May I can edit your jpeg please ? I can render this picture completely stunningNo, we are talking about painting. M never smears pixels into painting like that at any conditions.
Edit: Scrutinize my 30s ugly pic here, any smearing, even the trees move under wind?
I find this comparison quite accurate based on the images on the web from the DP2Q. I like it gritty, although there is potential for the DP2Q.
I've actually been wondering if the "film grain" look wasn't a result of the binned lower layers being combined with the non-binned upper layer. The "watercolor + film grain" look could be consistent with the "color data from all layers, luminosity data from the top layer" processing as discussed in the literature.
And there isn't any of this processing of the different types of information from the sensor that isn't subject to some adjustment, some choices, in how to process the information, almost all of which is hidden in the usual processing of an image. Not that this is evil or wicked, or even a mistake, it's just that the user ends up with a different "look" and doesn't quite know why.
The "film grain" I suspect is from taking what is basically a 5mp sensor and enlarging it to a 20mp size. If I did that with my SD15 I'd get a lot of "grain" myself.
No, you wouldn't. See my new thread.
From my experimentation I believe that the "sand" is caused by the default sharpening in SPP being set too high for the Quattro. I found that if I set the sharpening to -2 and then sharpen to taste in PS with Threshold set to 12 and Radius set to 1.0 or higher it minimizes it greatly.No, you wouldn't. See my new thread.
I spent time looking at the "spray of sand" photo at high magnification and I can't discern a "2x2" pattern in there that you would expect from a 5mp image uprezzed to 20mp.
The noise seems random. Arbitrary. Any pattern you see is probably a product of your mind trying to discern patterns into chaos. Yes there are blocks of logic in there, but overall - random or pseudorandom.
At the moment my best guess is "layer with little data x layer with a lot of data = exaggerated noise".
For example "Red 10 or 15 or 20" and "Green 50 or 60 or 70" and "Blue 160 or 170 or 180"
You multiply it all out and subtle variations in red & green result in major variations in blue or vice versa. Or it was added in post (software, not hardware based).
Honestly, sometimes I think there is some sort of hazardous effect from long-term exposure to Foveon colors. I haven't been on this forum for a while but what I've seen over the last couple of day is, without exaggeration, just shocking. People are posting samples that are completely contaminated with green or magenta blotches or absolutely unreal colors (too blue, too yellow, too grey, you name it) and seriously proclaim their almost cult-like love with Foveon. Again, very honestly, I have not seen ANYTHIG pleasing in terms of colors to my foveon-free eyes from what I've seen so far (be it portraits, landscapes, or macros). I still like what I was able to get from my DP2 but what I see here now is, in my mind, some sort of degradation in standards. This is not to assault anyone, just an honest opinion of a former "Foveon-addict". ;-) Peace.
Can you show us your professional certificate of your eyes color perception
?I kind of agree. Maybe Bayer has come a long way and the Foveon advantage has all but disappeared. I still like the images that came from my SD14. Maybe Foveon is actually better with less Mp. Makes sense as large photosites are better at light gathering no matter what the sensor. I find the hyper detail of Merrills a bit much.
Frankly I don't understand your logics. Same FOV, my SD14 can not resolve eyes lashes, my Merrill can then you complain detail too much? My SD14 stuck with only one color palette and no noise control, with M I have all. The beauty of M is I can create a very neutral image which can be enhanced by myriad of filters for final taste but not with my SD14.
