Bayer with NO anti-aliasing (Kodak Pro 14n)

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by K2, Nov 28, 2003.

  1. K2

    Mxsmanic Guest

    Black ink is still used because the CMY inks used in most printing
    presses are not sufficiently pure to produce a dense black with
    acceptable levels of ink. So a black ink is added to allow dark black
    detail without overloading the paper with ink.

    Web sites with colored text on colored backgrounds may or may not be
    annoying, depending on the choice of colors. If the colors chosen share
    RGB components (i.e., red on orange, but not red on blue) and luminance
    contrast is high enough, they'll look fine.
    Mxsmanic, Dec 2, 2003
    1. Advertisements

  2. Because there's no loss of sensitivity. There's a loss of resolution. The R
    pixels in a three-color sensor each see the same intensity (number of
    photons per unit time) and the pixels in a Bayer sensor. Same signal. Just
    fewer of them. It's not a loss of sensitivity, it's a loss of resoltion.
    There's no loss of luminance resolution.
    Like when viewing prints.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
    David J. Littleboy, Dec 2, 2003
    1. Advertisements

  3. Check the B&W res results on dpreview. The SD9 beats all other DSLRs
    listed. In resolving colors it would truly dominate, but that isn't
    George Preddy, Dec 2, 2003
  4. You mean the 2999 out of 3000? Did you want to see them all?
    George Preddy, Dec 2, 2003
  5. K2

    Rafe B. Guest

    No silly boy, I'm not talking about photos.
    I'm talking about text, where the intent is
    simple black text that's legible and easy
    to read.

    Point being that perception of detail is
    done is mostly done with luminosity;
    color perception has very poor spatial
    detail -- which is why Foveon isn't really
    such a bright idea after all.

    Never quite as fine as simple black on white.

    rafe b.
    Rafe B., Dec 2, 2003
  6. 6M 1/3rd spectrum samples is no where even close to 3.4M full spectrum

    'Don't cameras already use all the light that enters the lens? Film cameras
    do, but digital cameras, with few exceptions, don't. As Mead puts it, "They
    throw away two-thirds of the light." That makes sense only if you understand
    how a typical image sensor works. It's basically a rectangle of silicon on
    which millions of microscopic light-sensitive pixels (technically they're
    not pixels, but that's what these light-sensing points have come to be
    called in the digital-camera business) are arranged in a grid. Pixels can't
    sense color. So a checkerboard of tiny red, green, or blue filters must be
    bonded to the surface of the sensor so that each pixel lets in one of the
    three primary colors of light. In so doing, it blocks out the other two.

    By comparing each pixel's single-color reading with that of its neighbors,
    software can derive the values of the two missing colors at each site. That
    takes approximately 100 calculations per pixel. In a four-mega-pixel camera,
    a size commonly available today, that adds up to a lot of number crunching.
    The process is called interpolation, and Mead has a less kind name for it.

    It's a hack," he says. "They have to do all this guesswork to figure out
    what they threw away. They end up with a lot of data, but two-thirds of it
    is made up. We end up with the same amount of data, except ours is real."'

    --Discover magazine
    11.1MP-interpolated Canon 1Ds test image:

    SD9 test image:
    George Preddy, Dec 2, 2003
  7. George,

    that's not how I understand they work. I think the filters don't
    filter out just one color. They only give some preference to one
    color, so the sensor still gets some luminosity information.

    Not so?

    Hans-Georg Michna, Dec 2, 2003
  8. K2

    Mark Herring Guest

    George, you incredible fool;

    This quote has your name on it:

    "A fanatic is one who can't change his
    mind and won't change the subject." -- Sir Winston Churchill

    Mark Herring, Pasadena, Calif.
    Private e-mail: Just say no to "No".
    Mark Herring, Dec 2, 2003
  9. K2

    Mark Herring Guest

    Each filter has a bandpass characteristic---some wavelengths are
    passed--others are blocked.

    But---ANY measurement taken thru a spectral filter yields some
    luminosity information.

    If this thread started the way I suspect, then the real issue is that
    you can get good spatial resolution by sampling in different colors.
    The Bayer does this at the expense of COLOR spatial resolution---a
    trade that seems to work well in the vast majority of digital cameras.

    It is the trade that got us compatible color TV, so how bad can it
    Mark Herring, Pasadena, Calif.
    Private e-mail: Just say no to "No".
    Mark Herring, Dec 2, 2003
  10. The colors are sampled from 3 mutually exclusive populations, so the SD9
    takes a full 10.3M spatial samples. Taking a red sample next to a green
    doesn't affect green sampling frequency, or vice versa. And shielding
    2/3rds of the light from hitting the sensor definitely doesn't increase
    total optical capture.
    George Preddy, Dec 2, 2003
  11. K2

    Azzz1588 Guest

    And thats what we have been telling george for a while now.

    We all think the technology looks like a good idea, it just
    hasnt been implemented properly right now. But the future looks
    promising. I dont think any of us want the foevon to fail, or
    not continue to progress.

    George dosnt realize it, but he is poisioning future potential
    foevon, and sigma customers here with his lies, and mistruths, as well
    as the bad pictures he posts...........

    "Only a Gentleman can insult me, and a true Gentleman never will..."
    Azzz1588, Dec 2, 2003
  12. K2

    Azzz1588 Guest

    No, I cant admit that you get 10mp from a 3.34 mp camera period.

    And there is no face for me to lose, I dont own either, and am
    not biased (or wasnt) untill you showed your crappy sigma pic's, and
    than proceeded to, and still do lie about the issue

    Again you like cheese colored people, than good for you. I personally
    dont know that any that are not in a hospital when they look like that...

    "Only a Gentleman can insult me, and a true Gentleman never will..."
    Azzz1588, Dec 2, 2003
  13. K2

    Azzz1588 Guest


    Are you colorblind ????

    Do you like cheese colored people ????

    Please let me know.

    "Only a Gentleman can insult me, and a true Gentleman never will..."
    Azzz1588, Dec 2, 2003
  14. K2

    Azzz1588 Guest

    Ahhh.... I see the lying will never cease from geroge.........

    "Only a Gentleman can insult me, and a true Gentleman never will..."
    Azzz1588, Dec 2, 2003
  15. You can't get 3 spatial samples from one sample location. The Foveon
    sensor has only 3.4 million sample locations. It has the same spatial
    resolution as any other 3.4 MP sensor.

    Dave Martindale, Dec 2, 2003
  16. If Bayer processing is so expensive, how come all digital cameras except
    the Sigma ones have the processing for that plus JPEG compression built
    in? If Foveon image processing is so much simpler, why doesn't the
    Sigma camera do the small amount of needed processing in camera?
    Discover magazine is hardly a good source for information on imaging.
    The piece you quote is basically just a marketing blurb. And I notice
    that it doesn't mention anything about the fact that the output of the
    camera isn't usable RGB, it's three numbers that require quite a lot of
    processing (gasp!) to produce a viewable image.
    Those tests show the resolution of a saturated red/blue test pattern,
    conditions that never occur in nature.

    They're *also* not a fair test, because the magnification of the target
    was higher for the Sigma than the Canon. The author of the test freely
    admits that on the page, so he's not trying to hide anything. But when
    you point us to the test images without the description of test
    conditions, and without telling us about the magnification difference,
    it's fraudulent. You're dishonest, pure and simple.

    Dave Martindale, Dec 2, 2003
  17. SNIP
    It has been explained to you (to help you with your lack of reading skills)
    that the field of view was different. Only an idiot would compare such
    different things.

    Bart van der Wolf, Dec 2, 2003
  18. The three populations are sampled at identical positions at the same time.

    Bart van der Wolf, Dec 2, 2003
  19. An idiot if he's doing it unintentionally, a fraud if he's doing it
    deliberately. Since the FOV difference has been explained several times
    already, I tend towards the latter explanation.

    Dave Martindale, Dec 2, 2003
  20. I was being kind ;-)

    Bart van der Wolf, Dec 2, 2003
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.