«

In article <>, Alfred
Molon <> wrote:

> > and not likely to ever be, plus if you oversample with bayer, full
> > colour sensors are not needed.
>
> Nonsense. Besides oversampling with Bayer is a very poor idea. If you
> want to oversample you better use full-colour pixels.

actually it's a very good idea.

nospam <> wrote:
>In article <>, Alfred
>Molon <> wrote:
>
>> > and not likely to ever be, plus if you oversample with bayer, full
>> > colour sensors are not needed.
>>
>> Nonsense. Besides oversampling with Bayer is a very poor idea. If you
>> want to oversample you better use full-colour pixels.
>
>actually it's a very good idea.

Foveon religious zealots are as irrational as any other religious
zealot.

--
Ray Fischer | None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.
| Goethe

In article <4f5c0089$0$12041$>, Ray Fischer
<> wrote:

> Foveon religious zealots are as irrational as any other religious
> zealot.

but far more entertaining.

Rich <> wrote:
>Doug McDonald <> wrote in
>> On 3/10/2012 7:49 AM, David J. Littleboy wrote:

>>> Which is to say, I don't get the folks complaining about the Bayer
>>> array + AA filter technology. It produces amazing images, and trying
>>> to do better is a fool's errand,
>>
>> on a single ship: three chip cameras with dichroic filters are much
>> better.
>
>That's what they use in scientific experiments, astronomy.

It's not what they use in scientific experiments or astronomy. They
use cooled monochromatic sensors and rotate filters in front between
exposures.

> You can't use
>Bayer because it can't acccurately reproduce colour.

You can't use Foveon because it can't acccurately reproduce colour.

--
Ray Fischer | None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.
| Goethe

Rich <> wrote:

>"David J. Littleboy" <> wrote in
>news: m:
>
>>
>> "Me" <> wrote in message
>> news:jjfhuv$ifp$...
>>> On 10/03/2012 10:48 p.m., Alfred Molon wrote:
>>>> In article<jjefu7$dg0$>, Me says...
>>>>> Ideal DX would be defined by a Bayer type sensor with 100% quantum
>>>>> efficiency and no read noise.
>>>>
>>>> No, an ideal sensor would be a full-colour sensor, not a Bayer one.
>>>> But at the moment full-colour sensor technology is not good enough
>>>> yet.
>>> >
>>> I think I mentioned that. Yes, an "ideal" foveon outperforms an
>>> "ideal" bayer sensor.
>>
>> I suppose. But a real Bayer gets quite close to an ideal Bayer,
>> whereas Foveon needs 100% transparency to the bands not detected in
>> the top two layers, and that's never going to happen, not even close.
>> Also, getting high QE out of Foveon in the detection layers is going
>> to be way harder.
>>
>> Meanwhile, as I keep saying over and over again, Bayer is flipping
>> amazing. 12MP FF Bayer makes 35mm film look sick at 12x18. There's
>> just no comparison. And 36MP FF Bayer is going to match 6x9 film at
>> 16x24. This is friggin' amazing: a measly 24x36mm of silicon competing
>> with 56x92 mm of film.
>>
>> Which is to say, I don't get the folks complaining about the Bayer
>> array + AA filter technology. It produces amazing images, and trying
>> to do better is a fool's errand, since all you get is worse
>> color/noise performance (real life Foveon) and horrific artifacts
>> (from leaving out the mathematically required AA filter).
>>
>
>Is...the sky...really falling on Nikon?


No, the sky is falling in on Littleboy and his ilk.

Problem is, they are too busy peeping at pixels, searching for the
elusive moire and aliasing to notice the sky is falling.

On 10/03/2012 3:57 p.m., Me wrote:
> Some interesting work by Bill Claff (and others) with an interactive
> chart on "photographic dynamic range" of (mainly) Nikon slr camera
> sensors, dating back a few years:
> http://home.comcast.net/~nikond70/Charts/PDR.htm
....
> Bill Claff's methodology could be wrong

Oops. Indeed he did made a mistake with data for 5dII/III (now corrected)
There's also now low ISO data now for the D800 on the link above.

In article <>, Alfred
Molon <> wrote:

> > You can't use Foveon because it can't acccurately reproduce colour.
>
> The problem with Bayer is that you don't capture the full colour
> information in each pixel and end up running into trouble when
> dimensioning the AA filter.

yet camera makers figured it out.

> It's a huge mess and one of the reason why
> cameras using a Bayer sensor have poor pixel level sharpness.

it's not a mess at all and 'pixel level sharpness' is meaningless
twaddle.

On 3/11/2012 7:20 AM, Neil Ellwood wrote:

>> In article<jjftp3$lri$>, Doug McDonald
>> <> wrote:

>>> three chip cameras with dichroic filters are much
>>> better.
>>
>
> This sounds like a system that was around almost 70 years ago... -
> Technicolor.
>
>
>
Correct. But it is still used for top end broadcast TV cameras.

The main problem is, as someone said, the requirement for a
large lens-sensor spacing .... in glass. It is also
difficult to get low f/numbers. The pro broadcast TV cameras typically
have a single lens with a humongous zoom range. Remember that
real TV is really low resolution (in actual fact never more
than 720x1440 despite having 1080x1920 pixels ... "Kell factor" ...
because TV refuses to use 1080x1920@30p.)

Doug McDonald

On 3/11/2012 5:57 AM, Bruce wrote:
> Rich<> wrote:
>
>> "David J. Littleboy"<> wrote in
>> news: :
>>
>>>
>>> "Me"<> wrote in message
>>> news:jjfhuv$ifp$...
>>>> On 10/03/2012 10:48 p.m., Alfred Molon wrote:
>>>>> In article<jjefu7$dg0$>, Me says...
>>>>>> Ideal DX would be defined by a Bayer type sensor with 100% quantum
>>>>>> efficiency and no read noise.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, an ideal sensor would be a full-colour sensor, not a Bayer one.
>>>>> But at the moment full-colour sensor technology is not good enough
>>>>> yet.
>>>>>
>>>> I think I mentioned that. Yes, an "ideal" foveon outperforms an
>>>> "ideal" bayer sensor.
>>>
>>> I suppose. But a real Bayer gets quite close to an ideal Bayer,
>>> whereas Foveon needs 100% transparency to the bands not detected in
>>> the top two layers, and that's never going to happen, not even close.
>>> Also, getting high QE out of Foveon in the detection layers is going
>>> to be way harder.
>>>
>>> Meanwhile, as I keep saying over and over again, Bayer is flipping
>>> amazing. 12MP FF Bayer makes 35mm film look sick at 12x18. There's
>>> just no comparison. And 36MP FF Bayer is going to match 6x9 film at
>>> 16x24. This is friggin' amazing: a measly 24x36mm of silicon competing
>>> with 56x92 mm of film.
>>>
>>> Which is to say, I don't get the folks complaining about the Bayer
>>> array + AA filter technology. It produces amazing images, and trying
>>> to do better is a fool's errand, since all you get is worse
>>> color/noise performance (real life Foveon) and horrific artifacts
>>> (from leaving out the mathematically required AA filter).
>>>
>>
>> Is...the sky...really falling on Nikon?
>
>
> No, the sky is falling in on Littleboy and his ilk.
>
> Problem is, they are too busy peeping at pixels, searching for the
> elusive moire and aliasing to notice the sky is falling.
>

Aw Brucie, is moire bad for your sales?


--
Peter

Alfred Molon <> wrote:
> Ray Fischer
>> You can't use Foveon because it can't acccurately reproduce colour.
>
>The problem with Bayer is that you don't capture the full colour
>information in each pixel and end up running into trouble when
>dimensioning the AA filter. It's a huge mess and one of the reason why
>cameras using a Bayer sensor have poor pixel level sharpness.

That's a non-argument.

1) Bayer cameras actually work very well.
2) "pixel level sharpness" is utterly irrelevant.

A 12MP Bayer sensor has as many "full-color pixels" as does a 4MP Foveon
sensor with the added benefit of greater control of color fidelity and
much easier manufacturing and higher resolution.

Results count, not techo-whining.

--
Ray Fischer | None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.
| Goethe