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

Discussion in 'Kodak' started by K2, Nov 28, 2003.

  1. Certainly not when you use a DSLR with a blurry sensor.
    That's worth $2500. Why not buy 6 pro lenses instead?
    Not with a blurry sensor they don't.
    With a blurry sensor? Irrelevant.
    That's because your 10D is completely blind to features less that 4 pixels

    And you forget the main reason 10D owners buy L glass: It's a fashion
    George Preddy, Dec 12, 2003
    1. Advertisements

  2. K2

    Guest Guest

    You really are excelling yourself now Georgey boy.
    Go on post a link to another of your horrid pictures again, I like it when
    you do that.
    How about the blue/yellow tiger one?
    Or the portraits with weird skin tones.
    Or something with some near horizontal or vertical lines in it.
    Guest, Dec 12, 2003
    1. Advertisements

  3. Click the links I provided first.


    Compare to medium format film quality (unfortunately heavily JPEG'd,

    Canon 10D images (hard to find, full size) are awash in Bayer color
    artifacts too:

    You'll see how poorly these outrageously expensive Bayer (good camera
    bodies, shame they only have an interpolated sensor inside) cameras really
    perform. Image quality from Bayers is very poor, awash in color artifacts,
    but given 13.72M sensors and massive downsizing (to 3.43MP), some of the
    artifacting can be averaged out. Bayer is still no where even close to
    color 35mm film, though when imaging a B&W target (and after being digitally
    converted to B&W to eliminate any color moire) in can approach the B&W
    resolution of 35mm color film, but probably still not 35mm B&W film.

    Sigma DSLRs (only) approach medium format color film, when enlarged less
    than 40 inches...
    George Preddy, Dec 13, 2003
  4. K2

    Don Stauffer Guest

    Lets not confuse resolution with detection. By that reasoning, we
    cannot see stars, because the human eye cannot resolve a feature size
    anywhere near the angular size of a star.

    Contrast of image of subpixel object is reduced, but if original
    contrast is high enough, you will see it- camera is not 'blind' to it.
    Don Stauffer, Dec 13, 2003
  5. Well, you might see something, but you won't see "it." If a thin line of
    color, say razor thin CA in this case, falls as a single pixel wide line on
    the sensor, the SD9 will resolve its color perfectly and display it
    perfectly (even if it is less than a pixel wide as long as it is the
    dominant color), while a Bayer sensor will show it as a blurred collection
    of mosiac color artifacts, as each sensor alternates from red to gren to
    blue as the thin line falls across the sensor, the rainbow of these randomly
    colored artifacts (in that, they have no correlation to the real color) then
    get partially "borrowed" into adjacent pixels that didn't even sense it,
    bluring anything less than 4 pixels wide unrecognizably. It would simply be
    protrayed as mostly random color artifacts blurred partially into
    surrounding pixels.
    George Preddy, Dec 14, 2003
  6. This analyzis is totally correct. And this shows a theoretical advantage
    of Foveon over Bayer. I don't really think that anyone can argue that you
    are wrong here.

    But ... there are some things to take inte account

    * A sampling system shall use an anti alias filter. Therefore, no
    thin one pixel lines will exist on the sensor. I know you don't agree
    (yet?), but it is a fact IMHO.
    * A good Bayer interpolation algorithm shall do hue smoothing. Therefore,
    the multi colored mosaic will not either exist in the final picture.
    In practice, there might be some residue of color artefacts.
    * Real world scenes (usually) are much nicer to the Bayer sensor than
    the example you described.

    Roland Karlsson, Dec 14, 2003
  7. K2

    Mike Engles Guest


    Most of the images on the Dpreview of the Canon 300 have purple/green
    artifacts, just like the SD9. Th Canon ones are just blurred away.
    You can see the artifacts, where some sort of sharpening has taken
    place. It is a exactly similar, but not to the same degree as the SD9.

    It has to be said that at 100% viewing it is not noticable. The images
    just lack detail.

    The choice seems to be apparent sharpness with jaggs(SD9) or no jaggs
    and blurriness(Canon et al).

    As far as I can see, they all have to do better.

    Mike Engles
    Mike Engles, Dec 15, 2003
  8. Not totally. The word "perfectly" doesn't fit reality. Since the color
    sensitivities of the Foveon sensors are determined by the depth of
    silicon between them, they can't be tailored very well to make color
    separation effective--hence lousy, not perfect, color resolution.

    No free lunch. Even if real color filters could be introduced into a
    stacked-element sensor, the lower ones would still be limited to
    whatever got through the upper ones. Not insurmountable, in that film
    manages to deal with the same problem. But nobody has tried it so far.
    I just did, but who am I?
    It is not just your opinion, humble or otherwise. It is a mathematical
    fact that data at beyond-Nyquist frequencies, if allowed to reach the
    sampler, will produce below-Nyquist artifacts that cannot be filtered
    out afterward.

    Rodney Myrvaagnes J36 Gjo/a

    "In this house we _obey_ the laws of thermodynamics." --Homer Simpson
    Rodney Myrvaagnes, Dec 15, 2003
  9. K2

    Guest Guest

    Anyone else like the irony of George posting this about ANYBOBY.
    Guest, Dec 15, 2003
  10. K2

    Guest Guest

    Err, it's not Sweaty Betty.

    Guest, Dec 15, 2003
  11. K2

    Guest Guest

    As long as it doesn't land in the gaps between the sensors....
    Guest, Dec 15, 2003
  12. K2

    Guest Guest

    Yep, the bayers kick the aqss of the foveon again. Not too bad ISO 1600 10D
    shot, but I spose you hoped we wouldn't notice that and assume it was ISO
    Guest, Dec 15, 2003
  13. K2

    JB Guest

    As has been pointed out *many* times, the lack of an anti-aliasing
    filter introduces aliasing artifacts which can be much worse than just
    jaggs - e.g. low frequency signals created by the sampling process
    which cannot be filtered afterwards.

    JB, Dec 15, 2003
  14. I just tried to be nice to George :)

    You are entirely correct BTW.

    My point was that George's reasoning was theoretically sound.
    The Bayer filters has the theoretical problem that he points out.
    In practice, this theoretical problem is not all that large.
    In practice, the SD9 does not have a perfect RGB sensor either.

    Roland Karlsson, Dec 15, 2003
  15. Not really.

    The SD9 artefacts cannot be removed.

    The Canon et al "blurriness" can be improved, using sharpening.
    For some reason, Phil at DPReview chooses not to apply any
    post processing before publishing pictures. This is not fair to
    cameras where you are assumed to do post processing for best result.

    Roland Karlsson, Dec 15, 2003
  16. K2

    JPS Guest

    In message <>,
    The texture of entire objects are screwed up by the SD9; not just edges.
    Look at any distant trees, or brick walls, or shingled roofs; if they
    are in focus, they have false texture.
    JPS, Dec 15, 2003
  17. (pehache) wrote in
    Hmmmm ... yes it is true that aliasing results in low
    frequency artefacts. But - it is not as easy as that.
    You also have to take the phase into account. Phase errors
    (due to aliasing) will give stair effects and other
    funny stuff that affects only some few pixels.

    Roland Karlsson, Dec 16, 2003
  18. K2

    JB Guest

    That was exactly my point!

    JB, Dec 17, 2003
  19. (pehache) wrote in

    Maybe I was unclear.

    It is of course high frequencies that are aliased.

    But, if you have a sharp lens and take a picture of
    a sharp edge, then this edge contains high frequencies.
    If this edge then is slightly slanted, then you will get
    a very strong staircase lookalike effect. This is aliasing
    and the staircase effect is low frequency, i.e. it is larger
    than one pixel. Looks bad - really bad.

    If you add an anti alias filter (or the lens simply is not
    sharp enough), then you will not get any aliasing. You can
    still get a staircase effect on upscaling. But the "stairs"
    are one pixel large only.

    Roland Karlsson, Dec 17, 2003
  20. K2

    Mike Engles Guest


    That was the problem. I was looking at A300 images.

    Mike Engles
    Mike Engles, Dec 17, 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.