Optical vs. interpolated resolutions, illustrated

http://www.pbase.com/optical_vs_interpolated

 

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?

 

What's it trying to show / say ?

 

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.

 

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.

 

What's with the B.S. grew print on a black background???
-Rich

 

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.

 

They seem biased towards Bayer images. The Bayer images look much better
than the Foveon image.

 

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.

 

With Foveon images, that is correct. With Bayer the image is almost
completely unchanged by downsizing to quarter-size, as is shown so
nicely.

 

With Foveon images, that is correct. With Bayer the image is almost
completely unchanged by downsizing to quarter-size, as is shown so
nicely.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

Even if this was true at least they would be the correct colors.

 

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.

 

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?

 

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.