So what would be the best sensor then?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by BG250, Nov 20, 2003.

  1. BG250

    BG250 Guest

    Okay, the current Sensors suffer in this way:

    Bayer: requires heavy demosaic filter causing blurring. Artifacts (mainly
    from sharpening to regain perceived detail)
    Foveon: Noise issues, color and clipping issues.
    Three CCD camera: lower luminance resolution than Bayer.

    Seems to me that Bayer is the best way to go by using high resolution
    sensors and keeping the sharpening down. Are there any potential better
    designs?
    bg
     
    BG250, Nov 20, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. BG250

    Graeme Guest

    "BG250" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Okay, the current Sensors suffer in this way:
    >
    > Bayer: requires heavy demosaic filter causing blurring. Artifacts (mainly
    > from sharpening to regain perceived detail)
    > Foveon: Noise issues, color and clipping issues.
    > Three CCD camera: lower luminance resolution than Bayer.
    >
    > Seems to me that Bayer is the best way to go by using high resolution
    > sensors and keeping the sharpening down. Are there any potential better
    > designs?
    > bg
    >


    How about a simple sensor with rotating color filters? ;-}
     
    Graeme, Nov 20, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. BG250

    mark herring Guest

    I suspect there is a reason that the overwhelming majority of digicams use
    the Bayer architecture.

    I use a 2Mp Bayer camera (Canon A40), and I have no issues such as you
    describe. As I type this, I am looking at a 6 X 9 print from this
    camera---and I have no clue what this "suffering" is about. The picture is
    flawless.

    Foveon--IMHO--set out to create a market niche by advertising a solution to
    a problem that most of us did not know we had (An still dont). By my
    reading, they have failed. YMMV.

    -Mark

    --
    ******************
    Mark Herring
    Pasadena, CA, USA
    private e-mail: just say no to "No"

    *
    "BG250" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Okay, the current Sensors suffer in this way:
    >
    > Bayer: requires heavy demosaic filter causing blurring. Artifacts (mainly
    > from sharpening to regain perceived detail)
    > Foveon: Noise issues, color and clipping issues.
    > Three CCD camera: lower luminance resolution than Bayer.
    >
    > Seems to me that Bayer is the best way to go by using high resolution
    > sensors and keeping the sharpening down. Are there any potential better
    > designs?
    > bg
    >
    >
     
    mark herring, Nov 20, 2003
    #3
  4. "mark herring" <> wrote:

    > I suspect there is a reason that the overwhelming majority of digicams use
    > the Bayer architecture.


    Bayer provides luminance resolution that is only slightly less than is
    theoretically possible from any correctly implemented digital imaging system
    given the way digital images are displayed and printed. The color resolution
    is not as good, but the human eye is bad at color too, so it provides the
    right ratio of luminance resolution to color resolution.

    > I use a 2Mp Bayer camera (Canon A40), and I have no issues such as you
    > describe. As I type this, I am looking at a 6 X 9 print from this
    > camera---and I have no clue what this "suffering" is about. The picture
    > is flawless.
    >
    > Foveon--IMHO--set out to create a market niche by advertising a solution
    > to a problem that most of us did not know we had (An still don't). By my
    > reading, they have failed. YMMV.


    That's exactly right.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Nov 21, 2003
    #4
  5. BG250

    K2 Guest

    On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 15:32:20 -0800, "mark herring"
    <> wrote:

    >I suspect there is a reason that the overwhelming majority of digicams use
    >the Bayer architecture.


    They use it because it's been the only thing available for years.
    That's why reviewers have described single-pixel full-color as the
    Holy Grail of digital photography. Foveon is just the first to achieve
    it, and maybe an even better approach will come along too.

    Bayer is a relic of old technology, like RGB TV screens where, if you
    get close enough, you can see only primary colors. There has been NO
    "choice" between Bayer and other options until recently. The buzz
    about Foveon and the rave reviews exist for good reason. Haven't you
    read any of the Web & magazine reviews, or do you just get information
    here?

    I fully expect to see Bayer mostly phased out within 5 years (in the
    better cameras), replaced by either Foveon or some other full color
    pixel technology.

    K2
     
    K2, Nov 21, 2003
    #5
  6. "K2" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 15:32:20 -0800, "mark herring"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    > >I suspect there is a reason that the overwhelming majority of digicams

    use
    > >the Bayer architecture.

    >
    > They use it because it's been the only thing available for years.


    The only practical thing, yes, but there are several other methods (multiple
    aligned sensors, scanning backs, color filter wheels, Sensor offset+fixed
    color filter, colored lighting on multiple achromatic shots, etc.).

    They are not as universal and low cost as Bayer CFA sensor designs, and THAT
    (cost and revenue potential) are the reason of they widespread use, not the
    lack of alternatives.

    > That's why reviewers have described single-pixel full-color as the
    > Holy Grail of digital photography. Foveon is just the first to achieve
    > it, and maybe an even better approach will come along too.


    That's right, but in case a compromise needs to be made, e.g. favoring full
    well depth versus reduced well depth, the Bayer CFA offers a good balance.
    It's not perfect, but neither are the other alternatives.

    > Bayer is a relic of old technology, like RGB TV screens where, if you
    > get close enough, you can see only primary colors.


    My TV still does that, and my CRT monitor, and the color LCD on my digicam,
    and ...
    A pixel is monochromatic.

    > There has been NO
    > "choice" between Bayer and other options until recently. The buzz
    > about Foveon and the rave reviews exist for good reason. Haven't you
    > read any of the Web & magazine reviews, or do you just get information
    > here?


    No, too much (deliberate) misinformation is spread here, but luckily some
    good contributions as well. Scientific literature may be harder to grasp
    because it often focusses on a small particular issue, but it helps to
    understand better.

    > I fully expect to see Bayer mostly phased out within 5 years (in the
    > better cameras), replaced by either Foveon or some other full color
    > pixel technology.


    Does your crystal ball also predict the stock market, if so: do share your
    insight (but in another forum). If you say you "fully expect", there must be
    some foundation, yet you choose not to share it. If you would have said "I
    shouldn't be surprised...", then it's an opinion, something everybody is
    entitled to.

    Bart
     
    Bart van der Wolf, Nov 21, 2003
    #6
    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. qwerty
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    7,197
    Sam Lowry
    Jan 7, 2004
  2. Ryan Bygland
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    986
    MarkĀ²
    Jan 14, 2007
  3. Ed
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    556
    Toolman Tim
    Mar 2, 2006
  4. dg
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,215
  5. Moke Gibboni

    PC powers up, then down, then up again!

    Moke Gibboni, Feb 28, 2008, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    748
    Moke Gibboni
    Mar 2, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page