Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > So what would be the best sensor then?

Reply
Thread Tools

So what would be the best sensor then?

 
 
BG250
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-20-2003
Okay, the current Sensors suffer in this way:

Bayer: requires heavy demosaic filter causing blurring. Artifacts (mainly
from sharpening to regain perceived detail)
Foveon: Noise issues, color and clipping issues.
Three CCD camera: lower luminance resolution than Bayer.

Seems to me that Bayer is the best way to go by using high resolution
sensors and keeping the sharpening down. Are there any potential better
designs?
bg


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Graeme
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-20-2003
"BG250" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Okay, the current Sensors suffer in this way:
>
> Bayer: requires heavy demosaic filter causing blurring. Artifacts (mainly
> from sharpening to regain perceived detail)
> Foveon: Noise issues, color and clipping issues.
> Three CCD camera: lower luminance resolution than Bayer.
>
> Seems to me that Bayer is the best way to go by using high resolution
> sensors and keeping the sharpening down. Are there any potential better
> designs?
> bg
>


How about a simple sensor with rotating color filters? ;-}



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
mark herring
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-20-2003
I suspect there is a reason that the overwhelming majority of digicams use
the Bayer architecture.

I use a 2Mp Bayer camera (Canon A40), and I have no issues such as you
describe. As I type this, I am looking at a 6 X 9 print from this
camera---and I have no clue what this "suffering" is about. The picture is
flawless.

Foveon--IMHO--set out to create a market niche by advertising a solution to
a problem that most of us did not know we had (An still dont). By my
reading, they have failed. YMMV.

-Mark

--
******************
Mark Herring
Pasadena, CA, USA
private e-mail: just say no to "No"

*
"BG250" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Okay, the current Sensors suffer in this way:
>
> Bayer: requires heavy demosaic filter causing blurring. Artifacts (mainly
> from sharpening to regain perceived detail)
> Foveon: Noise issues, color and clipping issues.
> Three CCD camera: lower luminance resolution than Bayer.
>
> Seems to me that Bayer is the best way to go by using high resolution
> sensors and keeping the sharpening down. Are there any potential better
> designs?
> bg
>
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
David J. Littleboy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-21-2003

"mark herring" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> I suspect there is a reason that the overwhelming majority of digicams use
> the Bayer architecture.


Bayer provides luminance resolution that is only slightly less than is
theoretically possible from any correctly implemented digital imaging system
given the way digital images are displayed and printed. The color resolution
is not as good, but the human eye is bad at color too, so it provides the
right ratio of luminance resolution to color resolution.

> I use a 2Mp Bayer camera (Canon A40), and I have no issues such as you
> describe. As I type this, I am looking at a 6 X 9 print from this
> camera---and I have no clue what this "suffering" is about. The picture
> is flawless.
>
> Foveon--IMHO--set out to create a market niche by advertising a solution
> to a problem that most of us did not know we had (An still don't). By my
> reading, they have failed. YMMV.


That's exactly right.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan


 
Reply With Quote
 
K2
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-21-2003
On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 15:32:20 -0800, "mark herring"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>I suspect there is a reason that the overwhelming majority of digicams use
>the Bayer architecture.


They use it because it's been the only thing available for years.
That's why reviewers have described single-pixel full-color as the
Holy Grail of digital photography. Foveon is just the first to achieve
it, and maybe an even better approach will come along too.

Bayer is a relic of old technology, like RGB TV screens where, if you
get close enough, you can see only primary colors. There has been NO
"choice" between Bayer and other options until recently. The buzz
about Foveon and the rave reviews exist for good reason. Haven't you
read any of the Web & magazine reviews, or do you just get information
here?

I fully expect to see Bayer mostly phased out within 5 years (in the
better cameras), replaced by either Foveon or some other full color
pixel technology.

K2
 
Reply With Quote
 
Bart van der Wolf
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-21-2003

"K2" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 15:32:20 -0800, "mark herring"
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> >I suspect there is a reason that the overwhelming majority of digicams

use
> >the Bayer architecture.

>
> They use it because it's been the only thing available for years.


The only practical thing, yes, but there are several other methods (multiple
aligned sensors, scanning backs, color filter wheels, Sensor offset+fixed
color filter, colored lighting on multiple achromatic shots, etc.).

They are not as universal and low cost as Bayer CFA sensor designs, and THAT
(cost and revenue potential) are the reason of they widespread use, not the
lack of alternatives.

> That's why reviewers have described single-pixel full-color as the
> Holy Grail of digital photography. Foveon is just the first to achieve
> it, and maybe an even better approach will come along too.


That's right, but in case a compromise needs to be made, e.g. favoring full
well depth versus reduced well depth, the Bayer CFA offers a good balance.
It's not perfect, but neither are the other alternatives.

> Bayer is a relic of old technology, like RGB TV screens where, if you
> get close enough, you can see only primary colors.


My TV still does that, and my CRT monitor, and the color LCD on my digicam,
and ...
A pixel is monochromatic.

> There has been NO
> "choice" between Bayer and other options until recently. The buzz
> about Foveon and the rave reviews exist for good reason. Haven't you
> read any of the Web & magazine reviews, or do you just get information
> here?


No, too much (deliberate) misinformation is spread here, but luckily some
good contributions as well. Scientific literature may be harder to grasp
because it often focusses on a small particular issue, but it helps to
understand better.

> I fully expect to see Bayer mostly phased out within 5 years (in the
> better cameras), replaced by either Foveon or some other full color
> pixel technology.


Does your crystal ball also predict the stock market, if so: do share your
insight (but in another forum). If you say you "fully expect", there must be
some foundation, yet you choose not to share it. If you would have said "I
shouldn't be surprised...", then it's an opinion, something everybody is
entitled to.

Bart


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
CMOS vs CCD - why Kodak has used a CMOS sensor in a small-sensor camera David J Taylor Digital Photography 4 08-15-2007 07:37 PM
Used canned air on my dSLR sensor and there are residues on the sensor, what to do now? gtagle@gmail.com Digital Photography 14 10-03-2006 09:37 PM
Dust on sensor, Sensor Brush = hogwash solution? MeMe Digital Photography 29 02-12-2005 04:51 PM
Eclips cleaner and Sensor Swabs to clean your digital Camera Sensor? IMKen Digital Photography 7 06-22-2004 08:00 PM
D-SLR Sensor Resolution and Sensor Size Comparison Size Matters! Steven M. Scharf Digital Photography 32 05-16-2004 10:41 PM



Advertisments