How to connect to a wireless device (a video camera's memory card)from windows 10?

"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
news
I've always wondered: with hexagonal packing, where every alternate row
of
pixels is offset half a pixel-width horizontally from the row above, how
do
they map that offset structure to the rectangular grid of pixels that is
assumed for any display or for any image-processing algorithm? Is there a
matrix transform which will interpolate the value that a pixel would have
if
its sensor was directly underneath another one rather than being offset
horizontally and vertically by half a pixel?

I'd guess it probably messes it up. Remember trying to record interlaced
video from a TV onto your computer and getting every other line slightly
squint when things moved rapidly in the image? There's a name for it
which I can't remember, which some video editors can reduce, but they
never get rid of it entirely.

I think it's called "combing" because the jagged edge that you get on
fast-moving vertical lines looks like the teeth of a comb.

Given that many sensors use hexagonal packing of pixels, I would imagine
that you get a perfectly good results (ie without obvious artefacts) at the
expense of a slight loss of sharpness compared with a true rectangular pixel
array due to whatever convolution matrix is needed to map hexagonal to
rectangular. That loss of sharpness may be mitigated by the fact that pixels
of the same size can be packed slightly more densely, so you probably have
more actual pixels than the effective (rectangular-pixel) output.

In article , NY
wrote:


Given that many sensors use hexagonal packing of pixels,

not many. just fuji.

I would imagine
that you get a perfectly good results (ie without obvious artefacts) at the
expense of a slight loss of sharpness compared with a true rectangular pixel
array due to whatever convolution matrix is needed to map hexagonal to
rectangular. That loss of sharpness may be mitigated by the fact that pixels
of the same size can be packed slightly more densely, so you probably have
more actual pixels than the effective (rectangular-pixel) output.

the results are quite good.