The death of the Bayer filter? Maybe not.

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

  1. Rich

    TheRealSteve Guest

    You can't provide an example of my cherry picking. But here's a
    perfect example of yours. You're trying to compare two different
    definitions of megapixels which shows you don't really know what a
    megapixel is and will believe whatever Sigma is feeding you.
    Exactly! And that's why you can't compare megapixels between Sigma's
    definition for Foveon and Bayer. It's precisely because selsels and
    locations aren't used in the marketing hype, they are fooling you.
    And there's where you're falling into the trap of their marketing
    hype. You're comparing Sigma's definition of megapixels to the rest of
    the world's definition of megapixels. And they are different.
    Just more things you're making up. You're just as wrong about me
    buying a Foveon as you are about everytihng else. I.e., totally.
    TheRealSteve, May 9, 2012
    1. Advertisements

    Wolfgang Weisselberg, May 9, 2012
    1. Advertisements

  3. [/QUOTE]

    No answer is also an answer.

    Of course I can. You even redefine pixel counts on Foveon, just
    because you get a hard on with your "nya nya nya foveon have more
    resolution than bayer per megixel nya nya nya".
    That's not cherry picking, that's just using the definitions as
    used by their respective proponents. That doesn't change anything
    in the results, except for your nya nya nya fetishism.

    Of course you can!
    It just destroys your nya nya nya.
    You change the megapixel definition for Foveon, why not for
    Bayer, too?
    You're comparing 3 sensels pixels to one sensel pixels.
    You're falling for your own hype, comparing *your* definition of
    megapixels to the rest of the world's definition of megapixels.

    That means you have a whole bunch of Foveon cameras. You're real
    good at denying reality.

    Wolfgang Weisselberg, May 10, 2012
  4. Rich

    Guest Guest

    it's not, as any test chart shows.
    and they do. foveon has a lot of problems and it doesn't solve anything
    that needs to be solved either. it's one of the biggest scams.
    Guest, May 10, 2012
  5. Rich

    Guest Guest

    one of the rare instances where you are correct.

    sigma has their own definition of pixel and what's really sad is they
    use both the standard definition and their bogus one, often in the same
    marketing material.
    Guest, May 10, 2012
  6. Rich

    Guest Guest

    the only person who laughed was you, only because you didn't understand
    what it was you were looking at.

    that video proved there is aliasing below nyquist, as do numerous other
    the fact that you failed basic signal theory goes a long way towards
    explaining why you keep coming up with these absurd statements.
    just to be clear, are you saying that for a given sampling frequency n,
    *nothing* at all below n it will alias? that the *only* aliasing is
    above n? and what happens *at* n?

    if that's what you're saying, you're *very* wrong.
    i'm not the one who doesn't understand it, particularly with the
    nonsense you've spewed above.
    Guest, May 10, 2012
  7. Rich

    Guest Guest

    actually, no it doesn't.
    true, you won't get *those* specific artifacts, but you'll will
    definitely get artifacts. they'll look a little different (no false
    colour) but there will definitely be artifacts.

    how is it you can't grasp something so simple?
    Guest, May 10, 2012
  8. Rich

    TheRealSteve Guest

    You need to check back on that thread. You're just as confused as to
    who discounted that video as you are about everything else.
    Proving once again you're confusion on very basic concepts concerning
    sampling theory.
    If you actually took some basic signal processing theory you would
    understand why that video isn't showing what you think it's showing.
    You would understand that there isn't aliasing in the captured
    waveform if the sampling frequency is above nyquist. The fact that
    you're too unwilling to even look something like that up on the web
    when it's readily available shows that you're not only confused but
    also lazy, and just don't care about learning anything. Even wikipedia
    can help you. But there are many university class handouts online you
    can peruse. You just refuse to.
    Even your question shows you don't know what you're talking about.
    If you actually mean n/2 and not n, then your question makes some
    sense. But you are still confused. You can look up online what the
    answer to your question is. But as long as you realize that it has no
    bearing on either what the video was showing or our disussion on the
    bayer sensor and is merely a specious attempt by you to prove that you
    know at least something about sampling theory, and that attempt
    failed, then we're good.
    Yet another in a long stream of statements by you that's factually
    TheRealSteve, May 11, 2012
  9. Rich

    TheRealSteve Guest

    Actually, yes it does. The fact you don't understand why it does shows
    your confusion.
    Not if the input spatial frequency is below 1/2 the spatial frequency
    of the pixels. Which is not true for bayer.
    It's obviously not simple enough for you to grasp it.
    TheRealSteve, May 11, 2012
  10. Rich

    TheRealSteve Guest

    It is, as test charts do show. Bayer sensors (without a strong AA
    filter that defeats the purpose of a resolution test of the sensor)
    will show alias artifacts at below nyquist. Foveon or 3 sensor systems
    will not. It's pretty simple, but I guess not simple enough for you to
    There's yet another area you're confused about. Either that or you
    just don't care enough about the problems with bayer cfa to worry
    about them. Floyd's paper described very well some of the problems of
    the bayer sensor that Foveon solves. You just choose to discount it,
    which explains a lot.
    TheRealSteve, May 11, 2012
  11. Rich

    TheRealSteve Guest

    Just because you didn't read or understand my answer doesn't mean I
    didn't answer it.
    Wrong again. I'm using the same definition of a pixel count for both.
    You are trying to compare two different definitions of pixel count,
    Sigma's and the rest of the world. If a camera manufacturer defined a
    pixel as the full bucket count of electrons that could be captured at
    each sensel location, you would believe them when they said they have
    a 10000GP sensor and would use that marketing tripe to compare to a
    bayer 10000GP sensor. That only shows your guillability for deceptive
    So you even admit you're using different definitions (the different
    ones used by their respective proponents) in your comparison. The fact
    that you know you're doing something wrong just to say nya nya nya
    shows your fetish.
    You really have a hard on about nya nya nya. So much so that even you
    know you're (at least I think you know) that you're not making sense
    in your comparison just to say nya nya nya.
    Ok, new definition for Bayer. A bayer sensor has as many pixels as the
    full well capacity of the entire sensor. Now compare them. Hey, it's
    just as valid as what you're trying to do above.
    But that's where you're wrong. I'm using the exact same definition in
    terms of the physical reality of the image being captured, not
    marketing hpye. The difference being shown is that the bayer sensor
    doesn't capture the full color information for each pixel while the
    Foveon and 3 sensor systems do, using the same definition of a pixel
    without falling into marketing traps. The bayer has to come up
    algorithmically with the missing information because it wasn't sampled
    from the image. The Foveon and 3 sensor systems do not have to do
    that. Exact same definition of a pixel as it relates to the image
    being captured without having to fall for any marketing hype.

    You have such a hard on to show your fetish for bayer that you can't
    even see why Sigma's marketing hype is deceptive.
    So according to you, is that I either have one Foveon or more than one
    Foveon. Yet another thing you're wrong about.
    Keep em coming.
    TheRealSteve, May 11, 2012
  12. [/QUOTE]
    You didn't answer how I didn't use the marketing hype fully
    to compare.

    Yet if I do use the identical definitions, you call me a cherry

    I am not *trying*. I simply do.

    Nope. I would merely notice that with a TheRealSteve sensor 25GP
    would equal about 1 MP on a Bayer pattern sensor.
    You're the one who measurebates on specious 1:1 comparisons.

    No, I admit to using the same definition. "As used by the people
    who make and market such cameras".
    The fact that I am even talking to a crackpot like you is
    indeed proof that I do something wrong.

    It's you who masturbates on Bayer and Foveon pixels, and the
    latter being "better" in some way. I really don't care about that,
    since Foveon is *way* worse for what I do and need. Which is
    a lot of very high ISO.
    You're really an idiot, you cannot even come up with your own
    arguments, you just steal them.

    Yes, now you finally have a way to really trample Bayer into
    the ground. Congratulations.

    I'm exactly right.
    The image is not even being captured by pixels. It's captured by
    sensels. That's the physical reality of the image being captured.

    So the Foveon marketing hype is much closer to the physical
    reality of the image being captured than your interpretation ...
    But they still don't capture it with pixels, they capture it
    with sensels.
    Nope, the physical reality of the image being captured is
    that they all use sensels.
    1) Try finding insults on your own. Go ask your parents if
    you really cannot come up with them on your own.
    2) You're the one who wants "the physical reality of the
    image being captured" ...

    OK, if you wish ... you are the most intelligent person on
    Earth. Nobody but you is right about anything. I bow to
    your superior intellect.

    More stuff I am wrong about.

    Wolfgang Weisselberg, May 11, 2012
  13. Rich

    TheRealSteve Guest

    The answer was how you *did* use the marketing hype fully to compare.
    Why should I say you didn't use marketing hype to compare when that's
    exactly what you did?
    You can say false all you want when it's obvious it's what you did.
    You didn't use identical definitions because the definitions you chose
    to use were different. Sigma's defiition isn't the same definition as
    everyone else's. They triple it for marketing hype. But then sometimes
    they don't do that. So even their definition isn't consistent.
    Which is why you're wrong. You simply *do* compare different
    definitions of pixels as it relates to what goes into the image being
    captured and presented.
    Lol, which is exactly what you *should* be doing with the Foveon vs.
    Bayer. Sigma's definition of a 45MP sensor would equal about 15MP on a
    Bayer pattern sensor. You are even being inconsistent on your
    application of different definitions. Too funny!
    You're the only one who thinks a 1:1 comparison is specious when 1:1
    is really the only valid comparison if you use the same definition of
    "As used by the people who make and market such cameras" leads to
    different definitions because one manufacturer who makes and markets
    such cameras uses a different definition than everyone else. But you
    have such a fetish for nya nya nya (your terms) that you can't see
    The fact that you think I'm the crackpot when you're the one who can't
    even keep the definition of a pixel straight and falls for simple
    misleading marketing tripe is indeed proof that you're the crackpot.
    Foveon is better in some way. Just because it's not better for what
    you do, you have to masturbate on how Bayer is the end all and be all
    sensor for everyone.
    No, I just take your stupid ones (nya nya nya, masturbates over
    sensors, etc.) and use them against you just to show how inane they
    are. The fact that you think they are idiotic proves just what an
    idiot you are.
    Your sarcasm is misplaced since I'm only taking to extreme what you're
    doing with using Sigma's definition of pixels to compare with everyone
    elses. At least now you see how stupid your argument is.
    You've already proven to yourself that your wrong when your own
    argument was used against you and you treated it with sarcasm.
    Of which the bayer sensor has only one at each pixel location while
    the foveon and 3-sensor has 3. And since it's *locations* that matter
    when it comes to spatial resolution and sampling an image, the fact
    that the bayer has fewer locations that capture each color and then
    tries to merge these under-sampled locations into a final image is why
    it has the problems it has.
    You're falling for it again. If foveon use different marketing, such
    as claiming full color information at each pixel vs. only partial
    color information at each pixel and having to guess the rest, that
    would be less hype and more reality. But the average Joe who buys a
    camera wouldn't understand that. Hell, there's even two people still
    commenting in this thread that don't understand that. That's why they
    have to fall into the simple marketing hype of claiming more pixels
    when it's not true.

    Yes, they have 3x the sensels for the same pixel density. But not 3x
    the pixels. If that were true, then a bayer cfa would have only one
    pixel for every grouping of 4 sensels (2g, r and b) because that's
    what you need to get full sampled color like the Foveon gets. And
    that's just not the case.
    Of course. The Foveon and 3 sensor systems have 3 sensels for each
    pixel to physically sample all 3 colors that make up each pixel. The
    bayer cfa has only one sensels and captures only one color at each
    pixel. It has to algorithmically figure out the rest. This simple
    concept apparently is too difficult for you to understand, which is
    why you fall for Sigma's marketing hype. Sigma's not stupid. They're
    fooling people like you.
    If Sigma claimed it was a 45MS (mega sensel) camera vs. a Bayer 15 MS
    camera, that would be correct. But people like you are easily confused
    between a sensel and a pixel so they incorrectly claim a 45MP (mega
    pixel) camera.
    Why? I like using your own insults. It shows you just how stupid the
    ones you come up with are.
    Which is exactly what I'm doing. The physical reality is that Foveon
    and 3 sensor systems have the full color information of 3 sensels for
    each pixel location. The Bayer cfa does not. The physical reality is
    that each color channel of the Foveon and 3 sensor systems are sampled
    at the full spatial resolution of the sensor. They are not sampled at
    that full rate for the Bayer cfa.

    The bayer cfa has plenty of advantages over both Foveon and 3-sensor
    systems. But this whole discussion has been focusing on only
    resolution and preventing aliasing artifacts and that's probably the
    only areas that the Bayer lags behind the other two. But you have such
    a hardon for bayer that you can't even admit the fact that bayer does
    lag behind the other two in this simple point of comparison. You'd
    like to think Bayer is better at *everything* but it's not.
    Yet another thing you're wrong about. Keep em coming.
    When you admit you're wrong is about the only time you're actually
    TheRealSteve, May 12, 2012
  14. Rich

    Guest Guest

    i will take your avoidance of answering the question to mean you don't
    actually know the answer and don't want to embarrass yourself any
    further by guessing.
    Guest, May 12, 2012
  15. Rich

    Guest Guest

    test charts do *not* show foveon has higher resolution.
    *any* test chart will show that alias artifacts can occur below nyquist.

    if you can't see that, you're either blind or don't understand what
    you're looking at (maybe both).
    first of all it wasn't floyd's paper, it was his *link* to someone
    elses paper. you're so confused you can't even get *that* right.

    second, foveon doesn't solve a problem that needs to be solved. humans
    can't see the additional chroma resolution that foveon has. it's a
    complete waste. bayer is a *much* better solution for human viewing.

    foveon might sound good on paper, but the reality is, humans can't see
    any difference and it's full of shortcomings they *can* see, such as
    noise, blotching, inaccurate colour and being limited to low iso. the
    cameras are slow, buggy and don't have anywhere near the features of
    competing cameras.

    the entire foveon scam is nothing more than leave off the antialias
    filter for lots of false (and higher frequency) detail that gives the
    illusion of higher resolution, then crank the sharpening and boost
    contrast, resulting in an image that has a lot of snap to it and makes
    people say 'whoa', but an image with a very inaccurate representation
    of the original subject.
    Guest, May 12, 2012
  16. Rich

    Guest Guest

    foveon is not better in any way that matters to humans. it does have
    higher chroma resolution but people can't see it. for luminance
    resolution, it is much worse than what competing cameras offer, and it
    costs more to boot.
    bayer has far more spatial locations than foveon could ever dream of.

    until last year, foveon was stuck at 4.7 megapixels, while bayer was as
    much as 24 mp (or more if you go to medium format). that's a *huge*

    the sd1 upped foveon to 15 mp which was a bit closer to the best bayer,
    but at a ridiculous price. you could get a *real* 40 mp camera for
    slightly more money. nobody bought it, thus the $5000 price cut, and
    it's *still* overpriced, just not as bad.
    actually sigma/foveon does claim they don't guess and it's yet another
    lie. foveon guesses far more than bayer ever did. their ads show r/g/b
    but that's not what the sensor captures. not even close.
    looks like they fooled you. foveon does *not* capture rgb, but rather
    it has three overlapping samples which it then tries to calculate rgb,
    but there are so many variables that there is quite a bit of
    uncertainty to it.

    bayer measures one colour per location and accurately calculates the
    other two, so it's already *well* ahead of the game.

    the conversion from foveon space to rgb is nonlinear and the samples
    have a lot of overlap, which means there's actually a whole lot of
    guessing going on in foveon, which is why there are odd colour casts,
    blotches and weird effects (e.g., overexposed reds turning pink). every
    once in a while there are psychadelic effects. it's a mess.
    nope. foveon definitely doesn't have full colour information (see
    above). only 3 sensor systems do and at a huge cost and weight penalty.
    bayer samples at the full rate just like foveon does. you still don't
    get it.
    bayer doesn't lag behind. it's *well* ahead of foveon and laughably so.

    like i said, until last year, foveon was stuck at under 5 mp while
    bayer had 24 mp. with the sd1, it's a little closer now but bayer still
    has over twice as many pixels and canon's entry level slrs at 1/4 the
    price of the sd1m (and 1/10th the price of the original sd1) has *more*

    the real question is just how long will sigma keep up this game.
    Guest, May 12, 2012
  17. [/QUOTE]
    I used it correctly, of course.
    "But if you want to use their marketing hype to compare, then
    you have to use it fully." Said you. I did. Your point?
    Your definitions of a pixel are also different. Don't throw
    stones, you're still sitting in a glass house.
    Sigma's *SENSOR* isn't the same sensor as everyone else's.
    So of course it hast to be counted in other ways.
    They count their sensels. Which is only fair: Bayer does it
    You're also not consistent. So what?

    Doing things is wrong. Noted. Now tell Edison and all the
    other inventors.
    I simply *do* compare different sensor types --- i.e. what
    relates to what goes into the image being captured.

    I don't care about the presentation one bit, since that
    depends on printers, paper, processes ... which are simply
    not comparable.

    This is what I am doing.
    WRONG! Sigma's definition of a 45MP sensor would equal about 21
    MP on a Bayer pattern sensor. You're falling for Bayer pattern
    marketing hype and don't even notice it. (And for the record,
    nospam's wrong about that, but he could easily find out what
    frequencies (measured in pixel lengths) appear in real world

    You're the one making up new, insane definitions, and are hanging
    on to definitions that simply aren't comparable.

    You don't. That's why you think Foveon is better.

    They also use a different sensor than everyone else.
    You must be really upset I found out about *your* fetish that
    you try to hang it on me.

    Yes, everyone is a crackpot but you.

    Yes, it gives money to Sigma if you buy one.

    Interesting, how you project your own insecurities and
    motives on other people.

    So you say stupid things. That makes you an idiot.
    But I don't!
    They're wrong the way you apply them to me, that's all.
    And you really cannot come up with something original?

    The day you manufacture and sell cameras with your own sensor
    type is the day you can define how to count your pixels.
    I guess hell freezes over first, though.
    At least now I see how stupid you are.

    Yep, that was the day I invented my own definition of pixels.

    What was it again? Ah, yes, a camera has 100.000.000/IQ of the
    user pixels. Which would mean you get all the 50+ MPix cameras,
    and normal people like me have to make do with roughly 1 MPix.

    Oh, that's as stupid as your own definition. And completely
    useless, since you're on the physics on how the image is
    recorded trip. Which means you need to count sensels.

    Assuming identical resolution from lenses, assuming identical
    beam splitting from AA filters, etc --- all of which is not
    given --- ...
    Foveon doesn't capture colour at all. Which is why it has so
    many problems.

    The upper layer of a Foveon sensor captures all frequencies, but
    not all of the photons that are actually converted to electrons ,
    only some. How much it captures depends e.g. on random happenings
    of manufacturing of that pot. The lower pots also are larger,
    and thus capture again all frequencies, but not all of the
    photons (which are actually converter), in a slightly different
    composition. And so on.

    So Foveon captures 3 sets of luminosity --- however, these sets
    are not panchromatic or even orthochromatic. There's no "this
    is blue" and "this is green" like in a Bayer sensor.

    There's 3 very noisy signals that are guessed into some
    approximation of some RGB stimuli. Sometimes the guesses are
    quite right, sometimes they are way off.
    Bayer doesn't have any relevant problems that can be solved
    by Foveon.

    You really fell for the Foveon marketing. They don't even
    have partial colour information at each pixel.

    The average Joe who buys a Bayer pattern camera is not having
    The same average Joe who buys a Foveon based camera will soon
    find he has problems.
    The average Joe who buys a 3-sensor camera has way more money
    than sense. Problems that will crop up could have been easily
    solved by sinking that money into a better Bayer pattern camera.

    One would be you.

    And you fall into your simple anti-Bayer hype of
    "undersampled this" and "Bayer problems that".

    Since *you* want "the physical eality of the image being captured"
    you *have* to count sensels. No matter if you decide that
    they have or have not 3x the pixels.

    More anti-Bayer hype based on your complete confusion of how
    Bayer works. If you weren't pigheaded stupid, you'd at least
    know that --- and that is a worst case --- it only needs one r,
    *one* g and one b to get a complete colour reading.

    I'll not even go into luminance carrying way more information than
    chrominance for the human eye and into the fact that chrominance
    is *way* *way* *way* undersampled in the human eye, and is placed
    in random locations on a 2D surface, not stacked like Foveon.
    Such details would only give you a migraine attack.

    "Airplanes can't fly. If planes could fly, it would be true that
    pigs could fly as well. And that's just not the case." Nice
    piece of logic you hammered together. Did someone help you
    or did you come up with it on your own?

    Fine. So we agree.
    Completely wrong about the colour sampling. See above. Or read
    the Foveon patents if you disbelieve me.
    Actually, nope. Bayer counts electrons (-> photons) passing
    through a (broad) bandpass after an AA filter. I.e. Bayer
    captures luminosity values after a bandpass. This is not the
    same as "one color". Lay people may think this, however.
    Just as Foveon has to algorithmically figure out all 3
    colours (and does not manage well).
    I understand it. Just as I understand the concept that "All
    muslims are bend on being suicide bombers" and "foreigners
    are the cause for all our troubles". I just don't buy into
    such simple, easy, wrong concepts like you seem to do.
    You're fooled by Sigma's marketing hype. You just don't
    notice because you believe you do look past it.

    Also see above, sensels, physics of capturing, ...

    And still not comparable. Which you think for some really
    stupid reason it is.

    But people like you are easily confused between counting electrons,
    measuring one colour and recording 3 colours (which Foveon doesn't
    do) --- and it was you who wanted the physics ...

    The real reason is that you're too stupid to come up with
    anything original, and that you're too stupid to even
    evaluate what you are regurgitating.

    .... has to COUNT SENSELS.
    Wrong for Foveon, see above.
    Only true for 3-sensor systems, but there the sensels don't
    And still Bayer produces perfectly good RGB triples ...

    Bayer has more resolution per sensel than the other two. So
    it does not lag behind. As for aliasing artifacts, they are
    worse with Foveon --- no AA filter.

    You do have such a anal-retentive fixation on pixels, when
    you ask for "the physical reality of the image being
    captured" that you cannot even see you're asking for sensels.

    I'm a realist. I don't need Bayer to be better. But I don't
    like you're twisting your own requirements out of shape just
    to claim that Bayer is worse this and worse that when you do
    not even grasp what is happening past some marketing hype.

    If you don't even notice irony and sarcasm ...

    Wolfgang Weisselberg, May 13, 2012
  18. Rich

    Alfred Molon Guest

    A "sensel" is not a pixel. A pixel is a separate spatial location - the
    Sigma only has 15 million of it.
    Alfred Molon, May 13, 2012
  19. Rich

    TheRealSteve Guest

    Yet another thinh you're wrong about. And the fact that you're even
    asking what happens at n/2 shows you don't know what happens at below
    n/2, which is what we're talking about. You want to try and prove
    there's aliasing below n/2 by asking about n/2. Well, the answer at
    n/2 is "it depends". It's a limit function where some wordings of
    sample theory define the limit and others don't. There may be aliasing
    if you consider DC an alias and there may not be if you don't.

    But while some define what happens at n/2 as aliasing and others
    don't, no one who knows anything at all about sample theory defines
    what happens at anything less than n/2 as aliasing because any
    frequency content at anything less than n/2 can always be converted
    back from digital to analog. But in order to do so, you must use a
    reconstruction filter. The idiot in the video with the O-Scope was not
    using a reconstruction filter.
    TheRealSteve, May 13, 2012
  20. Rich

    TheRealSteve Guest

    But they do.
    Ok, I'll play your game. But bayer sensors have alias artifacts at
    much further below the nyquist spatial resolution than Foveon
    I know you don't know waht you're looking at.
    Well, since you were the first one to call it "floyds paper", I went
    with that so you would know what I was reffering to. I admit I was
    wrong for not correcting you on yet something else you were wrong
    Yet another thing you are confused about. You seem to think that human
    vision has anything at all to do with aliasing artifacts of different
    sensor technology. The only place where human vision is involved is in
    seeing the artifacts, which has nothing to do with chroma resolution
    of the human eye and has everything to do with spatial resolution of
    the sensor.

    We already know what the overall resolution of the human eye is, and
    not just the chroma resolution. Apple even trademarked a term for it,
    a retina display. So according to your specious argument, a photo
    sensor doesn't need to have any more resolution than a retina display.
    And that's total nonsense.
    I agree with the other limitations of Foveon. But they *do* have
    better resolution if you consider they have the ability to produce a
    color image where a higher spatial frequency can be captured without
    alias artifacts than a bayer sensor of equivalent pixel spacing. And
    *that* is the only point I'm arguing and it's a correct one as much as
    you and Wolfy want to deny it.
    Bayer also gives a very inaccurate representation of the original
    subject. If the rest of the camera outresolves the sensor, you either
    have to blur it with a strong AA filter or put up with color
    artifacts. Neither of which faithfully represents the original subject
    any more or less than a Foveon. And for both of them, if the camera
    does not outresolve the sensor, you don't need an AA filter. But the
    Foveon can reach that point sooner than the bayer because for the same
    overall pixel density, the foveon has better full color image spatial
    TheRealSteve, May 13, 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.