From: Ray Fischer on
nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote:
>In article <4bcb4eb1$0$1610$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net>, Ray Fischer
><rfischer(a)sonic.net> wrote:
>
>> >> the luminance resolution is about the same as another 4.6 megapixel
>> >> sensor (alias artifacts is not resolution, it's false detail) and the
>> >> eye can't see the extra chroma resolution.
>> >
>> >Only if you capture black and white scenes, otherwise it is lower.
>>
>> A 4.6MP bayer sensor does indeed have lower resolution than does a
>> 4.6MP foveon sensor.
>
>slightly.

It's significant.

>it's certainly not 1/3rd or whatever other silly math the foveon
>fanbois claim.

It is actually not too far from 1/3.

>> But notice how many cameras have 4.6MP Bayer
>> sensors.
>
>and then look at how many have foveon. it's not even 1/2 of 1%.

Not the point. The point is that cameras with Bayer sensors are
generally 10MP or more, easily outstripping any benefits seen from
the Foveon sensor.

>> >To properly capture luminance at each pixel
>>
>> "Properly" according to whom and by what standard?
>
>a made up standard that doesn't matter to human vision.


--
Ray Fischer
rfischer(a)sonic.net

From: nospam on
In article <4bcb5b3b$0$1636$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net>, Ray Fischer
<rfischer(a)sonic.net> wrote:

> >> A 4.6MP bayer sensor does indeed have lower resolution than does a
> >> 4.6MP foveon sensor.
> >
> >slightly.
>
> It's significant.

no it isn't.

> >it's certainly not 1/3rd or whatever other silly math the foveon
> >fanbois claim.
>
> It is actually not too far from 1/3.

it's approximately the same. both bayer and a foveon sensor with the
same number of pixels will resolve approximately the same, roughly
70-80% of nyquist.

beyond that you either get alias artifacts (aka false details) or no
details, because the aa filter blocks it since the sensor would alias.

> >> But notice how many cameras have 4.6MP Bayer
> >> sensors.
> >
> >and then look at how many have foveon. it's not even 1/2 of 1%.
>
> Not the point. The point is that cameras with Bayer sensors are
> generally 10MP or more, easily outstripping any benefits seen from
> the Foveon sensor.

that's true. the best foveon sensor is still 4.6 megapixels, while
bayer is 18-24 megapixels.
From: Alfred Molon on
In article <180420100922201916%nospam(a)nospam.invalid>, nospam says...

> wrong. every pixel captures luminance.

No. In a Bayer sensor every pixel captures either the red, green or blue
channel. This is NOT luminance.

> > To properly capture luminance at each pixel you need the full colour
> > information at each pixel.
>
> wrong, as bayer has proven.

No - you are wrong.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
From: nospam on
In article <MPG.2635a0118e4698e198c2a2(a)news.supernews.com>, Alfred
Molon <alfred_molon(a)yahoo.com> wrote:

> In article <180420100922201916%nospam(a)nospam.invalid>, nospam says...
>
> > wrong. every pixel captures luminance.
>
> No. In a Bayer sensor every pixel captures either the red, green or blue
> channel. This is NOT luminance.

it's one component of the luminance, with the remaining two later
calculated.

> > > To properly capture luminance at each pixel you need the full colour
> > > information at each pixel.
> >
> > wrong, as bayer has proven.
>
> No - you are wrong.

so all of the zillions of photos that very accurately reproduce the
subject all have completely bogus luminance? how can that be?

here's a clue, bayer works, and it works very well.
From: Ray Fischer on
Alfred Molon <alfred_molon(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>In article <180420100922201916%nospam(a)nospam.invalid>, nospam says...
>
>> wrong. every pixel captures luminance.
>
>No. In a Bayer sensor every pixel captures either the red, green or blue
>channel. This is NOT luminance.

So it can't tell how bright the r, g, or b is?

Really?

>> > To properly capture luminance at each pixel you need the full colour
>> > information at each pixel.
>>
>> wrong, as bayer has proven.
>
>No - you are wrong.

He's obviously not wrong as the existence of billions of images
captured with Bayer sensors will show.

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer(a)sonic.net

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Prev: SI Facescape
Next: FF camera with mirrorless design