Sigma/Foveon Questions
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: SI Facescape
Next: FF camera with mirrorless design
From: Ray Fischer on 1 May 2010 00:55 Alfred Molon <alfred_molon(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > nospam says... >> there is no perhaps about it. the accuracy can be measured. delta-e >> (colour errors) for foveon is higher, or less accurate. >> >> or just look at the images. they're full of weird colour casts, >> including yellow skin, cyan skies, etc. and it's not consistent even >> among multiple foveon cameras. since there's a huge variability, it >> *can't* be more accurate. > >The big issue with Bayer is the effective resolution which is way lower >than the nominal one, because a Bayer sensor only captures 1/3 of the >needed information. Completely wrong. Once again: Images have a high degree of redundancy. The Bayer sensor captures far more than 1/3 of the needed information. Emprical tests show that it's more like 60%. Further, the much higher resolution of most Bayer sensors more than compensates. -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net
From: Ray Fischer on 1 May 2010 00:56 Alfred Molon <alfred_molon(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >By the way, nospam, do you realise that a Bayer sensor has an additional >issue: sensitivity. Each pixel only captures either red, green or blue >photons, thereby throwing away 2/3 of the incoming light. Do even know why that's a silly statement? -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net
From: Alfred Molon on 1 May 2010 04:06 In article <hrfhis$916$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, David J Taylor says... > Given the choice of today's 4.6MP Foveon camera or a 10-12-15MP Bayer > camera, there appears to be an obvious resolution gain in the Bayer > camera, plus the better high-ISO performance others have reported. I also wouldn't buy the Sigma 4.6MP camera, because it does not have enough pixel count. But if there was a 12MP Foveon camera, it would (roughly) be on par with an 18MP Bayer camera. And those 12MP would be real pixels, not fake Bayer ones. No more weird Bayer images with no real resolution at the pixel level. I would have a closer look at such a camera and check its overall performance and features and consider buying one if it matches my needs. -- 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: Alfred Molon on 1 May 2010 04:06 yawn -- 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: dj_nme on 1 May 2010 04:24
Alfred Molon wrote: > In article <hrfhis$916$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, David J Taylor > says... >> Given the choice of today's 4.6MP Foveon camera or a 10-12-15MP Bayer >> camera, there appears to be an obvious resolution gain in the Bayer >> camera, plus the better high-ISO performance others have reported. > > I also wouldn't buy the Sigma 4.6MP camera, because it does not have > enough pixel count. But if there was a 12MP Foveon camera, it would > (roughly) be on par with an 18MP Bayer camera. And those 12MP would be > real pixels, not fake Bayer ones. No more weird Bayer images with no > real resolution at the pixel level. If it followed the current Sigma and Foveon image sensor design practice, it would be missing an anti-aliasing filter and produce mountains of moire (false detail and "stair stepping")that would kill the alleged "advantages" that you are hoping for. > I would have a closer look at such a camera and check its overall > performance and features and consider buying one if it matches my needs. I would hope that you look at the images it produces and note how much more moire (false detail and "stair stepping") there probably would be when compared to a similar resolution camera with Bayer CFA sensor. |