Optical vs. interpolated resolutions, illustrated

Discussion in 'Digital SLR' started by george_preddy, Jun 5, 2005.

  1. george_preddy, Jun 5, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. george_preddy

    Stacey Guest

    LOL, the foveon shot is a 571K file and the bayer is compressed down to
    127K with loads of nasty jpeg artifacts. I'm sure there isn't any Hokey
    pokey going on with the edits either..

    Hmm I wonder if the person who put this up has any bias?
     
    Stacey, Jun 5, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. george_preddy

    dylan Guest

    dylan, Jun 5, 2005
    #3
  4. george_preddy

    chrlz Guest

    Yes, the Bayer ones are clearly much better, in spite of the smaller
    file sizes and the attempt to cheat.

    And what's with the awful color on the Sigma? I didn't think it would
    be *that* bad.

    Thanks for the warning, George, but I think we already *know* that the
    Sigma/Foveon thing was a disaster.
     
    chrlz, Jun 5, 2005
    #4
  5. george_preddy

    dylan Guest

    I see it now, take some poor pictures, reduce the size, enlarge them again
    and they aren't as good as the originals. Wow, who would of thought that !.
    Also ensure you don't take the same pictures under the same conditions with
    the different equipments to enable comparison, also don't specify any of the
    equipments used, eg camera, lens, iso and any processing software that was
    used.
     
    dylan, Jun 5, 2005
    #5
  6. george_preddy

    RichA Guest

    RichA, Jun 5, 2005
    #6
  7. george_preddy

    KennyJr Guest

    Why didn't you take the same shot with both cameras so that people could
    make direct comparisons? I was able to make some comparisons with the
    shots provided.

    1) The Foveon image apears to have muddied colors, while the Bayer
    images have bright, vidid colors.

    2) the Foveon image appears out of focus, while the Bayer images appear
    sharp throughout the image.

    From the image samples provided it appears Foveon images are inferior to
    Bayer images. Perhaps it would be best to take the same shots with each
    camera to make direct one on one comparison, because these images
    clearly favor Bayer imaging.
     
    KennyJr, Jun 5, 2005
    #7
  8. george_preddy

    KennyJr Guest

    They seem biased towards Bayer images. The Bayer images look much better
    than the Foveon image.
     
    KennyJr, Jun 5, 2005
    #8
  9. The Bayer images are from a pro review site, the Foveon image is a
    handheld snapshot. Obviusly the Bayer iamge is uncompetitive in terms
    of resolution and sharpness.

    But the main thing to get out of the site is that Bayer resolution is
    almost completely unchanged by downsizing by 75%! While the image
    Foveon loses 75% of its (optical) resolution when downsized to 25%.
    Why? Because an 8MP Bayer photo is a 2MP RBG photo, upscaled to 8MP as
    recorded by the camera.
    That's true, Bayer colors are almost always overblown. That's because
    they are aimed at amateurs who usually prefer overblown, cartoon-like
    colors to color accuracy which can be more boring.
    Funny one.

    Children playing aside, the fact that Bayer images are largely
    unchanged from downsizing by as whopping 75% is probably a shocking
    revelation for most, but an average day at the office for the
    manufacture's executives often charging upwards of $5000 for 2MP RGB
    camera, interpolated to 8MP recorded.
     
    george_preddy, Jun 5, 2005
    #9
  10. With Foveon images, that is correct. With Bayer the image is almost
    completely unchanged by downsizing to quarter-size, as is shown so
    nicely.
     
    george_preddy, Jun 5, 2005
    #10
  11. With Foveon images, that is correct. With Bayer the image is almost
    completely unchanged by downsizing to quarter-size, as is shown so
    nicely.
     
    george_preddy, Jun 5, 2005
    #11
  12. Just you, screwing up. You are looking at the thumbnails, not the
    originals.
    The 8.2MP Bayer image is around 4MBs.
    The 3.4MP Foveon image is about the same.

    But I did forgot to tell you how to use your web browser, sorry.
     
    george_preddy, Jun 5, 2005
    #12
  13. You both need to learn how to use a web browser. There are these
    things called thumbnails, you click them to open the originals.

    No wonder Bayer users never post images bigger than 640x480, they don't
    know these sites automatically create thumbnails for you.
     
    george_preddy, Jun 5, 2005
    #13
  14. Some people are bound to have a nasty reaction when they are shown that
    the digital camera they bought only delivers about 25% of its
    advertised, full color resolution.
     
    george_preddy, Jun 5, 2005
    #14
  15. george_preddy

    dylan Guest

    Choose some decent examples to try this on, not this collection of poor
    shots. You can even see the bayers are degraded even on these poor examples.
     
    dylan, Jun 5, 2005
    #15
  16. george_preddy

    Hannah Guest

    You twerp. No pros use Canon?
    Damn, I've been dreaming for four years.
    Anybody want to buy a pair of 1DS MkIIs? I need to get rid and buy pro
    cameras.
    H.
     
    Hannah, Jun 5, 2005
    #16
  17. george_preddy

    dylan Guest

    Even if this was true at least they would be the correct colors.
     
    dylan, Jun 5, 2005
    #17
  18. Lot's of pros use Canon, but few understand what they have: a
    monochrome sensor sub-divded into 3 very small RGB sensors.

    All Bayer camera's, not just dishonest Canon, color resolution is
    obviously the resolution of the small composite color imag obtained by
    overlayingthe 3 tiny exposures, not the overall monochrome MP rating
    that is advertised.

    OBVIOUSLY when you overlay 3 monochromatic R+G+B exposures, the
    resulting composite image's full color resolution is equal in dimension
    to any one of the 3 RGB originals.

    You don't magically get the full color resolution of all 3 monochrome
    RGB exposures, added together.
    Already have one, no thanks.
    The 1DMkII is a good camera, but it's only 2MP in RGB, as shown.
     
    george_preddy, Jun 5, 2005
    #18
  19. Doesn't it make you sad to think of the outrageous amount of money you
    spent and all you got was a 3.24MP kiddie toy?
     
    Randall Ainsworth, Jun 5, 2005
    #19
  20. george_preddy

    Hannah Guest

    You idiot. 99.8% of pros use Canon. Certainly, none use Sigma. I know one or
    two loyal to Nikon.
    Carry on and wet dream about your Foveon rubbish. Instead of muttering and
    dribbling over numbers why not get out there and photograph something.
    All I know is that my subdivided thingies, whatever, earn me a hell of a lot
    of 16.7 megapixel money.
    Twerp.

    Looking forward to more words of wisdom from your wife and daughter George.
    Sarah and Molly.
    How are they, by the way? Well I hope.

    Hannah.
     
    Hannah, Jun 5, 2005
    #20
    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.