No, it's quite true; in fact, the filtering effect of a 100% fill factor is better than what is achieved by a standard optical anti-aliasing filter, which is why the cited source shows a higher quality image depends more on a large fill factor than on the optical anti-aliasing filter. You can understand this by working out the transfer functions. With a 100% fill sensor, the sinc function transfer function has its first zero at the frequency that would alias to DC, so it does a good job of attenuating large-scale (low-frequency) aliasing. With the standard optical anti-aliasing filter that splits a point into two points, the transfer function is a cosine; it can be arranged to put the first null at whatever frequency you want, but then it quickly comes back up to a big peak again, as opposed to the sinc whose first sidelobe is much further down. I added some more sources. Dicklyon (talk) 03:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)