Why only 4.6MP?
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: Processing Program
Next: curanzia versicherung, berufsunf�higkeits versicherung, berufsunf�higkeitsversicherung f�r selbst�ndige, berufsunf�higkeitsversicherung preis, versicherung vergleich,
From: Alfred Molon on 26 Feb 2010 15:08 In article <4b88010c$0$1595$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net>, scharf.steven(a)geemail.com says... > A 4.6MP Foveon sensor is no better than a 4.6MP Bayer sensor. You really believe that? Reviews show that this is not true. -- Alfred Molon ------------------------------ Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/ http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
From: nospam on 26 Feb 2010 15:17 In article <MPG.25f2488dba2c8d4b98c237(a)news.supernews.com>, Alfred Molon <alfred_molon(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > A 4.6MP Foveon sensor is no better than a 4.6MP Bayer sensor. > > You really believe that? Reviews show that this is not true. actually, what they show is the result of not having an anti-alias filter, additional sharpening added in the raw processing (much more than with bayer cameras) and a contrast boost. it has very little to do with the sensor. pick two bayer cameras and give the photos from one a sharpening and contrast boost and you can fool people just as easily.
From: Alfred Molon on 27 Feb 2010 08:11 In article <hm8oo9$ekt$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, david- taylor(a)blueyonder.co.uk.invalid says... > That would be an interesting test - making the same size print from a > 4.6MP Foveon and a 12MP (or whatever) Bayer DSLR. You'd obviously have to compare a 4.6MP full colour with a 4.6MP Bayer camera. Not sure why you are pulling out a 12MP Bayer camera. -- Alfred Molon ------------------------------ Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/ http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
From: Alfred Molon on 27 Feb 2010 08:12 In article <260220101517473525%nospam(a)nospam.invalid>, nospam(a)nospam.invalid says... > actually, what they show is the result of not having an anti-alias > filter, additional sharpening added in the raw processing (much more > than with bayer cameras) and a contrast boost. it has very little to do > with the sensor. > > pick two bayer cameras and give the photos from one a sharpening and > contrast boost and you can fool people just as easily. Go ahead, take away the AA filter in a Bayer camera, apply all the sharpening you want and you'll still have a huge gap compared to a full colour camera. Reviews show that a full-colour camera has as much resolution as a Bayer camera with approx. 50% more pixels. Besides, also a full-colour camera needs an AA filter, to have a sharp cutoff at the Nyquist frequency. -- Alfred Molon ------------------------------ Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/ http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
From: David J Taylor on 27 Feb 2010 08:34
"Alfred Molon" <alfred_molon(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:MPG.25f247ea637a460398c236(a)news.supernews.com... > In article <hm8oo9$ekt$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, david- > taylor(a)blueyonder.co.uk.invalid says... >> 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. > -- > > Alfred Molon No, I'm suggesting comparing prints from today's cameras - not a Sigma from 2010 versus a Nikon from 2004! David |