From: nospam on
In article <MPG.25f338637f11dad498c238(a)>, Alfred
Molon <alfred_molon(a)> wrote:

> > pick two bayer cameras and give the photos from one a sharpening and
> > contrast boost and you can fool people just as easily.
> Go ahead, take away the AA filter in a Bayer camera, apply all the
> sharpening you want and you'll still have a huge gap compared to a full
> colour camera.

nope, and that's not what i suggested anyway.

> Reviews show that a full-colour camera has as much resolution as a Bayer
> camera with approx. 50% more pixels.

actually what they show is a camera without an anti-alias filter and a
sharpening and contrast boost looks like it has more detail, but the
detail is false and not in the original subject.

if you look at a resolution chart, you can see they both stop
accurately resolving around the same point.

> Besides, also a full-colour camera needs an AA filter, to have a sharp
> cutoff at the Nyquist frequency.

and yet sigma skips that, claiming it doesn't need it. also, it's not
physically possible to have a sharp cutoff, at least not with today's
From: nospam on
In article <MPG.25f247ea637a460398c236(a)>, Alfred
Molon <alfred_molon(a)> wrote:

> > That would be an interesting test - making the same size print from a
> > 4.6MP Foveon and a 12MP (or whatever) Bayer DSLR.
> You'd obviously have to compare a 4.6MP full colour with a 4.6MP Bayer
> camera. Not sure why you are pulling out a 12MP Bayer camera.

because that's what's available today. 6 mp bayer cameras came out in
2002 and disappeared a few years ago.
From: Peter on
"Pete Stavrakoglou" <ntotrr(a)> wrote in message
> "Alfred Molon" <alfred_molon(a)> wrote in message
> news:MPG.25f0f4379f64393d98c233(a)
>> In article <250220101200075882%nospam(a)nospam.invalid>,
>> nospam(a)nospam.invalid says...
>>> mono resolution charts are what matter to human vision and resolution
>>> measurements, not colour charts.
>> Obviously in a black and white world a full-colour sensor has no
>> advantages over a bayers sensor. But the world is not black and white,
>> therefore resolution tests using only monochrome test targets are
>> meaningless.
>> Hint: adjacent pixels could have similar luminance levels but different
>> colours. Bayer fails here while a full-colour sensor correctly captures
>> the signal.
>> --
>> Alfred Molon
>> ------------------------------
>> Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at
>> photo sharing site
> To continue on about the comparitive resoluton of the Foveon sensor in the
> DP1, DP2, and SD14: I've mentioned that the resolution compares to a 10 -
> 12 MP Bayer sensor. Here's what the dpreview camera review said about the
> DP2 compared the the Olympus E-P1:
> "The Sigma's results are rather over-sharpened by our standard workflow
> because it includes a sharpening step to compensate for the
> low-pass/anti-aliasing filter (which the Sigma doesn't have). Even so, the
> level of detail being rendered is clearly very high and not dissimilar to
> that of a well-processed image from a camera with a 12mp conventional
> sensor such as the E-P1. Per-pixel sharpness on the DP2 is way ahead of
> the E-P1 and even in a large print it seems ulikely that the extra pixels
> on the Olympus sensor would give you any advantage".
> Here's what the review said about the DP2 compared to the Sony A330:
> "Even in RAW the inexpensive Sony isn't producing a result that is
> comparable with the E-P1, which means it would also struggle to keep pace
> with the DP2, if downsized to the same output size. The difference isn't
> huge by any means but the Sony simply isn't rendering the horizontal
> stripes on the medal in crop three (which no amount of downsizing will
> compensate for."
> So the assertion made earlier in this thread that the DP2 had better
> resolution only when compared to small-sensor cameras is not correct.

You Aare being trolled.


From: Alfred Molon on
In article <hmb70m$pna$1(a)>, david-
taylor(a) says...
> No, I'm suggesting comparing prints from today's cameras - not a Sigma
> from 2010 versus a Nikon from 2004!

And what are you trying to prove - that a camera with 12 or 24 MP has
more resolution than a camera with 4.6MP? What a surprise.

But coming back to my original question, why on earth is there no Foveon
sensor with 10 or more MP?

Alfred Molon
Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at photo sharing site
From: David J Taylor on
"Alfred Molon" <alfred_molon(a)> wrote in message
> And what are you trying to prove - that a camera with 12 or 24 MP has
> more resolution than a camera with 4.6MP? What a surprise.
> Alfred Molon


I'm not trying to "prove" anything. I suggested comparing today's cameras
of similar effective resolution (citing a 4.6MP Foveon and 12MP Bayer as
such cameras), and using the same size print to compare the results. Then
see how close the eye needs to be to see the extra colour detail you cite
will be present in the Foveon image. I do note that you talk about
"full-colour sensor", whereas what we have today is the Foveon.

It's the view of many, supported by experiments, that the eye cannot
resolve colour in as much detail as luminance, so the advantages of the
full-colour sensor may not be as great as you think, particularly with the
current implementation (e.g. with no anti-alias filter and imperfect
colour separation).