Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Re: The death of the Bayer filter? Maybe not.

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: The death of the Bayer filter? Maybe not.

 
 
David Dyer-Bennet
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-05-2012
Mxsmanic <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

> David Dyer-Bennet writes:
>
>> No, it wouldn't. It has the same proportions of pixels in each color,
>> the placement is simply less regular -- more like film grain, less like
>> a tic-tac-toe board.

>
> Less regular means more anomalies in the recording of color. Yes, that's like
> grain ... but is grain what you want?


Not necessarily visible anomalies, though.

>> I've seen recent examples of pictures containing horrible aliasing.

>
> If there is horrible aliasing, it can be adjusted in post. That's way
> preferable to blurring every single photo just on the off chance that there
> might be a problem with aliasing.


Nope, horrible aliasing (generally moire) is really terribly hard to
adjust in post. The good solution is to work slowly and carefully so
you catch it immediately; some minor adjustment to the shot will
generally eliminate it (this from multiple people working regularly with
medium-format backs lacking AA filters).

>> You mostly haven't had that choice. And if you're working fast and in
>> field conditions, you're MUCH better off with the AA filter.

>
> Nope, I want the output of the camera to be as unmanipulated as possible, so
> that I can make any necessary adjustments in post. Changes made in the camera
> cannot be undone, and if they ruin a photo, you're out of luck.


You reall want an AA filter for that. On balance it's the right
tradeoff for essentially any fast-moving photography excecpt perhaps
certain kinds of wildlife.

> That's why so many DSLRs actually produce poor video, incidentally.


Strange how well the professionals like the output.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed); http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
David Dyer-Bennet
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-05-2012
Mxsmanic <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

> Andrew Haley writes:
>
>> It's nothing like pseudo-random.
>> http://www.dpreview.com/previews/fujifilmxpro1/3 shows that it's a 6x6
>> array instead of a 2x2 array. This 6x6 array is rotationally
>> symmetrical, and it repeats across the sensor. It has the interesting
>> property that there are fewer blue and red pixels than a Bayer sensor
>> has: 8R:20G:8B instead of 9:18:9. It probably won't make much
>> difference.

>
> I prefer more blue and red, not less. I'd like an equal number of green, red,
> and blue pixels, in sufficiently high number to make favoritism for green a
> moot point.


You're probably not going to get it; because it doesn't match the
behavior of the human eye very well, so it'll look less good than a less
"fair" design does (to human eyes).
--
David Dyer-Bennet, (E-Mail Removed); http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
David Dyer-Bennet
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-05-2012
Mxsmanic <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

> RichA writes:
>
>> Didn't Sony produce a sensor with yellow pixels at one point in a
>> P&S? Anyone know how that turned out?

>
> I know there are video cameras that have done this, but I don't know about
> still cameras.
>
> Using cyan, yellow, and magenta instead of red, blue, and green increases
> light sensitivity by a factor of 2, but at the expensive of color resolution
> and accuracy.


I think Kodak played with that in some models, don't remember if it was
early DSLRs or later consumer models.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, (E-Mail Removed); http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
 
Reply With Quote
 
TheRealSteve
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-06-2012

On Thu, 05 Apr 2012 07:50:52 +1200, Me <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>IIRC that was white pixels - but then again nothing would surprise me.
>Sharp make TV panels with yellow pixels. This seems to be >99% BS.
>Sometimes competition/marketing ends up driving complex and even elegant
>solutions to problems which never existed.


You should do an A-B comparison between the quadpixel and a standard
TV watching something with turquiose blues or bright yellows. I did it
with one of those planet earth shows with bright tropical fish against
a similar Samsung, Toshiba, Pioneer and a few others. You'll be
surprised at the difference.

It would make a good monitor for photo processing since it seems to be
able to display a wider gamut of colors.

Steve
 
Reply With Quote
 
Me
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-06-2012
On 6/04/2012 1:34 p.m., TheRealSteve wrote:
>
> On Thu, 05 Apr 2012 07:50:52 +1200, Me<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> IIRC that was white pixels - but then again nothing would surprise me.
>> Sharp make TV panels with yellow pixels. This seems to be>99% BS.
>> Sometimes competition/marketing ends up driving complex and even elegant
>> solutions to problems which never existed.

>
> You should do an A-B comparison between the quadpixel and a standard
> TV watching something with turquiose blues or bright yellows. I did it
> with one of those planet earth shows with bright tropical fish against
> a similar Samsung, Toshiba, Pioneer and a few others. You'll be
> surprised at the difference.
>
> It would make a good monitor for photo processing since it seems to be
> able to display a wider gamut of colors.
>

I've actually got one here (Sharp 60"), and compared to our (budget -
bottom of range, CCFL 1080p) Sony 40", I can't tell the difference. I'm
not going to set them up side by side to test - that would be kind of
silly - the "general impression" is plenty good enough - and there's far
more quality variation between source material than there is between any
two TV sets.
The general impression is that the LED backlight in the Sharp is waaaaay
too bright, default "AV modes" were pretty hideous, and the auto ambient
light sensor worked better in the Sony. But these can tweaked, so it's
an OK TV set.
The colour that bugs me most is blown reds, but that's not the fault of
the TV.
 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-07-2012
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Mxsmanic
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> > IIRC this camera uses a "pseudo random" pattern for RGBG filters, which
> > theoretically gets rid of *colour moire, and possibly reduces luminance
> > moire (by more random placement of green sensels than a repeating bayer
> > pattern), so there's less need for a low pass filter.

>
> It would also reduce color resolution. If it's actually being done, it sounds
> like a gimmick.


not really, but bayer already has higher colour resolution than the eye
can resolve so there's no issue if it does reduce it.

> The whole issue of aliasing is past history; I don't know why people still
> worry about it.


aliasing is definitely not past history. it's still very real.

> When you have a large number of pixels, you don't need to
> worry about aliasing.


not as much.

> So the ultimate solution for aliasing is more pixels.
> There will always be aliasing of details that are sufficiently small, if the
> lens can resolve them, but the aliasing will not be noticeable or troublesome.


it might be noticeable.

> Even in the old days, when sensors had far fewer pixels, I never really
> noticed problems with aliasing.


then you are either blind or don't know what to look for.

> I'd rather take the risk of aliasing than put
> up with the blur of anti-aliasing.


it doesn't blur.
 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-07-2012
In article
<(E-Mail Removed)>,
RichA <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Didn't Sony produce a sensor with yellow pixels at one point in a
> P&S? Anyone know how that turned out?


they used emerald as the 4th colour and it didn't work out too well
since it's no longer made.
 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-07-2012
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Bruce
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> More green is welcome, because that is where the Bayer pattern is
> deficient - and that's in spite of having 50% of the pixels against
> 25% for each of red and blue.


how is it deficient if it has twice as many?
 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-07-2012
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Mxsmanic
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Photos already have problems with shimmering reds and blues because there are
> too few pixels of both.


no they don't.

> And remember that lossy compression often reduces blue
> and red resolution even further.


nothing you can see.
 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-07-2012
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Mxsmanic
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Using cyan, yellow, and magenta instead of red, blue, and green increases
> light sensitivity by a factor of 2, but at the expensive of color resolution
> and accuracy.


no, it's a wash. you get better sensitivity but you lose it in
conversion to rgb. there's a reason nobody does this anymore.
 
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
Re: The death of the Bayer filter? Maybe not. Bruce Digital Photography 3 04-04-2012 08:04 PM
Death, even when expected, is hard for anyone to deal with, but asuicidal death asim malik Perl Misc 1 09-13-2009 07:42 AM
Re: Crocodile Hunter - DEATH VIDEO - Steve Irwin - crocodile hunter - death video - steve irwin.exe (1/1) Mikey DVD Video 3 09-14-2006 05:52 PM
VoIP ebay & skype = DEATH (Offtopic ? Maybe) codefixer@gmail.com Cisco 0 09-08-2005 09:27 PM
Of Intrest ? Maybe Yes, Maybe No Old Gringo Computer Support 0 10-11-2004 01:35 AM



Advertisments