Trying to understand Quattro better

Started 9 months ago | Discussions thread
PrebenR
Senior MemberPosts: 2,720
Like?
Re: I got some answers, and more
In reply to maple, 8 months ago

I did not expect this thread to get this long. The bottom line is that I was able to glean from the heated discussion what I want to know better, and that Quattro will be as good as Merrill in resolution but with lower noise thus, I hope, will render images with more vibrant and purer colors.

More interestingly though is how this thread quickly turned into a pixel row. It is actually rather enlightening to see so much “hostility” against Foveon here in this forum of supposedly camera users!

From Dick Lyon’s research paper in the history of “Pixel”, it seems to me that “pixel” has more than a few definitions and has been used to describe both pictures and the imaging sensor, among others. In determining the resolution of a picture, one can only count the number of dots, or pixels, that make up the picture, since you only have a 2D dot-matrix to start with. But when it comes counting pixels of a sensor, I can’t see why that “convention” of counting spatial locations is valid and should be followed. Since each detector is an element that makes up the final picture, regardless how they are arranged, a sensor’s capability is largely determined by the number of detectors it has. So telling the total number of photo detectors instead of spatial locations should give users a better idea of its capability. Then why not? By established definition of pixel, as some argued. How convenient? But is there such convention for tallying sensor MP? I can understand such an argument if it is from the competition, or its surrogates, but not from camera users who can only benefit from fewer misleading info.

More interesting then is the insistence by some that it is dishonest for sigma to market their sensor for the number of photo detectors it has. But the fact is that Sigma is doing exactly what the others have been doing in marketing their Bayer sensors, i.e., telling the market the number of monochrome detectors. Why Sigma has to count a full colour pixel as a pixel while it’s OK for others to counter a monochrome pixel as a pixel? It really beats me.

I'm thankful for everyone's participating in this thread that helped me to come to the above opinions.

-- hide signature --

Maple

Many lurkers who only wait for these debates.

Very nice summary
--
Lightwriting with Sigma

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow