Talk:Digital imaging

Comments
I just fixed the wrong definition. There is TONS to be written on the subject. I'm going to look thru wiki what's already there on the topic, for coherence. Then I'm after TOC & sketch (unless someone better and faster than me fixes it :-) Mikkalai 11:04, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, totally. but Mik seems to have dropped out in 2004. So did I. I just stopped by to look up the word "Bias" with regards to fabric, and all I saw seemed like total devastation on the articles that were pretty darn close to good.

If someone wants info/ideas for this page there is stuff in "color printing" under the subtopic opf "Color separation" that could be a good start to explain capturing and digitizing COLOR images via RGB filters over the sensors of a scanner, etc.

This whole article called "Digital Imaging" is just too broad. The TOC will be huge! Good Luck. I'll check back and add, if someone starts it off.--Dkrolls 13:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC) HELlO

Photoshop
I added a bit about Photoshop being one of the most popular tools for digital imaging. Hope that is ok! --Xsamix 20:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Delete or merge?
I removed a deletion proposal that says this topic is well covered already at CCD and Digital image, but these are really much narrower in scope. Seems to me that this little article is a small attempt at a WP:Summary style introduction to the field, which covers a lot more than these two articles, and that we should either expand it that way or find another place that covers the same scope, and merge with that. Comments? Dicklyon (talk) 17:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Dated
This article has the feel of having been mostly written in the 1990s. Some folks with good knowledge of the field need to completely re-write it. I',. going to mark it as a stub, despite it's length as its doesn't even scratch the surface of the subject. Stub Mandrel (talk) 13:46, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Issue with link in reference 17
When I click the link in reference 17 I see a page that says "Page Not Found (Error 404)". This >( http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/entertainment-july-dec09-google_12-30/ ) link is probably the right one. (Anonymouscontributer (talk) 23:35, 24 February 2017 (UTC))

Why the sales pitch on an Encyclopedia?
The whole section on "theoretical application" in this article are unnecessary. It seems more like somebody trying to push a sales pitch than an actual bias article. "How will it work you ask?", "But parents and schools aren’t the only ones who see benefits in databases such as these".

Seems like the company pushing for these 1984-esqe "applications" are the ones who had this article/section written.

No place for opinions in a bias article/encyclopedia. Shootem Badguys (talk) 00:54, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree, especially the reference to Kodak seems to be a plug. Yodo9000 (talk) 11:07, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Protection
Semi-protection article make it JoshuaSaver (talk) 06:47, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Earliest digital transmission of photos
I found out that German professor Arthur Korn transmitted photo over telegram line as earlier as 1906. 62.78.251.132 (talk) 14:59, 10 September 2022 (UTC)