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

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Me, Apr 4, 2012.

  1. Me

    Me Guest

    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.
    Me, Apr 4, 2012
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Me

    RichA Guest

    On Apr 4, 2:04 am, Me <> 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.
    RichA, Apr 4, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Me

    RichA Guest

    On Apr 4, 9:31 am, Andrew Haley <>
    wrote:
    > Me <> 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?
    RichA, Apr 4, 2012
    #3
  4. Mxsmanic <> 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://dd-b.net/
    Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
    Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
    Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
    David Dyer-Bennet, Apr 4, 2012
    #4
  5. Me

    Bruce Guest

    Andrew Haley <> wrote:

    >Me <> 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.
    Bruce, Apr 4, 2012
    #5
  6. Me

    Me Guest

    On 5/04/2012 1:31 a.m., Andrew Haley wrote:
    > Me<> 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.
    Me, Apr 4, 2012
    #6
  7. Me

    Me Guest

    On 5/04/2012 2:58 a.m., RichA wrote:
    > On Apr 4, 9:31 am, Andrew Haley<>
    > wrote:
    >> Me<> 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.
    Me, Apr 4, 2012
    #7
  8. Me

    RichA Guest

    On Apr 4, 11:29 am, Bruce <> wrote:
    > Andrew Haley <> wrote:
    > >Me <> 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.
    RichA, Apr 4, 2012
    #8
  9. Me <> writes:

    > On 5/04/2012 1:31 a.m., Andrew Haley wrote:
    >> Me<> 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, ; http://dd-b.net/
    Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
    Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
    Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
    David Dyer-Bennet, Apr 4, 2012
    #9
  10. Mxsmanic <> 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
    Chris Malcolm, Apr 5, 2012
    #10
  11. Mxsmanic <> 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://dd-b.net/
    Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
    Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
    Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
    David Dyer-Bennet, Apr 5, 2012
    #11
  12. Mxsmanic <> 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, ; http://dd-b.net/
    Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
    Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
    Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
    David Dyer-Bennet, Apr 5, 2012
    #12
  13. Mxsmanic <> 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, ; http://dd-b.net/
    Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
    Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
    Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
    David Dyer-Bennet, Apr 5, 2012
    #13
  14. Me

    TheRealSteve Guest

    On Thu, 05 Apr 2012 07:50:52 +1200, Me <> 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
    TheRealSteve, Apr 6, 2012
    #14
  15. Me

    Me Guest

    On 6/04/2012 1:34 p.m., TheRealSteve wrote:
    >
    > On Thu, 05 Apr 2012 07:50:52 +1200, Me<> 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.
    Me, Apr 6, 2012
    #15
  16. Me

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Mxsmanic
    <> 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.
    nospam, Apr 7, 2012
    #16
  17. Me

    nospam Guest

    In article
    <>,
    RichA <> 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.
    nospam, Apr 7, 2012
    #17
  18. Me

    nospam Guest

    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?
    nospam, Apr 7, 2012
    #18
  19. Me

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Mxsmanic
    <> 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.
    nospam, Apr 7, 2012
    #19
  20. Me

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Mxsmanic
    <> 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.
    nospam, Apr 7, 2012
    #20
    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:
    2,478
    Ron Hunter
    Jun 6, 2004
  2. Bayer mosaic filter array question

    , Aug 25, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    1,119
    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:
    3,356
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)
    Apr 30, 2007
  4. Eric Miller

    Bayer Filter Obsolescence?

    Eric Miller, Jun 14, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    597
    Kevin McMurtrie
    Jun 19, 2007
  5. Bruce

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

    Bruce, Apr 4, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    357
    RichA
    Apr 4, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page