--
what is measured at those spatial locations? its not colour is it? and let colour be what the picture makes.... (yes obi wan)I don't!
I just want people to stop mistaking color resolution for spatial
resolution and stop daydreaming about 14MP interpolated files that
rival 13MP native spatial resolution files
That, and it really would be nice (if impractical) to have a really
real 14MP (i.e. 3x14MP) Foveon sensor, but that's just me dreaming
again
--
--------------------------------------------
Ante Vukorepa
Most of us are eager to find out....Because THIS is what a Canon 5D crop looks like:
Are you telling me you seriously expect the interpolated 14MP from
SD14 will look like that at 100%?!
Don't take me wrong, Foveon is great and i'm sure SD14 will live up
to it's expectations, but let's just stop with the dreams here...
Good, then get a Foveon and get real colors instead of interpolated slop.I don't!
I just want people to stop mistaking color resolution for spatial
resolution and stop daydreaming about 14MP interpolated files that
rival 13MP native spatial resolution files
That, and it really would be nice (if impractical) to have a really
real 14MP (i.e. 3x14MP) Foveon sensor, but that's just me dreaming
again
--
--------------------------------------------
Ante Vukorepa
The truth is Sigma is true 4.6 MP sensor, it captures all colors and will not be affected by subject matter. It can always capture full 4.6MP individual samples if the lens can deliver.
Now Larry - did it look good or not?
Or you could just say "about 10" or "around 10" etc.9-11 is OK. Its just 20% difference and there will not be heated
discussion regarding if 9 or 11 is OK. Enough people is mature
enough for avoiding that, I hope
Yepp - thats the common belief. The same as 5x3 equalling 10x1. Unfortunately 5x3 will cost $1600 and 10x1 cost $800 now. Quite an advantage I would say.
Hmmm ... some cameras have rather weak AA filters to emphasis sharpness before supressing artefacts.
Yes. It looks very good. Very non-sloppish.
Why did it look good? It has very little in the way of saturated color.
Where? They are smaller on the new 10Mp camera. So you can get 10Mp similar pixels for that price, but not quite the same.
Silly math. I'm assuming you aren't really serious.
No it did not look good to me... looks just like what comes from my Bayer sensors after being sharpened to death. Problem with sharpening is that it does micro contrating which leads to this metallic video look. Sorry looks like bayer sharpened image.
Fair enough.
Yepp - silly math. I just got somewhat tired of hearing that he should really use this or that technology if he wants better pictures. In this case in the light that he just have showed a very good picture using the competing technology.
OK - it is a heavily compressed JPEG.
What do think sharpening is? Sharpening changes the constrat of detail edges... send me the actual RAW and I will show you what the freaking thing looks like at 100% without sharpening. It'll be soft but the colors and contrasts would look a weeee better.OK - it is a heavily compressed JPEG.
Can we have a lesser compressed picture or even a tiff Ante?
Then Larry - point me to the micro contrating
It is here were the possible openings for SD14 starts. By analyzing
real Bayer imaging faults not found in direct color imaging. Not by
silli pixel counting.
--
Roland
http://klotjohan.mine.nu/~roland/
This picture is so heavily JPEG-ed that you cannot see any problems with any sharpening IMHO. Look at the thing att 400% and it will look like a satelite photo over mid america full of mile roads.
I invite people to examine all crops carefully at 400% before they submit them for revue, as it's a lot easier to see the issues in an image that way.
I don't care if it is RAW! I know what a Bayer produces. IMHO I don't like it.
I have been and while some artifacts might be from JPG (The sky?), other things like the maze in the far left window and color errors cannot be caused by JPG - JPG will just flatten out some gradients, not add new colors where none were before.
