The death of the Bayer filter? Maybe not.

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

  1. Rich

    TheRealSteve Guest

    You keep saying that when it doesn't matter at all. People can
    absolutely see the alias artifacts that occur because of the lower
    sampling rate of the bayer sensor.
    But we're talking about comparing the same thing. A 4.7MP Foveon will
    outresolve a 4.7MP Bayer. A 24MP Foveon will outresolve a 24MP Bayer.
    A 4.7MP 3 sensor system will outresolve a 4.7MP Bayer. A 24MP 3 sensor
    system will outresolve a 24MP Bayer. Whatever resolution you pick, the
    Foveon or 3 sensor system will outresolve the bayer at that
    resolution. If Bayer sensors go way above the resolution than any
    available Foveon or 3 sensor systems, then the comparision can only be
    theoretical. But the theoretical results will be the same. A
    theoretical 100MP Foveon or 3 sensor system will outresolve a 100MP
    bayer.
    But since overall sensor resolution at the same pixel spatial
    resoltion is the only point I'm comparing on, all of what you're
    saying is specious.
    That part's not a lie. And it doesn't matter whether it's rgb or
    something else. As long as they capture the spectrum they require to
    produce the final color image at each pixel location, they are doing
    better than bayer which captures only part of the required spectrum at
    each pixel location and "algorithmically comes up with" (PC for
    guesses) the part not captured.
    As I said above, it doesn't matter how they break the spectrum down.
    What matters is that what's needed for the final image is sampled at
    each pixel. And that's why the resolution is better.
    No, bayer doesn't do either of those things. Bayer also captures a
    band of wavelenghts and not strictly r/g/b at each sensel location. So
    in that regard, it's the same as Foveon. And if Bayer *could*
    accurately calculate the missing information at each pixel, it would
    not have color artifacts. The fact that even you admit it does have
    color artifacts proves you're wrong when you way it "accurately
    calculates the other two", and that it's not *well* ahead of the game.
    You mean just like bayer does, but for different reasons. And the only
    thing I'm talking about is resolution, and the bayers psychadelic
    effects, creating a mess in the image, are a result of lower
    resolution than the Foveon. That the Foveon has other problems is
    immaterial. As far as my argument is concerned, Foveon was just an
    analog for a 3 sensor system anyway. Both of them sample what they
    need at each pixel and the bayer does not. And that's the *only* thing
    that matters for my position.
    Even 3 sensor systems don't necessarily have *full* color information.
    But like the Foveon, they sample what they need to create a final
    image that the eye can see as full color at each pixel location. The
    bayer does not. And sampling everything that's needed at each pixel
    location vs. some things at every other pixel location and other
    things at even less than every other pixel location is why the Foveon
    and 3 sensor systems outresolve bayer for the same pixel spacing. And
    that's the *only* point I'm making. Anything else you bring up that's
    not related to that point (price, weight, cost of 3 sensor systems,
    other problems Foveon may have) is specious for arguing against that
    point.
    Ah, you finally bring up a point that's actually not specious. It's
    factually wrong, but at least it's not specious.
    It does lag behind on the one point of comparison I'm making. It's
    well ahead on most other areas of comparison. The fact that you can't
    see that means you have your space hat and blinders on.
    Back to making specious arguments because the one you tried to make
    that wasn't specious was factually wrong.
    It all depends on how much longer people buy them. I'm surprised
    people still are. If Sigma were smart, they would bring a small Foveon
    to market for things like cellphones and tablets. They may have a
    chance with that.
     
    TheRealSteve, May 13, 2012
    1. Advertisements

  2. Rich

    TheRealSteve Guest

    No, you absolutely did not. To use their marketing hype fully without
    cherry picking, you would have to compare their 45MP camera to a bayer
    15MP camera, not to a 45MP bayer camera.

    No it doesn't *have* to be counted in other ways. They do count it in
    other ways to fool people like you.
    And they have 3 sensels at each pixel location while bayer has only
    one. So? All that means is that they're sampling everything they need
    to generate a full color pixel at each location. A bayer sensor does
    not. That doesn't mean you have to change the definition of things
    like spatial frequency and nyquist spatial samplng rate. Those are the
    things you have to look at when comparing resolution, not the
    whimsical definition of a pixel by someone trying to trick you into
    thinking they have more pixels, of which you've obviously fallen for.

    Too bad that's not what you're doing.
    Ah, but those things are also comparable as long as you define
    consistent parameters for comparison... something you are unable to
    do.
    But it's not what you did do when you tried to compare a 45MP "sigma
    pixel" camera with a 45MP bayer. As above, you should simply notice
    that with a Sigma sensor, the 45MP would equal about 15MP on a bayer
    pattern sensor. Yet one more way you are inconsistent.
    Ah, so you admit you're wrong when you were trying to compare a 45MP
    Foveon with a 45MP bayer. Excellent. And whether you want to say 21
    because of pixel pitch or 15 because of 3 sensels vs. 1 sensel = a
    pixel is immaterial. My only argument is that it's less, which you
    finally agree with.
    Obviously you think so also if, using your comparison, two sensors
    with equivalent pixel pitch would work out to 45MP for a Foveon and
    21MP for a bayer. Whether or not that makes sense doesn't matter
    because it's your definition.
    And their sensor has better color spatial resolution for the same
    spatial sampling rate because they sample what they need for a color
    image at each location while a bayer does not. So yes, it's different.
    And whatever definition you use for a color pixel in order to compare
    them had better show that difference or else it's not a valid
    comparison. If you choose to use Sigma's simplification for marketing
    hype because you don't understand sampling theory, fine. Then use it.
    But if you do understand what's going on and define your pixels
    equivalently, then you'd see that for the same pixel count, the Sigma
    won't alias as much at the same input spatial frequencies below
    nyquist. If you go *above* nyquist, then all bets are off.
    You're projecting again.
    No, just you.
    Yes, and it has better resolution for the same pixel spacing.
    Interesting how when I use your stupid arguments against you, you
    think it's projecting. That really shows your insecurities.
    Quoting your stupidity to show you how stupid you are doesn't make me
    an idiot. But arguing your stupidity with an idiot like you certainly
    lowers me to some extent. I'll readily admit that.
    Ok, you called them stupid things, not idiotic. My mistake. So you say
    stupid things and I merely point out to you how stupid they are and
    you agree they are stupid things. Too funny!
    Stupid things are stupid things and you say them and I point out how
    stupid they are. If you think your saying of "nya nya nya" and
    "masturbates" are worthy of being called original arguments in an
    adult discussion, then you really are as stupid as you sound.
    I see. So we have to take your definition because you manufacture and
    sell cameras with your own sensor. All hail the great stupid one.
    Good comeback. Very original. Well thought out and presented. Yes, you
    are very smart.
    Original, but specious.
    That just shows you don't know what spatial sampling rate means. You
    can have 100 sensels all stacked up on eachother (or on 100 separate
    sensors that are aligned in image spatial space) and it's still
    capturing only one spatial location. When you want to compare spatial
    resolution, you have to compare spatial sampling locations and not
    sensels. You're so hung up on trying to understand what pixels are and
    Sigma vs. bayer definitions that you miss the spatial sampling
    fundamentals of capturing the image in the first place.
    YES, assuming everything else is identical. YES, it's not given
    everything else will be identical. But if you want to compare the
    sensors, you make everything else the same. Or didn't they teach you
    that in high school science class.
    Yes, Foveon has problems. In fact, I don't even know how we got onto
    Foveon in the first place when I was only comparing 3 sensor systems.
    The only point of comparison I'm making regarding Foveon is that it
    does physically sample everything it needs at each photosite while a
    bayer does not. That's really the only way it's comparable to a 3
    sensor system and it's the only point of comparison I'm making.
    Relevant is a relative term. What's not relevant to you might be to
    someone else. But at least you added the qualifier "relevant."

    No, I am counting the spatial resolution of everything that goes into
    making the final image. It doesn't matter whether it's sensels, pixels
    or whatever else you want to come up with.

    [...]
    None of which, of course, matters when it comes to aliasing artifacts.
    Which, again, is a different argument not related to alias artifacts.
    When it comes to spatial resolution, it absolutely does not have to
    count sensels. Counting sensels gives you the wrong answer.
    Good, then lets go back to only 3 sensor systems, which is what I was
    originally talking about before someone else brought up Foveon. The
    only way Foveon is equivalent is that it captures what it needs to
    create a color image at every spatial photosite. Other than that,
    there's not much comparison.
    No it does not. There are color artifacts that would not be there if
    it produced "perfectly good" rgb triples.
    Now you're not keeping things equal. That figures, since you don't
    think you have to.
     
    TheRealSteve, May 13, 2012
    1. Advertisements

  3. Rich

    Guest Guest

    you're so hung up on aliasing that you didn't even read what i wrote.

    nowhere did i say anything about aliasing. i'm talking about chroma
    resolution, which is foveon's sole advantage, and one which humans
    won't ever notice because they can't see the additional chroma
    resolution it provides. bayer is already *well* above what the eye can
    resolve. it's a waste.
    no it won't, but let's say it does just for fun.

    the 4.7mp sd14 came out in 2007, well after 10mp bayer sensors were
    widely available, and for twice the price too! it's no surprise that
    the sd14 price dropped to $350 in a year or so.

    sigma *still* uses that same sensor in several cameras (dp1 & dp2
    variants and the sd15), except that entry level slrs are now 18 mp and
    the best 35mm was 24 until the d800 came along and now it's 36mp.

    so even if a 4.7 mp foveon could somehow outresolve a 4.7 mp bayer, it
    doesn't actually matter because bayer is *so* far ahead.

    even in an absolute worst case scenario, an 18 mp canon slr will
    outperform a foveon 4.7mp camera in every possible way, for *less*
    money.
    again, no.
    that's a flawed comparison. the 15 mp sd1 costs $2400, yet for around
    $600 or so, you can get a canon entry level slr with 18 mp and for just
    a little more than what the sd1 costs, you can get 21-36mp, either of
    which will do better than foveon.
    it's not specious at all. $600 buys a camera that has more spatial
    resolution than the $2400 sd1m.
    call it whatever you want, but the fact remains that bayer is *more*
    accurate than foveon, so those 'guesses,' as you call it, are pretty
    damned good guesses. so much so that it's either wildly amazing luck or
    it's not guessing at all.
    actually it does matter, since what foveon does is very inaccurate and
    also contradicts sigma's bogus claims about bayer guessing.
    except, what is sampled at each foveon pixel isn't what's needed for
    the final image. there's a lot more that goes into the 'guess.'
    yes it most certainly does. seriously, go read some papers on bayer. or
    just look at the photos.
    it's nothing at all like foveon. not even remotely close. where did you
    come up with that rubbish?
    and in fact, it does, more so than foveon.
    that's an entirely separate issue.
    you're confusing two different things.
    it's not immaterial at all. what matters is the final image, which for
    foveon, is not very good. bayer consistently produces excellent images,
    without the blotching, noise, weird colours, etc. that plague foveon.
    except, it's wrong.
    what?

    wasn't that they have full colour their advantage? now they don't have
    full colour? make up your mind.
    bayer most certainly does sample what it needs, otherwise the pictures
    would look crappy and they do not. you just don't understand how it
    works.
    then your only point is *wrong*.
    it's not specious. even if a 3 sensor system was better, it comes at a
    high cost (money, size and weight) and something almost as good is much
    cheaper, smaller and lighter.

    in other words, it's not worth it.
    it's exactly correct.
    the *only* area in which bayer is behind foveon is in chroma resolution
    and once again, humans can't see the difference.
    nothing specious about any of that.
    actually, that would be incredibly stupid.

    foveon tried cellphone sensors once already and it failed miserably, so
    much so, that it was the cause of their near bankruptcy, which is how
    sigma ended up buying them for pennies on the dollar.
     
    Guest, May 14, 2012
  4. Rich

    Guest Guest

    bayer definitely samples everything it needs. just look at the photos.

    if it didn't sample what it needed, they would not look as good as they
    do.
    not true, but regardless, the higher chroma resolution isn't anything
    humans can see, so why bother capturing it? it's a waste of storage
    space as well as the time to process it.
    that part is true.
    in other words, a 15 mp foveon sensor (45mp in sigma-speak) has the
    same spatial sampling as a 15 mp bayer.

    you can't keep your own story straight.
    so how is it that bayer is more accurate than foveon, if bayer doesn't
    sample 'everything it needs' ?

    obviously, not only does bayer sample everything it needs, but it does
    so with greater accuracy.
    he didn't say anything about aliasing. try to stay on topic.
    alias artifacts don't matter that much when the colours are wrong and
    the image is full of blotches and noise.
     
    Guest, May 14, 2012
  5. Rich

    Guest Guest

    i don't know what you're looking at but they definitely do *not* show
    that.

    what they show is that foveon and bayer resolve roughly the same, with
    aliasing becoming a problem at about the same point below nyquist.
    they do not.
    resolution charts, which you or anyone else can look at.

    i never called it floyd's paper. you are making stuff up. again.
    i didn't say anything about aliasing.

    i'm talking specifically about chroma resolution and that humans can't
    see it very well, so the lone advantage of foveon is a waste.
    it's not nonsense. there is no point in capturing what you can't see.
    it's wrong, no matter how much you keep yapping.
    nonsense. bayer is extremely accurate, much more so than foveon is.
    nonsense.
     
    Guest, May 14, 2012
  6.  
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, May 14, 2012
  7. So ... you're comparing the same thing. What Bayer sizes
    were typical when Foveon had a "4.7 MPix" sensor? Compare
    against that.

    As for the 24 MPix Foveon and 24 MPix 3-sensor system versus
    the 24 MPix Bayer ... imaginary cameras are always better
    than real cameras, however the imaginary cameras need lots of
    unobtainium.

    No, they won't. Imaginary cameras don't outresolve existing
    cameras in the real world.

    So basically you are yammering on and on about something that
    has no relevance in the real world.

    You might as well tell us that pigs fly more economically and
    quieter than conventional planes.

    They don't. They capture 3 values. These do not compose
    a spectrum.
    So basically, Foveon has to guess spatial locations which Bayer
    already has, Foveon has to guess the colour which Bayer already
    has and for that reason Foveon does better.


    It does. That's so trivial ...
    So a '15 MPix' Foveon is better than a, say 36 MPix Bayer.
    Just comparing same with same: the current highest resolution
    available in FF sensor cameras.

    Actually, nope. Foveon captures rather random values, Bayer
    captures well defined data.
    With a correct AA filter, that's exactly what happens.
    '15 MPix' Foveon vs 36 MPix Bayer, or 60 MPix (medium format), ...
    Well, and the colour fidelity.
    Well, and the high ISO capability.
    Well, and the aliasing Foveon has.

    Sure, Foveon is very close to Bayer ...

    Which only shows that you haven't understood Foveon.

    Yes, even a 3-sensor system only works as a 3-stimulus
    measuring instrument.

    And airplanes lag behind on the point of price versus flying pigs.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, May 14, 2012
  8. Please show me where Foveon or Sigma said in their marketing hype
    that their 45 MPix cameras need to be compared against 15 MPix
    Bayer cameras.

    OK, than I shall count 4 Bayer sensels as one pixel.
    So the 45 MSensel ("15 MPix" according to you) Foveon has to be
    compared to a 60 MSensel ("15 MPix" as I shall count it) Bayer ---
    and Bayer clearly wins again.

    That should make you happy now.
    *I*'m not fooled, I simply adhere to your "terms of the physical
    reality of the image being captured".

    You're the one who is inconsistent.

    So you need to compare sensels to sensels.
    So basically Bayer sensor images do not consist of RGB triples.
    Interesting.

    And Foveon doesn't have any colour problems. Interesting.

    Hook, line *and* sinker.

    You think so? Just because I don't agree to your irrelevant,
    specious, never applicable in real life claims?

    Oh! Consisten parameters! Let's take ... opacity ... and
    flourescent whitening agent of the paper. Yeah, that should
    make everything comparable. Just as your spasmodic tries to
    compare sweet water fish to sunlight. After all, both are
    starting with an 's' and are written with ASCII symbols.
    Oh, I just use comparable parameters, unlike you.

    Correct.
    You are unable to say straight how many Bayer pixels a '45MP
    "sigma pixel" camera' compares to. The only thing you are
    interested in is somehow claiming "Foveon is better than Bayer",
    no matter how you have to distort reality to get there. I
    merely try to insert *some* sanity into your claims.

    So you say that they are equivalent? Fine. No more "Fovepn
    is better". That we can live with.

    Let me rephrase that:
    Sigma's definition of a 45MP sensor would equal about 21 MP
    on a Bayer pattern sensor in resolution.
    The number 45 is bigger than the number 21.
    And *your* claim was that it equals a 15 MPix Bayer sensor in
    resolution ...
    Huh? Eqivalent pixel pitch? What? Who?
    If you don't even understand what others are saying, no
    wonder you're terribly confused.

    And some sensors are UV capable or x-ray capable. That's however
    not interesting for displaying things as the eye sees it.
    Just as a "better color spatial resolution". In fact, there
    *are* Bayer sensors that outrank the colour resolution of the best
    Foveon sensors.

    So, yes, you're right, but your claim is irrelevant. The ...
    ah, _suboptimal_ colour rendition and blotching with Foveon are
    much more relevant (and real drawbacks) in real life.
    And, as we have learned, worse in real life.

    Any comparison *you* make "in terms of the physical reality of
    the image being captured" better shows the difference in sensels
    per spatial location or else it's not a valid comparison. Up to
    now I've seen a lot of invalid comparisons from you.

    The Sigma will alias *more*. No AA filter, more alias (unless
    the sigma lenses are even worse than coke bottle bottoms).

    You seem to keep forgetting that. Or you seem to imply that there
    are relevant scenes where there are no high frequency contents.

    You learned a new word from me.

    No, just you.

    Yes, Sigma doesn't use an AA filter.
    So it also has way more false resolution for the same pixel
    spacing.

    I don't define how to count pixels. You try to do that
    however. Hail TheRealSteve who doesn't even have a proper
    name, nor a working email adress. Probably doesn't want his
    parents to see how he behaves.

    Let me translate 'specious' for the othe readers:
    | TheRealSteve agrees I didn't invent my own definition of pixels,
    | but he did. So the argument worked against him, but not against
    | me. Thus I didn't prove myself I am or was wrong.
    |
    | But lil Stevie cannot ever admit he was wrong.

    I do know, do you?
    The location in any way is an area, not a point 'location'.

    Stacked like Foveon each lower layer is larger than the layer
    above it. On a 100-sensor system, the alignment *in reality*
    is a misalignment, so again you are sampling a larger area.
    Actually, the physics on how the image is recorded is that
    it's not recorded with spatial locations but with sensels.

    Sometimes the sensels are arranged in a grid pattern.
    You're so hung up on "Foveon is better than Bayer" that you
    don't even understand what pixels are.

    For example, if you upsize an image coming from a 45 MSensel
    Foveon sensor to 20 M spatial locations --- and don't say you
    cannot do that --- how many pixels does the result have?

    AH! THAT explains your fixation of 'same pixel counts by
    TheRealSteve's definition'. You didn't grasp that to compare
    real life systems, you have to use real life assumptions.
    Like "what sensors were available in 2010". Like "missing AA
    filters" when that's what's in real life.

    But yet you are completely resistant to "make everything the
    same: sensel count". How comes?
    No, it doesn't. If it got all that, Foveon wouldn't have to
    guess and too often guesses wrong. Bad colour fidelity,
    blotching ... Proof that Foveon does *not* record enough.
    OK, there's a _slight_ chance that the state of the art of
    software and algorithms isn't good enough.
    And yet Bayer sensor cameras manage to capture enough that
    each photosite gets assigned an RGB triple --- with results
    that are *better* than what Foveon manages.

    How comes?
    A 3-sensor system has too many drawbacks in the wild.

    Name one relevant problem.

    So where's the MTF curve of the lens? That surely goes into
    making the final image. And where's the upscaling, downscaling,
    cropping and rotating (by a few degrees)? That does go into the
    final image. Where's the retouching and the denoising?

    All that does go into the final image ... and yet you completely
    ignore it.
    Yep, in that case it doesn't matter, since a lot of other
    changes are being made to the resolution.
    So I am perfectly right and you don't have any counter
    argument.

    Funny that you should mention aliasing artifacts, since Foveon
    cameras don't have AA filters ... and presto -> Aliasing!
    So I am perfectly right and you don't have any counter
    argument.

    So spatial resolution with Foveon is as good as with Bayer,
    by your claim of pixel counting.

    But then you're moving goalposts from spatial resolution to colour
    resolution and back to spatial resolution, as you are continously
    being beat.

    And you're shifting goalposts from 3-sensor to Foveon back
    to 3-sensor.
    So does Bayer. Oh, not at a single isolated spatial photosite.

    But there aren't any photos consisting of one pixel. Even small
    images are at least a few hundred by a few hundred pixels.
    And most sensors contain at least a million photosites. Heck,
    the prototype sensor had 100x100 spatial photosites.

    So the "at a single isolates spatial photosite" claim is obviously
    not relevant for anything but wanking.

    Yet it does. Otherwise there wouldn't be colour photography by
    Bayer pattern sensors. There are, of course, a few suboptimal
    implementations.
    There are also colour artifacts --- worse colour artifacts
    --- with Foveon. So Foveon produces worse RGB triples than
    Bayer ... even though you claim it gets everything in each
    single spatial location.

    What? Sensel for sensel ... that's equal.
    What's equal is for you to decide?
    Interesting.
    Who died and made you king?

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, May 14, 2012
  9. Rich

    TheRealSteve Guest

    Actually, they do. Which is why they need resolution robbing strong AA
    filters to prevent it.
    That's where I cited you the chart that showed color alias artifacts
    well below nyquist which a Foveon would not have had.
    But that's the only thing we're talking about. You keep bringing up
    chroma resolution, which is specious.
    This is why you're confused. You think chroma resolution is the lone
    advantage of Foveon. Chroma resolution is not the advantage of Foveon.
    Preventing color artifacts that bayer cannot control without a strong
    AA filter or prevent totally even with a strong AA filter is the
    advantage of Foveon. If Foveon could do that without causing other
    problems, it would be the better sensor technology because it solves a
    bad problem with bayer sensor. The fact that it creates other problems
    while solving that one is why it won't replace bayer.
    I guess you've never cropped or enlarged a photo. Most of us have and
    appreciate still having detail when we do that.
    You don't even understand why it's not wrong so I can believe you
    believe it's wrong. You have no idea why someone would want to capture
    capture greater resolution than the eye can see. So I'm not surprised
    you don't care about sensor resolution and which can capture a greater
    spatial frequency without aliasing.
    More proof you don't know what you're talking about. Wait, of course
    you think a bayer is extremely accurate. Because you don't ever crop
    or enlarge photos and you believe it doesn't have to have any more
    resolution than the eye can see. You never look close enough at the
    output of cameras to notice the inaccuracies of a bayer sensor and
    demosaicing in the presence of fine color detail.
    Because you've already admitted you don't need resolution better than
    an eye, you're not qualified to have the opinion "nonsense" to the
    above because it's dealing with resolutions you have never seen or
    experienced and have no desire to.
     
    TheRealSteve, May 16, 2012
  10. Rich

    TheRealSteve Guest

    And here is your problem. You probably realize that comparing equals
    means you're wrong. So you keep bringing up that, according to you,
    you have to compare unequals.
    That's why you compare equals that exist in the real world. Not what
    you want to do, which is compare unequals just to make some invalid
    point.
    Just because you don't see relevance doesn't mean the comparison
    doesn't have relevance. You have such a fetish for bayer that you
    can't even understand the problems it has and what others are trying
    to do to correct them. That has relevance to the real world even if
    they aren't at the point yet where they have solved the problems with
    bayer without creating others.

    I want a real world color sensor that doesn't have the problems bayer
    has. And the only way to get that is to first realize that bayer does
    have problems that can be solved. You are denying the problems. If
    everyone was like you, the obvious problems would never get solved.
    More specious and stupid analogies is all you can come up with.
    You missed the part where I said they capture the spectrum "they
    require" to produce the final color image at each pixel location. They
    don't have to capture the full spectrum. But they do capture the
    spectrum "they require" without having to interpolate missing needed
    spectrum from adjacent pixels and under-resolving parts of the
    required spectrum.
    You're totally confused because it's the other way. Bayer has to guess
    spatial locations which Foveon and 3 sensor systems sample.
    It's obvious you don't care about comparing equals because doing so
    proves you're wrong. So instead, you want to compare unequals just to
    stroke your ego. But even using your unequal definition, a 15MP FF
    Foveon is extremely close to a 36MP FF Bayer when it comes to minimum
    sampled spatial resolution of the spectrums that go into making the
    color picture. Comparing equals, a 15MP FF Bayer to a 15MP FF Foveon,
    the Foveon blows away the bayer in that parameter, which leads to less
    alias artifacts.
    Actually, that's not true either. Because the bayer doesn't use
    monochromatic filters, the wavelenghts of the photos it captures at
    each site are also rather random. One can be anywhere within the
    response of the filter. And also, since the filters are not perfect, a
    bayer can easily capture photos at a sensel that the algorithms are
    not accounting for because they are out of the specified band. So once
    again, you're wrong.
    A resolution robbing AA filter. If you want to use an AA filter, now
    you have to reduce the spatial resolution of the captured image to the
    output of the AA filter, which would be well less than the sensor
    resolution. And even using the resolution robbing AA filter, bayer
    still has color artifacts. But they wouldn't be due to aliasing and
    instead would only be due to errors in estimating the missing colors
    at each pixel. The errors wouldn't be as bad as without the mushing of
    the AA filter. But they would still exist.
    I'm guessing why you keep arguing the points on which I agree with you
    is because it's the only ones you're correct on. You can't admit
    you're wrong on the one point of comparison so you have to keep
    bringing up specious issues on which we agree.
    The only understanding of it required for that analog is that it
    captures what it needs at each spatial sensing location and doesn't
    spatially undersample the image. Everything else is specious, and the
    fact you keep bringing it up shows you can't' effectively argue that
    one point..
    Which is all they need to create an image that we percieve as full
    color.

    But hey, you admitted you're wrong about something. We're making
    progress.
    And that's the kind of argument you have to make when you have nothing
    better to counter mine. Very telling.
     
    TheRealSteve, May 16, 2012
  11. Rich

    TheRealSteve Guest

    Of course I read what you wrote. That's how I know you're wrong. Most
    photographers do things like cropping, changing image size, etc. where
    having resolution available that's better than what the eye can see is
    very important. Maybe to you it's not, but to most of us, it is.

    Most people can see color artifacts that occur due to not having
    sufficient resolution even if the chroma resolution is greater than
    what the eye can see. Maybe you cannot. But most people can, which is
    certainly evident by the comments people were making about the picture
    of the jacket with the color moire pattern on it.
    You're speaking total nonsense and are wrong on every point. You're
    not talking about aliasing because it let's you say something stupid
    things like 1) chroma resolution being foveon's sole advantage. 2)
    humans won't notice color artifacts because the chroma resoltion is
    better than what the eye can resolve 3) it's a waste to provide better
    chroma resolution than what the eye can see.

    Each one of your ponts is wrong because it ignores the very basic
    things people do with digitally captured images, including looking at
    them.
    Yes, it will. But let's have some fun.
    All totally specious. You're just as bad as wolfy. The only way you
    can make bayer look good is by comparing unequal spatial resolutions.
    Again, yes.
    It's not a flawed comparison when I've already stipulated that the
    bayer costs less. The fact that you keep bringing up specious
    arguments shows you don't have anything to counteract the basic fact
    that in terms of equal pixel spatial resolution, the bayer spatially
    undersamples the color channels while Foveon and 3 sensor systems do
    not.
    And that's exactly why it's specious. Because price doesn't say
    anything about spatial sampling resolutuon. You saying it's not
    specious to compare price when we're talking about spatial resoltion
    proves you don't know what the word specious means. I suggest you look
    it up.
    Ah, so you really don't know how bayer works.
    Just because you don't notice the noise and weird colors that plague
    bayer doesn't mean they don't exist. It only means that either you're
    used to them or you just don't care about image quality and making it
    better.
    So far you have don't nothing to prove it wrong beyond saying "it's
    wrong"
    See. You really don't understand what's going on. 3 sensor systems do
    not have *full* color information, i'e'. measured the full visible
    spectrum at each pixel. But they have sampled the information
    necessary at every pixel to create a color image without needing to
    interpolate missing information from adjacent pixels.
    See. You really don't understand what's going on. Bayer most certainly
    does not sample what it needs at every pixel location to create a full
    color image. It spatially undersamples the color channels and
    algorithmically guesses at what it didn't sample.
    Again, you have done nothing valid to prove that it's wrong.
    Proving you don't know what the word "specious" even means.
    If you think bayer samples each color channel at each pixel location,
    you need to look again at what a bayer cfa looks like. You are
    factually wrong.
    Repeating wrong things over and over doesn't make them right.
    Look up specious since you obviously don't know what it means.
    That was before cellphone cameras took over photography as far as the
    average Joe is concerned.
     
    TheRealSteve, May 16, 2012
  12. Rich

    TheRealSteve Guest

    Lol.
     
    TheRealSteve, May 16, 2012
  13. Rich

    TheRealSteve Guest

    On Mon, 14 May 2012 22:39:46 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg

    [...]
    You can count anything anyway you want. The fact that you keep missing
    on the way it really needs to be counted only makes you look like a
    fool. And the way it needs to be counted if you want to discuss
    spatial resolution (which is the only thing I'm discussing) is
    photosites that spatially sample the components needed to create the
    color image.
    As usual, wrong again. See above.
    Non sequitur. The fact that a bayer sensor doesn't sample everything
    it needs to generate an rgb triple at each pixel location doesn't mean
    it doesn't have an rgb triple at each location. What happens is it
    interpolates adjacent sensels to come up with missing information so
    it can make a guess at an rgb triple at each location without
    physically sampling it. You need to brush up on how bayer sensors
    work.
    Specious. Is that the best you can do? Of course Foveon has color
    problems. So does Bayer. Your misunderstanding of the topic is
    monumental.
    Of course you can compare those things. Paper A has opacity x and
    paper B has opacity y.
    The fact that you don't understand scientific method is why you think
    comparing the opacity or flourescent whitening of different paper is
    the same as comparing sweet water fish to sunlight.
    No, I say bayer is better in most respects. But Foveon is better when
    it comes to reducing aliasing for the same spatial resulution of their
    photosites. It's pretty simple, but still something you can't
    understand. You have to believe in your feeble mind that one has to be
    "better" than the other at everything. In reality, that's not the
    case. It's usually the case that when comparing similar things, one is
    better at some things and the other is better at others. It's almost
    never the case that one is better than the other at everything. You
    have a difficult time grasping that simple fact.
    That's not my claim at all. My claim is that 3 sensor systems and
    Foveon have less aliasing and have overall better spatial resolution
    than a bayer sensor with the same pixel density. And in that claim, a
    pixel is defined as a photosite that equates to a color pixel in the
    captured image.

    Because you can't understand simple concepts like spatial density of
    photosites, you need to bring up numerical megapixel counts that are
    not consistent just so you have some simple numbers to compare rather
    than the slightly more esoteric concept, photosite spatial density.
    But apparently it's too esoteric for you.

    [...]
    And there you have it. A bayer needs a strong AA filter more so than
    the Foveon. Since I'm comparing sensors, you have to take away the AA
    filter and see which aliases more. Either that or use the same AA
    filter for both.
    Oh, I'm not forgetting that at all. The AA filter lowers the spatial
    resolution even more.
    Which of course is irrelevant when comparing Foveon and 3-sensor
    systems to Bayer. It's only Sigma's implementation that doesn't use an
    AA filter. There are plenty of Bayer implementations that don't use AA
    filters either and they have way more color artifacts than a Foveon
    for the same pixel spacing.
    Wrong. You are trying to define invalid ways of counting pixels. I
    don't count pixels at all. I merely compare sensors with the same
    photosite spatial resolution semping color spectrums that go into
    making the image.
    See, you don't even know what the word specious means. I'll give you a
    hint: It has to do with the fact that you are making up definitions of
    pixels to come up with megapixel counts for comparison when the only
    thing that matters is the 2d spatial resolution of photosites that
    sample the color spectrum needed for the final image. And you're doing
    that to make your argument look like it's based on some sense of
    reality or truth, when in fact it's not. That is what specious is.

    There, you learned a new word today.
    You've already proven that you don't just by your claim that you have
    to count sensels even if the sensels are stacked on top of eachother
    and are in the same spatial location of the image being captured. Or
    if the sensels, not stacked up on eachother but are in 3 separate
    physical locations as they are for a 3 sensor camera, but still sample
    the same spatial location of the image, you claim they have to be
    counted at 3 pixels. That is proof beyond any doubt that you have
    absolutely no idea what spatial sampling of of the image being
    projected onto the sensor means. But in proving you have no idea what
    it means, I gave you the answer as to what it means. We'll see if you
    can understand it. If so, you have learned another new thing today.
    Of course it's not a point location. Photosites have size to them and
    are not a point. And we've already taken the misalignment of the 3
    sensor system into account with either or both physical and
    altorithmical realignment.
    Of course it's captured with sensels. And sensels occupy spatial
    locations.
    Of course.
    Back onto specious arguments again. You learned above what specious
    means so you should now understand why it's specious.

    Again, the only thing that matters when it comes to aliasing is the 2d
    spatial resolution of sampling all of the individuall components that
    go into making the final image. That's a pretty simple concept that
    you still don't seem to get.
    And that's where you show your complete ignorance of scientific
    method. If you want to compare sensors and sensor technology, you
    *have* to either have an AA filter on both or neither. Either that or
    you have to account for the difference in some other way. But the
    easiest way is to have an AA filter on bother or neither. Just because
    Sigma may choose to not include an AA filter is irelevant for the
    comparison of the Foveon sensor to a Bayer sensor. And if you want to
    use Sigma's camera for a comparison, you have to compare it to a bayer
    camera of the same spatial resolution without an AA filter.

    These are such simple concepts related to scientific methods that I'm
    surprised you haven't learned them yet. But here's something else
    you've learned today.
     
    TheRealSteve, May 17, 2012
  14. OK, let's finish that. You're comparing equals, so you're wrong.
    End of story.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, May 17, 2012
  15. Rich

    Alfred Molon Guest

    .... wrote the one who claims the Sigma has 45 MP...
     
    Alfred Molon, May 19, 2012
  16. Rich

    TheRealSteve Guest

    It figures you think that. You probably know it's wrong to compare a
    24MP Foveon using Sigma's MP definition to a 24MP Bayer or 24MP 3
    sensor system using a different MP definition. But it's the only way
    you can make your invalid argument look like it makes sense to an
    uninformed observer. That's sophistry at it's finest.
    It sure is.
     
    TheRealSteve, May 19, 2012
  17. Is your cutting of context malicious or careless?

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, May 21, 2012
  18. [/QUOTE]
    It figures that you don't even notice you're being handed *your*
    *very* *own* *logic*.
    OK, have it your way! Here's a 5D Mark III, here's a D800, please
    tell me which 24 or 36 MPix (MPics as per *your* definition)
    Foveon camera should be compared against them. Thank you in
    advance.

    You shouldn't use foreign words in English sentences when you've
    problems reading and understanding plain English sentences.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, May 21, 2012
  19. Rich

    TheRealSteve Guest

    First you have to say something logical. To you, if I want to see
    which is the better car, I can compare a tire iron to a pinto because
    they're both made of steel, so they're equal. You haven't yet figured
    out what has to be made equal in order to compare sensor resolution.
    More proof that you haven't got a clue as to what has to be made equal
    in order to compare sensor resolution. You really are lost in the
    world if scientific evaluation.
    You should look it up in an English dictionary. You might learn
    something.
     
    TheRealSteve, May 21, 2012
  20. [/QUOTE]
    Non sequitur. Your logic ("if A then B") doesn't need to be
    logical to be logic. Please use a dictionary.

    Please name the best Foveon FF camera. Don't hand wave.

    Yep, that you don't even grasp standard English.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, May 22, 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.