«

On Mon, 14 May 2012 00:10:40 -0400, nospam <>
wrote:

>In article <>, TheRealSteve
><> wrote:
>
>> >> >> >the photos may *look* better to some people because alias artifacts are
>> >> >> >mistaken for real detail, and sigma adds a lot of sharpening and boosts
>> >> >> >the contrast too. it's all smoke and mirrors.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >meanwhile, the colours are off and there's all sorts of ugly blotching
>> >> >> >in the shadows and banding in the highlights.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The resolution is better.
>> >> >
>> >> >it's not, as any test chart shows.
>> >>
>> >> It is, as test charts do show.
>> >
>> >test charts do *not* show foveon has higher resolution.
>>
>> But they do.
>
>i don't know what you're looking at but they definitely do *not* show
>that.
>
>what they show is that foveon and bayer resolve roughly the same, with
>aliasing becoming a problem at about the same point below nyquist.
>
>> >> Bayer sensors (without a strong AA
>> >> filter that defeats the purpose of a resolution test of the sensor)
>> >> will show alias artifacts at below nyquist. Foveon or 3 sensor systems
>> >> will not. It's pretty simple, but I guess not simple enough for you to
>> >> understand.
>> >
>> >*any* test chart will show that alias artifacts can occur below nyquist.
>>
>> Ok, I'll play your game. But bayer sensors have alias artifacts at
>> much further below the nyquist spatial resolution than Foveon
>
>they do not.

Actually, they do. Which is why they need resolution robbing strong AA
filters to prevent it.

>
>> >if you can't see that, you're either blind or don't understand what
>> >you're looking at (maybe both).
>>
>> I know you don't know waht you're looking at.
>
>resolution charts, which you or anyone else can look at.
>
><http://www.dpreview.com> has them for every camera they reviewed.

That's where I cited you the chart that showed color alias artifacts
well below nyquist which a Foveon would not have had.

>> >second, foveon doesn't solve a problem that needs to be solved. humans
>> >can't see the additional chroma resolution that foveon has. it's a
>> >complete waste. bayer is a *much* better solution for human viewing.
>>
>> Yet another thing you are confused about. You seem to think that human
>> vision has anything at all to do with aliasing artifacts of different
>> sensor technology. The only place where human vision is involved is in
>> seeing the artifacts, which has nothing to do with chroma resolution
>> of the human eye and has everything to do with spatial resolution of
>> the sensor.
>
>i didn't say anything about aliasing.

But that's the only thing we're talking about. You keep bringing up
chroma resolution, which is specious.

>i'm talking specifically about chroma resolution and that humans can't
>see it very well, so the lone advantage of foveon is a waste.

This is why you're confused. You think chroma resolution is the lone
advantage of Foveon. Chroma resolution is not the advantage of Foveon.
Preventing color artifacts that bayer cannot control without a strong
AA filter or prevent totally even with a strong AA filter is the
advantage of Foveon. If Foveon could do that without causing other
problems, it would be the better sensor technology because it solves a
bad problem with bayer sensor. The fact that it creates other problems
while solving that one is why it won't replace bayer.

>> We already know what the overall resolution of the human eye is, and
>> not just the chroma resolution. Apple even trademarked a term for it,
>> a retina display. So according to your specious argument, a photo
>> sensor doesn't need to have any more resolution than a retina display.
>> And that's total nonsense.
>
>it's not nonsense. there is no point in capturing what you can't see.

I guess you've never cropped or enlarged a photo. Most of us have and
appreciate still having detail when we do that.

>> >foveon might sound good on paper, but the reality is, humans can't see
>> >any difference and it's full of shortcomings they *can* see, such as
>> >noise, blotching, inaccurate colour and being limited to low iso. the
>> >cameras are slow, buggy and don't have anywhere near the features of
>> >competing cameras.
>>
>> I agree with the other limitations of Foveon. But they *do* have
>> better resolution if you consider they have the ability to produce a
>> color image where a higher spatial frequency can be captured without
>> alias artifacts than a bayer sensor of equivalent pixel spacing. And
>> *that* is the only point I'm arguing and it's a correct one as much as
>> you and Wolfy want to deny it.
>
>it's wrong, no matter how much you keep yapping.

You don't even understand why it's not wrong so I can believe you
believe it's wrong. You have no idea why someone would want to capture
capture greater resolution than the eye can see. So I'm not surprised
you don't care about sensor resolution and which can capture a greater
spatial frequency without aliasing.

>> >the entire foveon scam is nothing more than leave off the antialias
>> >filter for lots of false (and higher frequency) detail that gives the
>> >illusion of higher resolution, then crank the sharpening and boost
>> >contrast, resulting in an image that has a lot of snap to it and makes
>> >people say 'whoa', but an image with a very inaccurate representation
>> >of the original subject.
>>
>> Bayer also gives a very inaccurate representation of the original
>> subject.
>
>nonsense. bayer is extremely accurate, much more so than foveon is.

More proof you don't know what you're talking about. Wait, of course
you think a bayer is extremely accurate. Because you don't ever crop
or enlarge photos and you believe it doesn't have to have any more
resolution than the eye can see. You never look close enough at the
output of cameras to notice the inaccuracies of a bayer sensor and
demosaicing in the presence of fine color detail.

>> If the rest of the camera outresolves the sensor, you either
>> have to blur it with a strong AA filter or put up with color
>> artifacts. Neither of which faithfully represents the original subject
>> any more or less than a Foveon. And for both of them, if the camera
>> does not outresolve the sensor, you don't need an AA filter. But the
>> Foveon can reach that point sooner than the bayer because for the same
>> overall pixel density, the foveon has better full color image spatial
>> resolution.
>
>nonsense.

Because you've already admitted you don't need resolution better than
an eye, you're not qualified to have the opinion "nonsense" to the
above because it's dealing with resolutions you have never seen or
experienced and have no desire to.

On Mon, 14 May 2012 16:29:33 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
<> wrote:

>TheRealSteve <> wrote:
>
>> But we're talking about comparing the same thing. A 4.7MP Foveon will
>> outresolve a 4.7MP Bayer. A 24MP Foveon will outresolve a 24MP Bayer.
>> A 4.7MP 3 sensor system will outresolve a 4.7MP Bayer. A 24MP 3 sensor
>> system will outresolve a 24MP Bayer.
>
>So ... you're comparing the same thing. What Bayer sizes
>were typical when Foveon had a "4.7 MPix" sensor? Compare
>against that.
>
>As for the 24 MPix Foveon and 24 MPix 3-sensor system versus
>the 24 MPix Bayer ... imaginary cameras are always better
>than real cameras, however the imaginary cameras need lots of
>unobtainium.

And here is your problem. You probably realize that comparing equals
means you're wrong. So you keep bringing up that, according to you,
you have to compare unequals.

>> Whatever resolution you pick, the
>> Foveon or 3 sensor system will outresolve the bayer at that
>> resolution.
>
>No, they won't. Imaginary cameras don't outresolve existing
>cameras in the real world.

That's why you compare equals that exist in the real world. Not what
you want to do, which is compare unequals just to make some invalid
point.

>>>the sd1 upped foveon to 15 mp which was a bit closer to the best bayer,
>>>but at a ridiculous price. you could get a *real* 40 mp camera for
>>>slightly more money. nobody bought it, thus the $5000 price cut, and
>>>it's *still* overpriced, just not as bad.
>
>> But since overall sensor resolution at the same pixel spatial
>> resoltion is the only point I'm comparing on, all of what you're
>> saying is specious.
>
>So basically you are yammering on and on about something that
>has no relevance in the real world.

Just because you don't see relevance doesn't mean the comparison
doesn't have relevance. You have such a fetish for bayer that you
can't even understand the problems it has and what others are trying
to do to correct them. That has relevance to the real world even if
they aren't at the point yet where they have solved the problems with
bayer without creating others.

I want a real world color sensor that doesn't have the problems bayer
has. And the only way to get that is to first realize that bayer does
have problems that can be solved. You are denying the problems. If
everyone was like you, the obvious problems would never get solved.

>You might as well tell us that pigs fly more economically and
>quieter than conventional planes.

More specious and stupid analogies is all you can come up with.

>>>actually sigma/foveon does claim they don't guess and it's yet another
>>>lie. foveon guesses far more than bayer ever did. their ads show r/g/b
>>>but that's not what the sensor captures. not even close.
>
>> That part's not a lie. And it doesn't matter whether it's rgb or
>> something else. As long as they capture the spectrum they require to
>> produce the final color image at each pixel location,
>
>They don't. They capture 3 values. These do not compose
>a spectrum.

You missed the part where I said they capture the spectrum "they
require" to produce the final color image at each pixel location. They
don't have to capture the full spectrum. But they do capture the
spectrum "they require" without having to interpolate missing needed
spectrum from adjacent pixels and under-resolving parts of the
required spectrum.

>> they are doing
>> better than bayer which captures only part of the required spectrum at
>> each pixel location and "algorithmically comes up with" (PC for
>> guesses) the part not captured.
>
>So basically, Foveon has to guess spatial locations which Bayer
>already has, Foveon has to guess the colour which Bayer already
>has and for that reason Foveon does better.

You're totally confused because it's the other way. Bayer has to guess
spatial locations which Foveon and 3 sensor systems sample.

>>>looks like they fooled you. foveon does *not* capture rgb, but rather
>>>it has three overlapping samples which it then tries to calculate rgb,
>>>but there are so many variables that there is quite a bit of
>>>uncertainty to it.
>
>> As I said above, it doesn't matter how they break the spectrum down.
>
>It does. That's so trivial ...
>
>> What matters is that what's needed for the final image is sampled at
>> each pixel. And that's why the resolution is better.
>
>So a '15 MPix' Foveon is better than a, say 36 MPix Bayer.
>Just comparing same with same: the current highest resolution
>available in FF sensor cameras.

It's obvious you don't care about comparing equals because doing so
proves you're wrong. So instead, you want to compare unequals just to
stroke your ego. But even using your unequal definition, a 15MP FF
Foveon is extremely close to a 36MP FF Bayer when it comes to minimum
sampled spatial resolution of the spectrums that go into making the
color picture. Comparing equals, a 15MP FF Bayer to a 15MP FF Foveon,
the Foveon blows away the bayer in that parameter, which leads to less
alias artifacts.

>>>bayer measures one colour per location and accurately calculates the
>>>other two, so it's already *well* ahead of the game.
>
>> No, bayer doesn't do either of those things. Bayer also captures a
>> band of wavelenghts and not strictly r/g/b at each sensel location. So
>> in that regard, it's the same as Foveon.
>
>Actually, nope. Foveon captures rather random values, Bayer
>captures well defined data.

Actually, that's not true either. Because the bayer doesn't use
monochromatic filters, the wavelenghts of the photos it captures at
each site are also rather random. One can be anywhere within the
response of the filter. And also, since the filters are not perfect, a
bayer can easily capture photos at a sensel that the algorithms are
not accounting for because they are out of the specified band. So once
again, you're wrong.

>> And if Bayer *could*
>> accurately calculate the missing information at each pixel, it would
>> not have color artifacts.
>
>With a correct AA filter, that's exactly what happens.

A resolution robbing AA filter. If you want to use an AA filter, now
you have to reduce the spatial resolution of the captured image to the
output of the AA filter, which would be well less than the sensor
resolution. And even using the resolution robbing AA filter, bayer
still has color artifacts. But they wouldn't be due to aliasing and
instead would only be due to errors in estimating the missing colors
at each pixel. The errors wouldn't be as bad as without the mushing of
the AA filter. But they would still exist.

>> The fact that even you admit it does have
>> color artifacts proves you're wrong when you way it "accurately
>> calculates the other two", and that it's not *well* ahead of the game.
>
>'15 MPix' Foveon vs 36 MPix Bayer, or 60 MPix (medium format), ...
>Well, and the colour fidelity.
>Well, and the high ISO capability.
>Well, and the aliasing Foveon has.
>
>Sure, Foveon is very close to Bayer ...

I'm guessing why you keep arguing the points on which I agree with you
is because it's the only ones you're correct on. You can't admit
you're wrong on the one point of comparison so you have to keep
bringing up specious issues on which we agree.

>> As far as my argument is concerned, Foveon was just an
>> analog for a 3 sensor system anyway.
>
>Which only shows that you haven't understood Foveon.

The only understanding of it required for that analog is that it
captures what it needs at each spatial sensing location and doesn't
spatially undersample the image. Everything else is specious, and the
fact you keep bringing it up shows you can't' effectively argue that
one point..

>>>nope. foveon definitely doesn't have full colour information (see
>>>above). only 3 sensor systems do and at a huge cost and weight penalty.
>
>> Even 3 sensor systems don't necessarily have *full* color information.
>
>Yes, even a 3-sensor system only works as a 3-stimulus
>measuring instrument.

Which is all they need to create an image that we percieve as full
color.

But hey, you admitted you're wrong about something. We're making
progress.

>>>bayer doesn't lag behind. it's *well* ahead of foveon and laughably so.
>
>> It does lag behind on the one point of comparison I'm making.
>
>And airplanes lag behind on the point of price versus flying pigs.

And that's the kind of argument you have to make when you have nothing
better to counter mine. Very telling.

On Mon, 14 May 2012 00:10:34 -0400, nospam <>
wrote:

>In article <>, TheRealSteve
><> wrote:
>
>> >> >It's you who masturbates on Bayer and Foveon pixels, and the
>> >> >latter being "better" in some way. I really don't care about that,
>> >> >since Foveon is *way* worse for what I do and need. Which is
>> >> >a lot of very high ISO.
>> >>
>> >> Foveon is better in some way. Just because it's not better for what
>> >> you do, you have to masturbate on how Bayer is the end all and be all
>> >> sensor for everyone.
>> >
>> >foveon is not better in any way that matters to humans. it does have
>> >higher chroma resolution but people can't see it. for luminance
>> >resolution, it is much worse than what competing cameras offer, and it
>> >costs more to boot.
>>
>> You keep saying that when it doesn't matter at all. People can
>> absolutely see the alias artifacts that occur because of the lower
>> sampling rate of the bayer sensor.
>
>you're so hung up on aliasing that you didn't even read what i wrote.

Of course I read what you wrote. That's how I know you're wrong. Most
photographers do things like cropping, changing image size, etc. where
having resolution available that's better than what the eye can see is
very important. Maybe to you it's not, but to most of us, it is.

Most people can see color artifacts that occur due to not having
sufficient resolution even if the chroma resolution is greater than
what the eye can see. Maybe you cannot. But most people can, which is
certainly evident by the comments people were making about the picture
of the jacket with the color moire pattern on it.

>nowhere did i say anything about aliasing. i'm talking about chroma
>resolution, which is foveon's sole advantage, and one which humans
>won't ever notice because they can't see the additional chroma
>resolution it provides. bayer is already *well* above what the eye can
>resolve. it's a waste.

You're speaking total nonsense and are wrong on every point. You're
not talking about aliasing because it let's you say something stupid
things like 1) chroma resolution being foveon's sole advantage. 2)
humans won't notice color artifacts because the chroma resoltion is
better than what the eye can resolve 3) it's a waste to provide better
chroma resolution than what the eye can see.

Each one of your ponts is wrong because it ignores the very basic
things people do with digitally captured images, including looking at
them.

>> But we're talking about comparing the same thing. A 4.7MP Foveon will
>> outresolve a 4.7MP Bayer.
>
>no it won't, but let's say it does just for fun.

Yes, it will. But let's have some fun.

>the 4.7mp sd14 came out in 2007, well after 10mp bayer sensors were
>widely available, and for twice the price too! it's no surprise that
>the sd14 price dropped to $350 in a year or so.
>
>sigma *still* uses that same sensor in several cameras (dp1 & dp2
>variants and the sd15), except that entry level slrs are now 18 mp and
>the best 35mm was 24 until the d800 came along and now it's 36mp.
>
>so even if a 4.7 mp foveon could somehow outresolve a 4.7 mp bayer, it
>doesn't actually matter because bayer is *so* far ahead.
>
>even in an absolute worst case scenario, an 18 mp canon slr will
>outperform a foveon 4.7mp camera in every possible way, for *less*
>money.

All totally specious. You're just as bad as wolfy. The only way you
can make bayer look good is by comparing unequal spatial resolutions.

>> A 24MP Foveon will outresolve a 24MP Bayer.
>
>again, no.

Again, yes.

>> A 4.7MP 3 sensor system will outresolve a 4.7MP Bayer. A 24MP 3 sensor
>> system will outresolve a 24MP Bayer. Whatever resolution you pick, the
>> Foveon or 3 sensor system will outresolve the bayer at that
>> resolution. If Bayer sensors go way above the resolution than any
>> available Foveon or 3 sensor systems, then the comparision can only be
>> theoretical. But the theoretical results will be the same. A
>> theoretical 100MP Foveon or 3 sensor system will outresolve a 100MP
>> bayer.
>
>that's a flawed comparison. the 15 mp sd1 costs $2400, yet for around
>$600 or so, you can get a canon entry level slr with 18 mp and for just
>a little more than what the sd1 costs, you can get 21-36mp, either of
>which will do better than foveon.

It's not a flawed comparison when I've already stipulated that the
bayer costs less. The fact that you keep bringing up specious
arguments shows you don't have anything to counteract the basic fact
that in terms of equal pixel spatial resolution, the bayer spatially
undersamples the color channels while Foveon and 3 sensor systems do
not.

>> >the sd1 upped foveon to 15 mp which was a bit closer to the best bayer,
>> >but at a ridiculous price. you could get a *real* 40 mp camera for
>> >slightly more money. nobody bought it, thus the $5000 price cut, and
>> >it's *still* overpriced, just not as bad.
>>
>> But since overall sensor resolution at the same pixel spatial
>> resoltion is the only point I'm comparing on, all of what you're
>> saying is specious.
>
>it's not specious at all. $600 buys a camera that has more spatial
>resolution than the $2400 sd1m.

And that's exactly why it's specious. Because price doesn't say
anything about spatial sampling resolutuon. You saying it's not
specious to compare price when we're talking about spatial resoltion
proves you don't know what the word specious means. I suggest you look
it up.

>> >bayer measures one colour per location and accurately calculates the
>> >other two, so it's already *well* ahead of the game.
>>
>> No, bayer doesn't do either of those things.
>
>yes it most certainly does. seriously, go read some papers on bayer. or
>just look at the photos.
>
>> Bayer also captures a
>> band of wavelenghts and not strictly r/g/b at each sensel location. So
>> in that regard, it's the same as Foveon.
>
>it's nothing at all like foveon. not even remotely close. where did you
>come up with that rubbish?

Ah, so you really don't know how bayer works.

>> That the Foveon has other problems is
>> immaterial.
>
>it's not immaterial at all. what matters is the final image, which for
>foveon, is not very good. bayer consistently produces excellent images,
>without the blotching, noise, weird colours, etc. that plague foveon.

Just because you don't notice the noise and weird colors that plague
bayer doesn't mean they don't exist. It only means that either you're
used to them or you just don't care about image quality and making it
better.

>> As far as my argument is concerned, Foveon was just an
>> analog for a 3 sensor system anyway. Both of them sample what they
>> need at each pixel and the bayer does not. And that's the *only* thing
>> that matters for my position.
>
>except, it's wrong.

So far you have don't nothing to prove it wrong beyond saying "it's
wrong"

>> >> >2) You're the one who wants "the physical reality of the
>> >> > image being captured" ...
>> >>
>> >> Which is exactly what I'm doing. The physical reality is that Foveon
>> >> and 3 sensor systems have the full color information of 3 sensels for
>> >> each pixel location. The Bayer cfa does not.
>> >
>> >nope. foveon definitely doesn't have full colour information (see
>> >above). only 3 sensor systems do and at a huge cost and weight penalty.
>>
>> Even 3 sensor systems don't necessarily have *full* color information.
>
>what?
>
>wasn't that they have full colour their advantage? now they don't have
>full colour? make up your mind.

See. You really don't understand what's going on. 3 sensor systems do
not have *full* color information, i'e'. measured the full visible
spectrum at each pixel. But they have sampled the information
necessary at every pixel to create a color image without needing to
interpolate missing information from adjacent pixels.

>> But like the Foveon, they sample what they need to create a final
>> image that the eye can see as full color at each pixel location. The
>> bayer does not.
>
>bayer most certainly does sample what it needs, otherwise the pictures
>would look crappy and they do not. you just don't understand how it
>works.

See. You really don't understand what's going on. Bayer most certainly
does not sample what it needs at every pixel location to create a full
color image. It spatially undersamples the color channels and
algorithmically guesses at what it didn't sample.

>> And sampling everything that's needed at each pixel
>> location vs. some things at every other pixel location and other
>> things at even less than every other pixel location is why the Foveon
>> and 3 sensor systems outresolve bayer for the same pixel spacing. And
>> that's the *only* point I'm making.
>
>then your only point is *wrong*.

Again, you have done nothing valid to prove that it's wrong.

>> Anything else you bring up that's
>> not related to that point (price, weight, cost of 3 sensor systems,
>> other problems Foveon may have) is specious for arguing against that
>> point.
>
>it's not specious. even if a 3 sensor system was better, it comes at a
>high cost (money, size and weight) and something almost as good is much
>cheaper, smaller and lighter.

Proving you don't know what the word "specious" even means.

>> >> The physical reality is
>> >> that each color channel of the Foveon and 3 sensor systems are sampled
>> >> at the full spatial resolution of the sensor. They are not sampled at
>> >> that full rate for the Bayer cfa.
>> >
>> >bayer samples at the full rate just like foveon does. you still don't
>> >get it.
>>
>> Ah, you finally bring up a point that's actually not specious. It's
>> factually wrong, but at least it's not specious.
>
>it's exactly correct.

If you think bayer samples each color channel at each pixel location,
you need to look again at what a bayer cfa looks like. You are
factually wrong.

>the *only* area in which bayer is behind foveon is in chroma resolution
>and once again, humans can't see the difference.

Repeating wrong things over and over doesn't make them right.

>
>> >like i said, until last year, foveon was stuck at under 5 mp while
>> >bayer had 24 mp. with the sd1, it's a little closer now but bayer still
>> >has over twice as many pixels and canon's entry level slrs at 1/4 the
>> >price of the sd1m (and 1/10th the price of the original sd1) has *more*
>> >pixels!
>>
>> Back to making specious arguments because the one you tried to make
>> that wasn't specious was factually wrong.
>
>nothing specious about any of that.

Look up specious since you obviously don't know what it means.

>> >the real question is just how long will sigma keep up this game.
>>
>> It all depends on how much longer people buy them. I'm surprised
>> people still are. If Sigma were smart, they would bring a small Foveon
>> to market for things like cellphones and tablets. They may have a
>> chance with that.
>
>actually, that would be incredibly stupid.
>
>foveon tried cellphone sensors once already and it failed miserably, so
>much so, that it was the cause of their near bankruptcy, which is how
>sigma ended up buying them for pennies on the dollar.

That was before cellphone cameras took over photography as far as the
average Joe is concerned.

On Mon, 14 May 2012 00:10:38 -0400, nospam <>
wrote:

>In article <>, TheRealSteve
><> wrote:
>
>> And they have 3 sensels at each pixel location while bayer has only
>> one. So? All that means is that they're sampling everything they need
>> to generate a full color pixel at each location. A bayer sensor does
>> not.
>
>bayer definitely samples everything it needs. just look at the photos.
>
>if it didn't sample what it needed, they would not look as good as they
>do.

Lol.

On Mon, 14 May 2012 22:39:46 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
<> wrote:

[...]
>> They do count it in
>> other ways to fool people like you.
>
>*I*'m not fooled, I simply adhere to your "terms of the physical
>reality of the image being captured".
>
>You're the one who is inconsistent.

You can count anything anyway you want. The fact that you keep missing
on the way it really needs to be counted only makes you look like a
fool. And the way it needs to be counted if you want to discuss
spatial resolution (which is the only thing I'm discussing) is
photosites that spatially sample the components needed to create the
color image.

>>>> They triple it for marketing hype.
>
>>>They count their sensels. Which is only fair: Bayer does it
>>>too.
>
>> And they have 3 sensels at each pixel location while bayer has only
>> one. So?
>
>So you need to compare sensels to sensels.

As usual, wrong again. See above.

>
>> All that means is that they're sampling everything they need
>> to generate a full color pixel at each location. A bayer sensor does
>> not.
>
>So basically Bayer sensor images do not consist of RGB triples.
>Interesting.

Non sequitur. The fact that a bayer sensor doesn't sample everything
it needs to generate an rgb triple at each pixel location doesn't mean
it doesn't have an rgb triple at each location. What happens is it
interpolates adjacent sensels to come up with missing information so
it can make a guess at an rgb triple at each location without
physically sampling it. You need to brush up on how bayer sensors
work.

>And Foveon doesn't have any colour problems. Interesting.
>
>Hook, line *and* sinker.

Specious. Is that the best you can do? Of course Foveon has color
problems. So does Bayer. Your misunderstanding of the topic is
monumental.

>>>I don't care about the presentation one bit, since that
>>>depends on printers, paper, processes ... which are simply
>>>not comparable.
>
>> Ah, but those things are also comparable as long as you define
>> consistent parameters for comparison...
>
>Oh! Consisten parameters! Let's take ... opacity ... and
>flourescent whitening agent of the paper. Yeah, that should

Of course you can compare those things. Paper A has opacity x and
paper B has opacity y.

>make everything comparable. Just as your spasmodic tries to
>compare sweet water fish to sunlight. After all, both are
>starting with an 's' and are written with ASCII symbols.

The fact that you don't understand scientific method is why you think
comparing the opacity or flourescent whitening of different paper is
the same as comparing sweet water fish to sunlight.

>So you say that they are equivalent? Fine. No more "Fovepn
>is better". That we can live with.

No, I say bayer is better in most respects. But Foveon is better when
it comes to reducing aliasing for the same spatial resulution of their
photosites. It's pretty simple, but still something you can't
understand. You have to believe in your feeble mind that one has to be
"better" than the other at everything. In reality, that's not the
case. It's usually the case that when comparing similar things, one is
better at some things and the other is better at others. It's almost
never the case that one is better than the other at everything. You
have a difficult time grasping that simple fact.

>The number 45 is bigger than the number 21.
>And *your* claim was that it equals a 15 MPix Bayer sensor in
>resolution ...

That's not my claim at all. My claim is that 3 sensor systems and
Foveon have less aliasing and have overall better spatial resolution
than a bayer sensor with the same pixel density. And in that claim, a
pixel is defined as a photosite that equates to a color pixel in the
captured image.

Because you can't understand simple concepts like spatial density of
photosites, you need to bring up numerical megapixel counts that are
not consistent just so you have some simple numbers to compare rather
than the slightly more esoteric concept, photosite spatial density.
But apparently it's too esoteric for you.

[...]
>> If you choose to use Sigma's simplification for marketing
>> hype because you don't understand sampling theory, fine. Then use it.
>> But if you do understand what's going on and define your pixels
>> equivalently, then you'd see that for the same pixel count, the Sigma
>> won't alias as much at the same input spatial frequencies below
>> nyquist. If you go *above* nyquist, then all bets are off.
>
>The Sigma will alias *more*. No AA filter, more alias (unless
>the sigma lenses are even worse than coke bottle bottoms).

And there you have it. A bayer needs a strong AA filter more so than
the Foveon. Since I'm comparing sensors, you have to take away the AA
filter and see which aliases more. Either that or use the same AA
filter for both.

>You seem to keep forgetting that. Or you seem to imply that there
>are relevant scenes where there are no high frequency contents.

Oh, I'm not forgetting that at all. The AA filter lowers the spatial
resolution even more.

>> Yes, and it has better resolution for the same pixel spacing.
>
>Yes, Sigma doesn't use an AA filter.
>So it also has way more false resolution for the same pixel
>spacing.

Which of course is irrelevant when comparing Foveon and 3-sensor
systems to Bayer. It's only Sigma's implementation that doesn't use an
AA filter. There are plenty of Bayer implementations that don't use AA
filters either and they have way more color artifacts than a Foveon
for the same pixel spacing.

>>>The day you manufacture and sell cameras with your own sensor
>>>type is the day you can define how to count your pixels.
>>>I guess hell freezes over first, though.
>
>> I see. So we have to take your definition because you manufacture and
>> sell cameras with your own sensor. All hail the great stupid one.
>
>I don't define how to count pixels. You try to do that

Wrong. You are trying to define invalid ways of counting pixels. I
don't count pixels at all. I merely compare sensors with the same
photosite spatial resolution semping color spectrums that go into
making the image.

>>>What was it again? Ah, yes, a camera has 100.000.000/IQ of the
>>>user pixels. Which would mean you get all the 50+ MPix cameras,
>>>and normal people like me have to make do with roughly 1 MPix.
>
>> Original, but specious.
>
>Let me translate 'specious' for the othe readers:
>| TheRealSteve agrees I didn't invent my own definition of pixels,
>| but he did. So the argument worked against him, but not against
>| me. Thus I didn't prove myself I am or was wrong.
>|
>| But lil Stevie cannot ever admit he was wrong.

See, you don't even know what the word specious means. I'll give you a
hint: It has to do with the fact that you are making up definitions of
pixels to come up with megapixel counts for comparison when the only
thing that matters is the 2d spatial resolution of photosites that
sample the color spectrum needed for the final image. And you're doing
that to make your argument look like it's based on some sense of
reality or truth, when in fact it's not. That is what specious is.

There, you learned a new word today.

>>>Oh, that's as stupid as your own definition. And completely
>>>useless, since you're on the physics on how the image is
>>>recorded trip. Which means you need to count sensels.
>
>> That just shows you don't know what spatial sampling rate means.
>
>I do know, do you?

You've already proven that you don't just by your claim that you have
to count sensels even if the sensels are stacked on top of eachother
and are in the same spatial location of the image being captured. Or
if the sensels, not stacked up on eachother but are in 3 separate
physical locations as they are for a 3 sensor camera, but still sample
the same spatial location of the image, you claim they have to be
counted at 3 pixels. That is proof beyond any doubt that you have
absolutely no idea what spatial sampling of of the image being
projected onto the sensor means. But in proving you have no idea what
it means, I gave you the answer as to what it means. We'll see if you
can understand it. If so, you have learned another new thing today.

>> You
>> can have 100 sensels all stacked up on eachother (or on 100 separate
>> sensors that are aligned in image spatial space) and it's still
>> capturing only one spatial location.
>
>The location in any way is an area, not a point 'location'.
>
>Stacked like Foveon each lower layer is larger than the layer
>above it. On a 100-sensor system, the alignment *in reality*
>is a misalignment, so again you are sampling a larger area.

Of course it's not a point location. Photosites have size to them and
are not a point. And we've already taken the misalignment of the 3
sensor system into account with either or both physical and
altorithmical realignment.

>> When you want to compare spatial
>> resolution, you have to compare spatial sampling locations and not
>> sensels.
>
>Actually, the physics on how the image is recorded is that
>it's not recorded with spatial locations but with sensels.

Of course it's captured with sensels. And sensels occupy spatial
locations.

>Sometimes the sensels are arranged in a grid pattern.

Of course.

>> You're so hung up on trying to understand what pixels are and
>> Sigma vs. bayer definitions that you miss the spatial sampling
>> fundamentals of capturing the image in the first place.
>
>You're so hung up on "Foveon is better than Bayer" that you
>don't even understand what pixels are.
>
>For example, if you upsize an image coming from a 45 MSensel
>Foveon sensor to 20 M spatial locations --- and don't say you
>cannot do that --- how many pixels does the result have?

Back onto specious arguments again. You learned above what specious
means so you should now understand why it's specious.

Again, the only thing that matters when it comes to aliasing is the 2d
spatial resolution of sampling all of the individuall components that
go into making the final image. That's a pretty simple concept that
you still don't seem to get.

>
>
>>>> And since it's *locations* that matter
>>>> when it comes to spatial resolution and sampling an image,
>
>>>Assuming identical resolution from lenses, assuming identical
>>>beam splitting from AA filters, etc --- all of which is not
>>>given --- ...
>
>> YES, assuming everything else is identical. YES, it's not given
>> everything else will be identical. But if you want to compare the
>> sensors, you make everything else the same. Or didn't they teach you
>> that in high school science class.
>
>AH! THAT explains your fixation of 'same pixel counts by
>TheRealSteve's definition'. You didn't grasp that to compare
>real life systems, you have to use real life assumptions.
>Like "what sensors were available in 2010". Like "missing AA
>filters" when that's what's in real life.

And that's where you show your complete ignorance of scientific
method. If you want to compare sensors and sensor technology, you
*have* to either have an AA filter on both or neither. Either that or
you have to account for the difference in some other way. But the
easiest way is to have an AA filter on bother or neither. Just because
Sigma may choose to not include an AA filter is irelevant for the
comparison of the Foveon sensor to a Bayer sensor. And if you want to
use Sigma's camera for a comparison, you have to compare it to a bayer
camera of the same spatial resolution without an AA filter.

These are such simple concepts related to scientific methods that I'm
surprised you haven't learned them yet. But here's something else
you've learned today.

TheRealSteve <> wrote:
> On Mon, 14 May 2012 16:29:33 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
>>TheRealSteve <> wrote:

>>> But we're talking about comparing the same thing. A 4.7MP Foveon will
>>> outresolve a 4.7MP Bayer. A 24MP Foveon will outresolve a 24MP Bayer.
>>> A 4.7MP 3 sensor system will outresolve a 4.7MP Bayer. A 24MP 3 sensor
>>> system will outresolve a 24MP Bayer.

>>So ... you're comparing the same thing. What Bayer sizes
>>were typical when Foveon had a "4.7 MPix" sensor? Compare
>>against that.

>>As for the 24 MPix Foveon and 24 MPix 3-sensor system versus
>>the 24 MPix Bayer ... imaginary cameras are always better
>>than real cameras, however the imaginary cameras need lots of
>>unobtainium.

> And here is your problem. You probably realize that comparing equals
> means you're wrong.

OK, let's finish that. You're comparing equals, so you're wrong.
End of story.

-Wolfgang

On Thu, 17 May 2012 22:35:47 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
<> wrote:

>TheRealSteve <> wrote:
>> On Mon, 14 May 2012 16:29:33 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
>>>TheRealSteve <> wrote:
>
>>>> But we're talking about comparing the same thing. A 4.7MP Foveon will
>>>> outresolve a 4.7MP Bayer. A 24MP Foveon will outresolve a 24MP Bayer.
>>>> A 4.7MP 3 sensor system will outresolve a 4.7MP Bayer. A 24MP 3 sensor
>>>> system will outresolve a 24MP Bayer.
>
>>>So ... you're comparing the same thing. What Bayer sizes
>>>were typical when Foveon had a "4.7 MPix" sensor? Compare
>>>against that.
>
>>>As for the 24 MPix Foveon and 24 MPix 3-sensor system versus
>>>the 24 MPix Bayer ... imaginary cameras are always better
>>>than real cameras, however the imaginary cameras need lots of
>>>unobtainium.
>
>> And here is your problem. You probably realize that comparing equals
>> means you're wrong.
>
>OK, let's finish that. You're comparing equals, so you're wrong.

It figures you think that. You probably know it's wrong to compare a
24MP Foveon using Sigma's MP definition to a 24MP Bayer or 24MP 3
sensor system using a different MP definition. But it's the only way
you can make your invalid argument look like it makes sense to an
uninformed observer. That's sophistry at it's finest.

>End of story.

It sure is.

Alfred Molon <> wrote:
> In article <324g89->, Wolfgang Weisselberg
> says...
>> You're comparing equals, so you're wrong.

> ... wrote the one who claims the Sigma has 45 MP...

Is your cutting of context malicious or careless?

-Wolfgang

TheRealSteve <> wrote:
> On Thu, 17 May 2012 22:35:47 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
>>TheRealSteve <> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 14 May 2012 16:29:33 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
>>>>TheRealSteve <> wrote:

>>>>> But we're talking about comparing the same thing. A 4.7MP Foveon will
>>>>> outresolve a 4.7MP Bayer. A 24MP Foveon will outresolve a 24MP Bayer.
>>>>> A 4.7MP 3 sensor system will outresolve a 4.7MP Bayer. A 24MP 3 sensor
>>>>> system will outresolve a 24MP Bayer.

>>>>So ... you're comparing the same thing. What Bayer sizes
>>>>were typical when Foveon had a "4.7 MPix" sensor? Compare
>>>>against that.

>>>>As for the 24 MPix Foveon and 24 MPix 3-sensor system versus
>>>>the 24 MPix Bayer ... imaginary cameras are always better
>>>>than real cameras, however the imaginary cameras need lots of
>>>>unobtainium.

>>> And here is your problem. You probably realize that comparing equals
>>> means you're wrong.

>>OK, let's finish that. You're comparing equals, so you're wrong.

> It figures you think that.

It figures that you don't even notice you're being handed *your*
*very* *own* *logic*.

> You probably know it's wrong to compare a
> 24MP Foveon using Sigma's MP definition to a 24MP Bayer or 24MP 3
> sensor system using a different MP definition. But it's the only way
> you can make your invalid argument look like it makes sense to an
> uninformed observer.

OK, have it your way! Here's a 5D Mark III, here's a D800, please
tell me which 24 or 36 MPix (MPics as per *your* definition)
Foveon camera should be compared against them. Thank you in
advance.


> That's sophistry at it's finest.

You shouldn't use foreign words in English sentences when you've
problems reading and understanding plain English sentences.

-Wolfgang

On Mon, 21 May 2012 04:07:54 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
<> wrote:

>TheRealSteve <> wrote:
>> On Thu, 17 May 2012 22:35:47 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
>>>TheRealSteve <> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 14 May 2012 16:29:33 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
>>>>>TheRealSteve <> wrote:
>
>>>>>> But we're talking about comparing the same thing. A 4.7MP Foveon will
>>>>>> outresolve a 4.7MP Bayer. A 24MP Foveon will outresolve a 24MP Bayer.
>>>>>> A 4.7MP 3 sensor system will outresolve a 4.7MP Bayer. A 24MP 3 sensor
>>>>>> system will outresolve a 24MP Bayer.
>
>>>>>So ... you're comparing the same thing. What Bayer sizes
>>>>>were typical when Foveon had a "4.7 MPix" sensor? Compare
>>>>>against that.
>
>>>>>As for the 24 MPix Foveon and 24 MPix 3-sensor system versus
>>>>>the 24 MPix Bayer ... imaginary cameras are always better
>>>>>than real cameras, however the imaginary cameras need lots of
>>>>>unobtainium.
>
>>>> And here is your problem. You probably realize that comparing equals
>>>> means you're wrong.
>
>>>OK, let's finish that. You're comparing equals, so you're wrong.
>
>> It figures you think that.
>
>It figures that you don't even notice you're being handed *your*
>*very* *own* *logic*.

First you have to say something logical. To you, if I want to see
which is the better car, I can compare a tire iron to a pinto because
they're both made of steel, so they're equal. You haven't yet figured
out what has to be made equal in order to compare sensor resolution.

>> You probably know it's wrong to compare a
>> 24MP Foveon using Sigma's MP definition to a 24MP Bayer or 24MP 3
>> sensor system using a different MP definition. But it's the only way
>> you can make your invalid argument look like it makes sense to an
>> uninformed observer.
>
>OK, have it your way! Here's a 5D Mark III, here's a D800, please
>tell me which 24 or 36 MPix (MPics as per *your* definition)
>Foveon camera should be compared against them. Thank you in
>advance.

More proof that you haven't got a clue as to what has to be made equal
in order to compare sensor resolution. You really are lost in the
world if scientific evaluation.

>> That's sophistry at it's finest.
>
>You shouldn't use foreign words in English sentences when you've
>problems reading and understanding plain English sentences.

You should look it up in an English dictionary. You might learn
something.