Bayer Filter Obsolescence?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Eric Miller, Jun 14, 2007.

  1. Eric Miller

    Eric Miller Guest

    <http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/L/LOW_LIGHT_PHOTOS?SITE=LAALE&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT>

    Eric Miller
    www.dyesscreek.com
    Eric Miller, Jun 14, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Eric Miller

    nospam Guest

    nospam, Jun 14, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. nospam wrote

    > including some samples to demonstrate what they are claiming.


    Hmmm, some of those photos don't really demonstrate a great
    deal. They would have to shoot the same shot with the same
    camera settings to demonstrate a difference in performance of
    the sensor. Only the first shot is valid in this respect, although
    the results, if representative, are very impressive.

    Chris
    Chris Gilbert, Jun 14, 2007
    #3
  4. Ï "Eric Miller" <> Ýãñáøå óôï ìÞíõìá
    news:6Pcci.6386$...
    >

    <http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/L/LOW_LIGHT_PHOTOS?SITE=LAALE&SECTION=
    HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT>
    >
    > Eric Miller
    > www.dyesscreek.com
    >
    >

    Very nice.So, my "shutterbug" will become obsolete?
    Very interesting article, though.Didn't know that the bayer filter was
    discovered in 1976.



    --
    Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
    major in electrical engineering
    mechanized infantry reservist
    dimtzort AT otenet DOT gr
    Tzortzakakis Dimitrios, Jun 14, 2007
    #4
  5. Eric Miller

    babaloo Guest

    I may be dumb but it is not entirely clear that the panchromatic pixels can
    convey picture information along with brightness in the way green pixels
    convey both. Hence a sensor of given megapixel count may appear to have less
    noise but would it not also be unable to capture as much picture
    information?
    babaloo, Jun 15, 2007
    #5
  6. Tzortzakakis Dimitrios wrote:
    []
    > Very nice.So, my "shutterbug" will become obsolete?
    > Very interesting article, though.Didn't know that the bayer filter was
    > discovered in 1976.


    It wasn't. It was invented, not discovered. <G>

    Cheers,
    David
    David J Taylor, Jun 15, 2007
    #6
  7. babaloo wrote:
    > I may be dumb but it is not entirely clear that the panchromatic
    > pixels can convey picture information along with brightness in the
    > way green pixels convey both. Hence a sensor of given megapixel count
    > may appear to have less noise but would it not also be unable to
    > capture as much picture information?


    It trades off the spatial resolution in colour detail for a greater
    precision in brightness level - if you like to look at it that way. By
    using more of the incoming photos, there can be a net gain. The human eye
    is much less sensitive to colour detail.

    Unlike in the general population, some people on this group seem to have
    eyes which are completely intolerant to even small amounts of image noise.
    <G>

    David
    David J Taylor, Jun 15, 2007
    #7
  8. Eric Miller

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Eric Miller wrote:
    > <http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/L/LOW_LIGHT_PHOTOS?SITE=LAALE&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT>
    >
    > Eric Miller
    > www.dyesscreek.com
    >
    >

    It is still pretty much the same as the basic Bayer sensor. Since the
    Bayer sensor rather accurately models the human eye, I suspect that it
    will remain popular as long as pictures are made for humans to look at.
    Ron Hunter, Jun 15, 2007
    #8
  9. Eric Miller

    ray Guest

    On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 03:30:12 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote:

    > Eric Miller wrote:
    >> <http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/L/LOW_LIGHT_PHOTOS?SITE=LAALE&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT>
    >>
    >> Eric Miller
    >> www.dyesscreek.com
    >>
    >>

    > It is still pretty much the same as the basic Bayer sensor. Since the
    > Bayer sensor rather accurately models the human eye, I suspect that it
    > will remain popular as long as pictures are made for humans to look at.


    Whereas the new technology will be used for cats to look at?
    ray, Jun 15, 2007
    #9
  10. Ï "David J Taylor"
    <-this-bit.nor-this-part.co.uk> Ýãñáøå óôï ìÞíõìá
    news:9grci.5339$...
    > Tzortzakakis Dimitrios wrote:
    > []
    > > Very nice.So, my "shutterbug" will become obsolete?
    > > Very interesting article, though.Didn't know that the bayer filter was
    > > discovered in 1976.

    >
    > It wasn't. It was invented, not discovered. <G>
    >

    Yeah, whatever.I will keep that in mind, though.
    Thanks for the correction.
    > Cheers,
    > David
    >
    >




    --
    Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
    major in electrical engineering
    mechanized infantry reservist
    dimtzort AT otenet DOT gr
    Tzortzakakis Dimitrios, Jun 15, 2007
    #10
  11. Tzortzakakis Dimitrios wrote:
    > Ï "David J Taylor"

    []
    >> It wasn't. It was invented, not discovered. <G>
    >>

    > Yeah, whatever.I will keep that in mind, though.
    > Thanks for the correction.
    >> Cheers,
    >> David


    You're welcome. I keep making the same mistake when I speak German!

    David
    David J Taylor, Jun 15, 2007
    #11
  12. Eric Miller

    jpc Guest

    On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 10:05:19 -0500, "Eric Miller"
    <> wrote:

    ><http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/L/LOW_LIGHT_PHOTOS?SITE=LAALE&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT>
    >
    >Eric Miller
    >www.dyesscreek.com
    >


    Marketing hype from the looks of it.

    Must be a bayer sensor with one of the green filters missing.

    So what will happen. If for the sake of easy math we say the
    polychromatic sensors fill up with photoelectrons in a quarter the
    time it takes the green sensors they've upped the effective ISO by two
    stops. But now the red, blue and green sensors have only a quarter of
    their normal photoelectons. So three of the four sensor types have
    twice the noise they normally would have.

    So the trade off is higher effective ISO but a more noisy image, which
    is the same as running up the gain in the camera.

    But I'm sure it will confuse the masses

    jpc
    jpc, Jun 16, 2007
    #12
  13. In article <6Pcci.6386$>,
    "Eric Miller" <> wrote:

    > <http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/L/LOW_LIGHT_PHOTOS?SITE=LAALE&SECTION=HO
    > ME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT>
    >
    > Eric Miller
    > www.dyesscreek.com


    I can't help thinking of the Hyperbolic Chamber right now.

    Didn't some sensors in the early 90s using uncolored pixels to improve
    low light sensitivity? Of course, nature was doing this long before
    Kodak.

    What's missing here is a demonstration of what the photo looks like in
    good light. The cool technology would be not damaging the color
    resolution too much or getting highlight blowouts when some pixels are
    unfiltered.
    Kevin McMurtrie, Jun 19, 2007
    #13
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. digiboy

    purple fringe - due solely to Bayer filter?

    digiboy, May 31, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    32
    Views:
    2,469
    Ron Hunter
    Jun 6, 2004
  2. Bayer mosaic filter array question

    , Aug 25, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    1,102
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)
    Aug 26, 2006
  3. David Dyer-Bennet

    Bayer filter removal

    David Dyer-Bennet, Apr 13, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    43
    Views:
    3,335
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)
    Apr 30, 2007
  4. mark hilbert

    Bayer Filter Chips

    mark hilbert, Jun 19, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    327
    mark hilbert
    Jun 19, 2007
  5. Me

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

    Me, Apr 4, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    357
    Views:
    4,537
    TheRealSteve
    Jun 1, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page