3 ms·
It's going to be more than twice--Nyquist-Shannon is for 1D; 2D images would have a lower resolution on the diagonals, so you'd want a minimum of twice the freq
by rleigh 10y ago
It's going to be more than twice--Nyquist-Shannon is for 1D; 2D images would have a lower resolution on the diagonals, so you'd want a minimum of twice the frequency on the diagonals.
In an ideal world, we would also be using hexagonal grids rather than square, which gives a resolution increase for the same area and a given pixel size, and also reduces off-axis aliasing.
- microcolonel 10y agoVery astute, thank you for bringing this to my attention. So it'd be about 2 and 58/70 times the maximum frequency, assuming two-dimensional sampling. As for hexagonal grids, there are a number of complications introduced by that, especially when it comes to using general algorithms based on regular 2D euclidean space.
- rleigh 10y agoWith a sampling rate of 2 on the diagonal, you'd have a rate of 2.828 on the axes, with a square grid (2 * sqrt(2)). Unless I'm missing something. Agreed about the complications of the hexagonal grid. We make implicit assumptions everywhere. Though I'm not sure they are insurmountable for some purposes; with graphics APIs like OpenGL, texture coordinates and samplers could be using a hexagonal grid relatively transparently. That would allow use of hexagonal displays even if the texture data is square.