Bayer - Foveon comparison

Started Nov 23, 2008 | Discussions thread
DMillier Forum Pro • Posts: 20,895
Re: Some creatures are even simpler

I'd be careful about waxing lyrical about the benefits of omitting the AA filter; the Kodak is a perfect example. At 100% view it has the weirdest looking pixels of any camera. Aliasing artifacts all over the place, a peculiar water colour painterly effect and other digital nasties. You can make nice prints from a Kodak but the lack of AA filter has severely damaged the pixel quality. In fact, I now find mine unusable. Images from the 5D are vastly superior.

docmaas wrote:
Good point Derek. Actually I think the superior inherent
separability of pixels in the Sigma is due more to the absence of the
AA filter than the 3 layer chip. Despite the interpolation of bayer
I think you're right that since each position should be just as well
separated in the bayer as in the foveon, and if there are more of
them the finer granularity should lead to better demarcation between
objects. However, the AA filter blurs the separation of pixels on
the bayer filter and that is what really gives them the fuzziness
rather than the interpolation per se. that's why the kodak looks
more like a foveon image or leica image than do other bayer images
with aa filters. Likewise the new Sony A900 is producing, according
to many, inherently sharper images than its competitors and again the
credit is going to a "lighter" Aa filter.

Now that FF sensors have reached far enough to satisfy modern lens
resolution the next improvements will be on making those FF sensors
better in other ways than just more mpix and I suspect that AA
filters will become more sophisticated and perhaps even removable in
the near future on DSLRs as they already are on MF sensors/cameras.

Mike

derek324 wrote:
Some creatures are simpler and even easier to confuse. I tried, and
tried, and tried again, with exactly opposite conclusion.

BTW, as an electronics engineer I would always argue that better
'registration of data' should be expected from sensors placed next to
each other, as opposed to 3 layers of sensors underneath each other,
no metter what the sensors are supposed to 'catch'. I just do not
believe in technology being able to offer total transparency between
the layers, zero reflections, and lack of interference... but this is
of course flogging a dead horse and was discussed many, many times.

Just shows that different perspectives do exists

richard stone wrote:

Simple creature that I am, and as I often say, easily confused, when
I look at these tests, time and time again, the Foveon images look
crisper and clearer to me. No blurring. Each photo-site is
reporting, spatially, exactly what it registered.

...

-- hide signature --
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow