«

In article <>, Mxsmanic
<> wrote:

> > I've seen recent examples of pictures containing horrible aliasing.
>
> If there is horrible aliasing, it can be adjusted in post.

no it can't.

> That's way
> preferable to blurring every single photo just on the off chance that there
> might be a problem with aliasing.

no it isn't because the fix will affect real details.

> > 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.

shoot raw.

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

actually, very good video.

In article <>, David Dyer-Bennet
<dd-> wrote:

> > 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.

it's impossible. if you remove the moire you will remove real detail,
particularly if the moire is low frequency banding.

In article <>, TheRealSteve
<> 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.

there are wide gamut lcd displays that can display argb, and that's
without that nonsense.

In article <>, Mxsmanic
<> wrote:

> > 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).
>
> It will look just as well. After all, the real world has the three colors
> balanced, too.

the eye's response is not equal on all colours.

> A Bayer filter is compensation for an inadequate number of pixels to begin
> with. If you have enough pixels--or three sensors--you don't need a Bayer
> pattern.

nonsense, and 3 sensors is *very* impractical. even pro video is moving
to bayer (red).

nospam <> wrote:
> In article <>, Bruce
> <> 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?

I suspect the idea is that luminance information should be weighted
more like 2/3 green.

Peter.

In article <>, Mxsmanic
<> wrote:

> > it's impossible. if you remove the moire you will remove real detail,
> > particularly if the moire is low frequency banding.
>
> So does an AA filter.

wrong. an aa filter prevents the moire from happening in the first
place, so the real detail won't need to be altered.

In article <>, Mxsmanic
<> wrote:

> > no it isn't because the fix will affect real details.
>
> An AA filter simply deprives you of those details to begin with, whether you
> want it to or not.

no it doesn't. what an aa filter does is reduce the details the sensor
cannot resolve, so you aren't losing anything. take away the aa filter
and you won't get those details, you'll get fake details, aka alias
artifacts.

> > shoot raw.
>
> If raw is available. But that won't help if there's a AA filter on the sensor.

two totally different things.

> > actually, very good video.
>
> Actually very poor. The performance of a DSLR for video typically is nothing
> like its performance for still photos. I've seen and done the side-by-side
> comparisons.

millions of others have seen both and they're buying dslrs *for* video
because they are very good and a fraction of the price of what they
were buying, particularly pros.

In article <>, Mxsmanic
<> wrote:

> > not really, but bayer already has higher colour resolution than the eye
> > can resolve so there's no issue if it does reduce it.
>
> Color resolution doesn't depend just on the filter pattern. And comparisons to
> what the eye can resolve involve many factors. I still see shimmering reds and
> blues in photos, so there's still a problem.

see an eye doctor.

In article <>, Mxsmanic
<> wrote:

> > the eye's response is not equal on all colours.
>
> You may want to do something with the photos besides look at them. And the
> solution to inadequate color is more and better pixels.

what else would i want do with photos than look at them?

if you mean image analysis, then there are special cameras for that
purpose.

> > nonsense, and 3 sensors is *very* impractical. even pro video is moving
> > to bayer (red).
>
> Three sensors have worked very well for video for decades.

they have, and now they've been replaced by something better, a bayer
sensor.

"Alfred Molon" <> wrote in message
news:. ..
[]
> Irrelevant, because if you enlarge the image enough the eye can very
> well appreciate the colour details.
>
> Besides, the Bayer interpolation impacts the overall image resolution,
> not just the colour one.
[]
> --
>
> Alfred Molon

Alfred,

If you enlarge a print enough you can probably see the individual fibres
in the paper, and if you enlarge a display enough you can see the
individual RGB pixels. The image need only contain enough resolution
(whether it be colour or monochrome) for the intended application.

What point is there in presenting a final image of greater resolution than
the eye can perceive? In engineering terms, it is a waste.

David