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.

 
 
Me
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-04-2012
On 4/04/2012 5:30 p.m., Mxsmanic wrote:
> Rich writes:
>
>> I don't hate the Bayer. I think it's a clever way to deal with a problem
>> that some find objectionable. But its days could be numbered.
>> Don't know if resolution is improved yet, but it's nice to know that it
>> only costs $1700(!) to get a non-flawed Fuji when mainstream makers produce
>> $500 DSLRs that meet the spec.

>
> A Bayer filter and an anti-aliasing filter are two different things.

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.
I guess that demosaicking raw files is rather complicated, the only raw
converter supporting the camera for now is Silkypix - which I've tried
in the past and I thought it really sucked, but YMMV.
It's a good idea, but with higher and higher resolution with
conventional bayer filters, when at those higher resolutions the low
pass filter needs to be less aggressive (on a whole image basis) to
produce the same anti-aliasing effect (on a per pixel basis as a lower
resolution sensor), any "need" for such an innovative solution may have
already passed.

*It can't work perfectly, only reduce the incidence perhaps in repeating
patterns - as any point of white light hitting the sensor at a size less
than one sensel, is going to be recorded as R, G, or B - not white.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
RichA
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-04-2012
On Apr 4, 2:04*am, Me <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On 4/04/2012 5:30 p.m., Mxsmanic wrote:> Rich writes:
>
> >> I don't hate the Bayer. *I think it's a clever way to deal with a problem
> >> that some find objectionable. *But its days could be numbered.
> >> Don't know if resolution is improved yet, but it's nice to know that it
> >> only costs $1700(!) to get a non-flawed Fuji when mainstream makers produce
> >> $500 DSLRs that meet the spec.

>
> > A Bayer filter and an anti-aliasing filter are two different things.

>
> 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.
> I guess that demosaicking raw files is rather complicated, the only raw
> converter supporting the camera for now is Silkypix - which I've tried
> in the past and I thought it really sucked, but YMMV.
> It's a good idea, but with higher and higher resolution with
> conventional bayer filters, when at those higher resolutions the low
> pass filter needs to be less aggressive (on a whole image basis) to
> produce the same anti-aliasing effect (on a per pixel basis as a lower
> resolution sensor), any "need" for such an innovative solution may have
> already passed.
>
> *It can't work perfectly, only reduce the incidence perhaps in repeating
> patterns - as any point of white light hitting the sensor at a size less
> than one sensel, is going to be recorded as R, G, or B - not white.


Silkypix isn't bad. I compared it against a slew of other RAW
converters and it actually produced sharper images than some, like
Capture One. This goes back a few years. But, its interface, at
least with Pentax bundles, was terrible.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
RichA
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-04-2012
On Apr 4, 9:31*am, Andrew Haley <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:
> Me <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> > On 4/04/2012 5:30 p.m., Mxsmanic wrote:
> >> Rich writes:

>
> >>> I don't hate the Bayer. *I think it's a clever way to deal with a problem
> >>> that some find objectionable. *But its days could be numbered.
> >>> Don't know if resolution is improved yet, but it's nice to know that it
> >>> only costs $1700(!) to get a non-flawed Fuji when mainstream makers produce
> >>> $500 DSLRs that meet the spec.

>
> >> A Bayer filter and an anti-aliasing filter are two different things.

> > 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's nothing like pseudo-random.http://www.dpreview.com/previews/fujifilmxpro1/3shows 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.
>
> Andrew.


Didn't Sony produce a sensor with yellow pixels at one point in a
P&S? Anyone know how that turned out?
 
Reply With Quote
 
David Dyer-Bennet
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-04-2012
Mxsmanic <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

> Me writes:
>
>> 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.


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.

> The whole issue of aliasing is past history; I don't know why people still
> worry about it. When you have a large number of pixels, you don't need to
> worry about aliasing. 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.


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

> Even in the old days, when sensors had far fewer pixels, I never really
> noticed problems with aliasing. I'd rather take the risk of aliasing than put
> up with the blur of anti-aliasing.


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.
--
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
 
Bruce
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-04-2012
Andrew Haley <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Me <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> On 4/04/2012 5:30 p.m., Mxsmanic wrote:
>>> Rich writes:
>>>
>>>> I don't hate the Bayer. I think it's a clever way to deal with a problem
>>>> that some find objectionable. But its days could be numbered.
>>>> Don't know if resolution is improved yet, but it's nice to know that it
>>>> only costs $1700(!) to get a non-flawed Fuji when mainstream makers produce
>>>> $500 DSLRs that meet the spec.
>>>
>>> A Bayer filter and an anti-aliasing filter are two different things.

>> 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'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.



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.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Me
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-04-2012
On 5/04/2012 1:31 a.m., Andrew Haley wrote:
> Me<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> On 4/04/2012 5:30 p.m., Mxsmanic wrote:
>>> Rich writes:
>>>
>>>> I don't hate the Bayer. I think it's a clever way to deal with a problem
>>>> that some find objectionable. But its days could be numbered.
>>>> Don't know if resolution is improved yet, but it's nice to know that it
>>>> only costs $1700(!) to get a non-flawed Fuji when mainstream makers produce
>>>> $500 DSLRs that meet the spec.
>>>
>>> A Bayer filter and an anti-aliasing filter are two different things.

>> 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'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 hadn't seen that on DPReview. I thought I'd seen a description on
Fuji's website describing the array pattern as semi-random. It looks
like it's a lot more pseudo and a lot less random than I'd expected.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Me
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-04-2012
On 5/04/2012 2:58 a.m., RichA wrote:
> On Apr 4, 9:31 am, Andrew Haley<(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>> Me<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>> On 4/04/2012 5:30 p.m., Mxsmanic wrote:
>>>> Rich writes:

>>
>>>>> I don't hate the Bayer. I think it's a clever way to deal with a problem
>>>>> that some find objectionable. But its days could be numbered.
>>>>> Don't know if resolution is improved yet, but it's nice to know that it
>>>>> only costs $1700(!) to get a non-flawed Fuji when mainstream makers produce
>>>>> $500 DSLRs that meet the spec.

>>
>>>> A Bayer filter and an anti-aliasing filter are two different things.
>>> 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's nothing like pseudo-random.http://www.dpreview.com/previews/fujifilmxpro1/3shows 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.
>>
>> Andrew.

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

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.
 
Reply With Quote
 
RichA
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-04-2012
On Apr 4, 11:29*am, Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Andrew Haley <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >Me <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >> On 4/04/2012 5:30 p.m., Mxsmanic wrote:
> >>> Rich writes:

>
> >>>> I don't hate the Bayer. *I think it's a clever way to deal with a problem
> >>>> that some find objectionable. *But its days could be numbered.
> >>>> Don't know if resolution is improved yet, but it's nice to know thatit
> >>>> only costs $1700(!) to get a non-flawed Fuji when mainstream makers produce
> >>>> $500 DSLRs that meet the spec.

>
> >>> A Bayer filter and an anti-aliasing filter are two different things.
> >> 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's nothing like pseudo-random.
> >http://www.dpreview.com/previews/fujifilmxpro1/3shows 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.

>
> 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.


True. You look at the black-body charts for sensors and green is
lacking.
 
Reply With Quote
 
David Dyer-Bennet
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-04-2012
Me <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

> On 5/04/2012 1:31 a.m., Andrew Haley wrote:
>> Me<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>> On 4/04/2012 5:30 p.m., Mxsmanic wrote:
>>>> Rich writes:
>>>>
>>>>> I don't hate the Bayer. I think it's a clever way to deal with a problem
>>>>> that some find objectionable. But its days could be numbered.
>>>>> Don't know if resolution is improved yet, but it's nice to know that it
>>>>> only costs $1700(!) to get a non-flawed Fuji when mainstream makers produce
>>>>> $500 DSLRs that meet the spec.
>>>>
>>>> A Bayer filter and an anti-aliasing filter are two different things.
>>> 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'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 hadn't seen that on DPReview. I thought I'd seen a description on
> Fuji's website describing the array pattern as semi-random. It looks
> like it's a lot more pseudo and a lot less random than I'd expected.


That was my reaction when reading the press release and then seeing the
diagram of the actual filter arrangement, yes.
--
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
 
Chris Malcolm
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-04-2012
Mxsmanic <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Me writes:


>> 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.


> The whole issue of aliasing is past history; I don't know why people still
> worry about it. When you have a large number of pixels, you don't need to
> worry about aliasing. 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.


> Even in the old days, when sensors had far fewer pixels, I never really
> noticed problems with aliasing. I'd rather take the risk of aliasing than put
> up with the blur of anti-aliasing.


I started my digital photography processing with 128 x 129 pixel
images in a lab. Aliasing was a very serious problem! But accuracy was
sufficiently important that aliasing was dealt with by trying to
recognise the artefacts and the probable underlying reality (such as a
staircased stright edge) rather than trying to avoid aliasing by some
kind of blurring.

--
Chris Malcolm

 
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