From: JPS on
In message <Hh5iEtFkK6vCFwp0(a)objectech.co.uk>,
Ken Tough <ken(a)objectech.co.uk> wrote:

>The objective tests at dpreview show that at high ISO the SD10 loses
>saturation and hue accuracy. I suppose this shows up as performance
>in the shadows too.

One ISO's highlights are another ISO's shadows. They're just the same
analog sensor signals digitized into different RAW number ranges (and
precisions).
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS(a)no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
From: jennifer.wilson2 on


Bill Funk wrote:

> Are you trying to say that each sensor site in an X3 sensor is a
> "pixel"?
> Or, what is it you're trying to say?

It should be obvious that it takes three sensors, one red, one green,
one blue, to provide the information for a full color output pixel. So
Foveon's full color photosites do correspond to pixels, but Bayer's
don't, until each color exposure is interpolated up to the size of the
interpolated recorded image. Bayer cameras record upsclaled images, as
George likes to say.

From: JPS on
In message <1120314584.614337.230530(a)z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
jennifer.wilson2(a)lycos.com wrote:

>Bill Funk wrote:

>> Are you trying to say that each sensor site in an X3 sensor is a
>> "pixel"?
>> Or, what is it you're trying to say?

>It should be obvious that it takes three sensors, one red, one green,
>one blue, to provide the information for a full color output pixel.

No, that is what is needed for a three-channel *input* pixel, and it is
no guarantee of accurate color.

>So
>Foveon's full color photosites do correspond to pixels, but Bayer's
>don't, until each color exposure is interpolated up to the size of the
>interpolated recorded image. Bayer cameras record upsclaled images, as
>George likes to say.

No, they do not, as they have unique spatial information for each of the
advertised pixels.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS(a)no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
From: mark on


JPS(a)no.komm schreef:
> In message <1118723676.491758.184380(a)o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
> george_preddy(a)yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >13.72MP isn't that common. The Sigmas output 4536 x 3024 pixels images.
>
> The Sigma software does; the camera images are only 3.43MP.

The same way debayer software creates 6MP images off the rebel
sensor...

> --
>
> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
> John P Sheehy <JPS(a)no.komm>
> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

From: JPS on
In message <1120737139.692894.77290(a)g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"mark" <mspan(a)mad.scientist.com> wrote:

>JPS(a)no.komm schreef:
>> In message <1118723676.491758.184380(a)o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
>> george_preddy(a)yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>> >13.72MP isn't that common. The Sigmas output 4536 x 3024 pixels images.
>>
>> The Sigma software does; the camera images are only 3.43MP.
>
>The same way debayer software creates 6MP images off the rebel
>sensor...

Not at all; unlike the 13.7MP output from the Sigma software, 6MP Rebels
actually take a measurement at 6M locations on the sensor. The 13.7MP
Sigma images are merely aliased 3.43MP images softened in upsampling;
the stair-steps get a plush carpet.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS(a)no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><