It depends . . .
In each case, Foveon v. Bayer, the data captured by the sensor is converted to an RGB color image. The method of conversion is different but the result is the same. The RGB colors are converted to black and white by making R=G=B. There are several popular weightings available for that conversion; perhaps the most popular is luminance where the weighting is 0.3R, 0.6G, 0.1B.
Is that a statement or a question Jay?
Is that a statement or a question Jay?
OK
Thanks for the link - interesting reading.
With SPP 5.5.3 and the DP1M, I get a tiny bit more contrast from the middle layer:Zero sharpening needed with zero interpolation. Disabling the bottom green and red color layers leaves you with a single layer with no AA or color filter. Foveon has really sparked my technical interest into photography again.
Interesting. I usually adjust the contrast with the slider but this is something I'll take note of. I'll have to experiment with ISO noise of each layer as well for anything above 100.With SPP 5.5.3 and the DP1M, I get a tiny bit more contrast from the middle layer:Zero sharpening needed with zero interpolation. Disabling the bottom green and red color layers leaves you with a single layer with no AA or color filter. Foveon has really sparked my technical interest into photography again.
left to right: blue, green, red.
Not too surprising because the middle layer is the best match to human vision, luminous efficacy per CIE.
--
Ted
Thanks. Just so you know, the above are straight out of the mixer, 100% in each case, no other SPP adjustments at all.Interesting. I usually adjust the contrast with the slider but this is something I'll take note of.With SPP 5.5.3 and the DP1M, I get a tiny bit more contrast from the middle layer:Zero sharpening needed with zero interpolation. Disabling the bottom green and red color layers leaves you with a single layer with no AA or color filter. Foveon has really sparked my technical interest into photography again.
left to right: blue, green, red.
Not too surprising because the middle layer is the best match to human vision, luminous efficacy per CIE.
--
Ted
Wise move. Merrill raw reds are about 1 EV down in an average scene, so noise would become a factor at higher ISO settings. In my images above, the blue has the best SNR, the red the worst. I checked part of the sky with ImageJ - won't bother you with the numbers.
On that argument, you would get zero contrast when shooting in the Infra Red. A digital camera is not a human eye and there's no reason to expect it to behave similarly.With SPP 5.5.3 and the DP1M, I get a tiny bit more contrast from the middle layer:
left to right: blue, green, red.
Not too surprising because the middle layer is the best match to human vision, luminous efficacy per CIE.
It is not an argument. The statement applies to the camera with the UV/IR blocker in place. Should have said, so as to ward off responses like this . . .On that argument, you would get zero contrast when shooting in the Infra Red. A digital camera is not a human eye and there's no reason to expect it to behave similarly.With SPP 5.5.3 and the DP1M, I get a tiny bit more contrast from the middle layer:
left to right: blue, green, red.
Not too surprising because the middle layer is the best match to human vision, luminous efficacy per CIE.
An interesting view - "preserving detail" with less contrast, stated in a monochrome thread! Also interesting to discover that, apparently, only the top layer is panchromatic.
Hmmm .... the real world is in color. So ... depending on what colors it is you get different contrast when choosing different layers.It is not an argument. The statement applies to the camera with the UV/IR blocker in place. Should have said, so as to ward off responses like this . . .On that argument, you would get zero contrast when shooting in the Infra Red. A digital camera is not a human eye and there's no reason to expect it to behave similarly.With SPP 5.5.3 and the DP1M, I get a tiny bit more contrast from the middle layer:
left to right: blue, green, red.
Not too surprising because the middle layer is the best match to human vision, luminous efficacy per CIE.
github.com
I believe using a blue filter (or faking it in photoshop) is the "trick" that aestheticians use to show you how much "sun damage" you have. Probably the more legit ones may actually use UV sensitive cameras, but I suspect most just do a blue filter & a crunchy sharpness.Hmmm .... the real world is in color. So ... depending on what colors it is you get different contrast when choosing different layers.It is not an argument. The statement applies to the camera with the UV/IR blocker in place. Should have said, so as to ward off responses like this . . .On that argument, you would get zero contrast when shooting in the Infra Red. A digital camera is not a human eye and there's no reason to expect it to behave similarly.With SPP 5.5.3 and the DP1M, I get a tiny bit more contrast from the middle layer:
left to right: blue, green, red.
Not too surprising because the middle layer is the best match to human vision, luminous efficacy per CIE.
One example: Caucasian skin
Skin is full of red marks. So - a blue filter will enhance skin contrast and a red filter will remove almost all contrast from the skin. Therefore, using the top layer for skin will exaggerate all skin faults.
Here is an example on blue filter photography of skin I found on the net
Normally your model do not want this look, sop maybe you shall not use the top layer for portraits.
Another example: a landscape
In the film days most landscape photographers had a yellow (minus blue) filter on the lens. This in order to get a darker sky and lighter greens. Thus, using the top layer for landscapes is generally not a good idea IMHO, if you do not want the 19th century look. In the 19th century all films and plates were blue sensitive.
--
/Roland
Kalpanika X3F tools:
https://github.com/kalpanika/x3f
