The death of the Bayer filter? Maybe not.

Discussion in 'Digital Cameras' started by Rich, Apr 4, 2012.

  1. Rich

    Rich Guest

    I don't hate the Bayer. I think it's a clever way to deal with a problem
    that some find objectionable. But its days could be numbered.
    Don't know if resolution is improved yet, but it's nice to know that it
    only costs $1700(!) to get a non-flawed Fuji when mainstream makers produce
    $500 DSLRs that meet the spec.
    Rich, Apr 4, 2012
    1. Advertisements

  2. Rich

    Mxsmanic Guest

    A Bayer filter and an anti-aliasing filter are two different things.
    Mxsmanic, Apr 4, 2012
    1. Advertisements

  3. Rich

    Me Guest

    IIRC this camera uses a "pseudo random" pattern for RGBG filters, which
    theoretically gets rid of *colour moire, and possibly reduces luminance
    moire (by more random placement of green sensels than a repeating bayer
    pattern), so there's less need for a low pass filter.
    I guess that demosaicking raw files is rather complicated, the only raw
    converter supporting the camera for now is Silkypix - which I've tried
    in the past and I thought it really sucked, but YMMV.
    It's a good idea, but with higher and higher resolution with
    conventional bayer filters, when at those higher resolutions the low
    pass filter needs to be less aggressive (on a whole image basis) to
    produce the same anti-aliasing effect (on a per pixel basis as a lower
    resolution sensor), any "need" for such an innovative solution may have
    already passed.

    *It can't work perfectly, only reduce the incidence perhaps in repeating
    patterns - as any point of white light hitting the sensor at a size less
    than one sensel, is going to be recorded as R, G, or B - not white.
    Me, Apr 4, 2012
  4. Rich

    Bruce Guest


    You should be celebrating the X-Pro1 because it is a traditionally
    made metal bodied camera. This is exactly what you have been asking
    for yet, true to type, you cannot resist dissing it!

    One of the reasons that you can buy cheap DSLRs with something like
    comparable performance is because they are made of plastic. Perhaps
    now you can see why?

    As for the death of the Bayer pattern, it isn't. This is no Foveon
    and there is still a pattern. It may not be the exact Bayer pattern
    but the principle is very much the same. However, what we are seeing
    is the slow death of the AA filter, which is very welcome.

    The X-Pro1 does not seem to be afflicted with the multiple teething
    problems of its X100 and X10 companions. However, it seems to have
    sloooow AF. I haven't had the chance to give one an extended trial so
    I will reserve a final judgement until I do, but based on the reviews
    I have read the AF speed could well be the X-Pro1's Achilles' heel.

    I am not attracted by the lens selection. I would like to see
    equivalents of my favourite rangefinder lenses, which would mean a
    16mm f/2.8 and a 24mm f/1.4 in addition to the 60mm f/2.4 that
    Fujifilm got about right. Instead, there is an 18mm f/2 (???) and a
    23mm f/2, with presumably the same optics as the X100 lens.

    There will be two zooms, a 12-20mm f/4 and a 70-200mm f/4, both image
    stabilised. I don't think anyone in their right mind would buy a
    70-200mm lens for a 'rangefinder' camera with an APS-C sensor.

    So I am not convinced by the X-Pro1. The Leica M10 will probably cost
    four times as much, but it will be the complete digital rangefinder
    camera with lenses in focal lengths that people want. There is a
    little over a month to go before the M10 is announced, possibly
    accompanied by Leica's take on a mirrorless system camera.
    Bruce, Apr 4, 2012
  5. Rich

    Mxsmanic Guest

    It would also reduce color resolution. If it's actually being done, it sounds
    like a gimmick.

    The whole issue of aliasing is past history; I don't know why people still
    worry about it. When you have a large number of pixels, you don't need to
    worry about aliasing. So the ultimate solution for aliasing is more pixels.
    There will always be aliasing of details that are sufficiently small, if the
    lens can resolve them, but the aliasing will not be noticeable or troublesome.

    Even in the old days, when sensors had far fewer pixels, I never really
    noticed problems with aliasing. I'd rather take the risk of aliasing than put
    up with the blur of anti-aliasing.
    Mxsmanic, Apr 4, 2012
  6. Rich

    Andrew Haley Guest

    It's nothing like pseudo-random. shows that it's a 6x6
    array instead of a 2x2 array. This 6x6 array is rotationally
    symmetrical, and it repeats across the sensor. It has the interesting
    property that there are fewer blue and red pixels than a Bayer sensor
    has: 8R:20G:8B instead of 9:18:9. It probably won't make much

    Andrew Haley, Apr 4, 2012
  7. Rich

    RichA Guest

    Silkypix isn't bad. I compared it against a slew of other RAW
    converters and it actually produced sharper images than some, like
    Capture One. This goes back a few years. But, its interface, at
    least with Pentax bundles, was terrible.
    RichA, Apr 4, 2012
  8. Rich

    RichA Guest

    Are you kidding? I'd take one in a minute. But maybe not at $3000+
    for one with 2 lenses. I'd rather get a traditional DSLR, like the
    upcoming D400 with the new 16-85mm f4.0 zoom.
    I was referring more to function. See: AF quality and speed.
    True. I had a Fuji S5 so I know about "different" sensors and what
    they produce. The jury is still out, but this one looks pretty good.
    Same as Pentax.
    I thought the practical limit for rangefinder focusing was 135mm for
    35mm? Personally, I like how they are breaking from tradition with
    different focal lengths than what we are used to getting from Canon
    and Nikon. They aren't the first to do that. A 12-20mm f4.0 is
    interesting, not quite 2x and not that fast, so maybe it's to keep the
    size reasonable? Also, it will be sharper across the board than an
    f2.8., all things being equal. As for the 70-200mm, it probably makes
    more sense here with a reasonable sized body than on some of the other
    more diminutive mirrorless offerings from other companies.
    RichA, Apr 4, 2012
  9. Rich

    RichA Guest

    Didn't Sony produce a sensor with yellow pixels at one point in a
    P&S? Anyone know how that turned out?
    RichA, Apr 4, 2012
  10. No, it wouldn't. It has the same proportions of pixels in each color,
    the placement is simply less regular -- more like film grain, less like
    a tic-tac-toe board.
    I've seen recent examples of pictures containing horrible aliasing.
    You mostly haven't had that choice. And if you're working fast and in
    field conditions, you're MUCH better off with the AA filter.
    David Dyer-Bennet, Apr 4, 2012
  11. Rich

    Bruce Guest

    More green is welcome, because that is where the Bayer pattern is
    deficient - and that's in spite of having 50% of the pixels against
    25% for each of red and blue.
    Bruce, Apr 4, 2012
  12. Rich

    Bruce Guest

    How are you getting along with your new GH2, Rich?
    Bruce, Apr 4, 2012
  13. Rich

    Me Guest

    I hadn't seen that on DPReview. I thought I'd seen a description on
    Fuji's website describing the array pattern as semi-random. It looks
    like it's a lot more pseudo and a lot less random than I'd expected.
    Me, Apr 4, 2012
  14. Rich

    Me Guest

    IIRC that was white pixels - but then again nothing would surprise me.
    Sharp make TV panels with yellow pixels. This seems to be >99% BS.
    Sometimes competition/marketing ends up driving complex and even elegant
    solutions to problems which never existed.
    Me, Apr 4, 2012
  15. Rich

    RichA Guest

    I traded it back and ordered the E-5M. The 14-140mm had zoom-
    creep. But honestly, I wanted the Olympus in the first place.
    RichA, Apr 4, 2012
  16. Rich

    RichA Guest

    True. You look at the black-body charts for sensors and green is
    RichA, Apr 4, 2012
  17. That was my reaction when reading the press release and then seeing the
    diagram of the actual filter arrangement, yes.
    David Dyer-Bennet, Apr 4, 2012
  18. I started my digital photography processing with 128 x 129 pixel
    images in a lab. Aliasing was a very serious problem! But accuracy was
    sufficiently important that aliasing was dealt with by trying to
    recognise the artefacts and the probable underlying reality (such as a
    staircased stright edge) rather than trying to avoid aliasing by some
    kind of blurring.
    Chris Malcolm, Apr 5, 2012
  19. Rich

    Mxsmanic Guest

    Less regular means more anomalies in the recording of color. Yes, that's like
    grain ... but is grain what you want?
    If there is horrible aliasing, it can be adjusted in post. That's way
    preferable to blurring every single photo just on the off chance that there
    might be a problem with aliasing.
    Nope, I want the output of the camera to be as unmanipulated as possible, so
    that I can make any necessary adjustments in post. Changes made in the camera
    cannot be undone, and if they ruin a photo, you're out of luck.

    That's why so many DSLRs actually produce poor video, incidentally.
    Mxsmanic, Apr 5, 2012
  20. Rich

    Mxsmanic Guest

    I prefer more blue and red, not less. I'd like an equal number of green, red,
    and blue pixels, in sufficiently high number to make favoritism for green a
    moot point.
    Mxsmanic, Apr 5, 2012
    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.