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: nospam on 25 Feb 2010 16:19 In article <MPG.25f0f4379f64393d98c233(a)news.supernews.com>, Alfred Molon <alfred_molon(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > 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. they're not meaningless at all. the human eye can't see colour detail anywhere near as well as it can luminance detail, which is what a b/w chart measures. > Hint: adjacent pixels could have similar luminance levels but different > colours. Bayer fails here while a full-colour sensor correctly captures > the signal. and the eye can't see it, so it makes *no* difference if it's captured or not.
From: nospam on 25 Feb 2010 16:19 In article <hm6lgh$bjm$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, Pete Stavrakoglou <ntotrr(a)optonline.net> wrote: > 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. and i've mentioned that it's wrong. numerous reviews say the same thing. > 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). that's not quite right. it does include sharpening (and sigma's software sharpens even when set to 0), but it's *not* because of the lack of an anti-alias filter. the reason they do it is to give the illusion that the sensor is better than it really is. they also give it a contrast boost too. pick two images from the same camera, sharpen one a lot more than the other (and bump up the contrast a bit if you want) and people will pick that one as the one with more detail. > 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. it's actually very dissimilar. what they call detail is mostly aliasing artifacts. it's false detail that is not in the original subject. > 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". per pixel sharpness is meaningless. having two pixels with very different values means detail at or near nyquist and that's not possible to resolve correctly with *any* sensor. > 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." and how well does it do with *other* 10 megapixel slrs? i posted where dpreview said the dp1 doesn't compete with a nikon d60, another 10 mp camera. > So the assertion made earlier in this thread that the DP2 had better > resolution only when compared to small-sensor cameras is not correct. yes it is correct. there are many different variables that affect the final result and picking the sensor type as the sole reason when it is a combination of all of them, is to be blunt, bullshit.
From: Robert Spanjaard on 25 Feb 2010 16:52 On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 16:19:48 -0500, nospam wrote: >> 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. > > and i've mentioned that it's wrong. numerous reviews say the same thing. Ah, at least you seem to be learning from your mistakes. Instead of providing verifiable sources, which only helped to reveal your lies, you stick to "numerous reviews" now. >> 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). > > that's not quite right. > > it does include sharpening (and sigma's software sharpens even when set > to 0), but it's *not* because of the lack of an anti-alias filter. the > reason they do it is to give the illusion that the sensor is better than > it really is. they also give it a contrast boost too. > > pick two images from the same camera, sharpen one a lot more than the > other (and bump up the contrast a bit if you want) and people will pick > that one as the one with more detail. You completely misinterpreted their text, making your response as worthless as everything else you post. > blunt, bullshit. That's all you have to offer. -- Regards, Robert http://www.arumes.com
From: nospam on 25 Feb 2010 16:53 In article <d0880$4b86f110$546accd9$28086(a)cache80.multikabel.net>, Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap(a)arumes.com> wrote: > You completely misinterpreted their text, making your response as > worthless as everything else you post. so why don't you explain what they meant? or are your statements empty?
From: Robert Spanjaard on 25 Feb 2010 16:56
On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 16:53:50 -0500, nospam wrote: > In article <d0880$4b86f110$546accd9$28086(a)cache80.multikabel.net>, > Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap(a)arumes.com> wrote: > >> You completely misinterpreted their text, making your response as >> worthless as everything else you post. > > so why don't you explain what they meant? or are your statements empty? I will if it's requested by someone who is worth the trouble. But those people are probably smart enough to manage without such an explanation. -- Regards, Robert http://www.arumes.com |