Nikon D4s: Bayer processing breakthru?

Started Jun 4, 2014 | Discussions
richard stone Senior Member • Posts: 2,848
Re: Thanks to all: Nikon D4s: Bayer processing breakthru?

Tom Schum wrote:

Many thanks to all for your input and opinions.

It seems to me that we all know how bayer has been continually optimized over the years and we are left with only about 70% of the pixel count in terms of resolution. A breakthrough would go beyond this, and nothing was said about a breakthrough in the Shutterbug review.

So for now I might call it a subjective reading of D4s resolution byt the Shutterbug staff, as suggested.

DPR lab tests carry a lot of weight, at least for me, so I'll be waiting for them.

Here are a few opinions of my own. I use a CFA camera (Fuji X-E1) as well as my Sigma DP3M. There is a different look to the images from each, and it might only be the style these days but CFA is a little more gentle in the images. Foveon will definitely wow you but the comfort level with CFA seems to be a little bit higher for me because it is not reaching out to grab your attention so much. There is a place for both in the photographic art.

I've seen posts about trying to make Bayer look like Foveon, but nary a one about making Foveon look like Bayer. The crisp softness of Bayer and other CFA images is not easily produced from Foveon images I think, because in post processing one might need the complementary function to sharpness enhancement. I don't know if such a function is available.

It seems to me that the Foveon mantra of "as good as a bayer with twice as many pixels" has not been quite on the mark lately. It was true several years ago, but we have seen some advancements in Bayer/CFA processing that seem to erode the clear advantages of Foveon. Now, with the D4s, we might see parity between the images from the Nikon full-frame sensor at low ISO and the Merrill at low ISO. One reason we might not have seen such comparison images in the recent past is that no D4s owner or reviewer is particularly interested in exploring it. DPR's method of doing test images seems to involve careful sharpening until the limit, for any given sensor, and this might show us something interesting when compared to Merrill. Or, maybe not. I'm guessing in a couple months we will have some DPR test shots from the D4s, and then this will all blow over (if it is any kind of storm at all).

The issue (as I see it) is that the Foveon compared to Bayer has better per pixel sharpness/resolution, so the edge roll-off is more defined. And dramatic. Combine that with the lack of an AA filter and the sense/sensation/appearance of detail is much greater in a Foveon image.

But is sense of detail the same thing as detail? My SD10 had a superb sense of detail in the image, but I doubt that it would match up with the actual detail from a Merrill sensor. Still, the SD10 images are superb and crisp.

A second aspect is that the Bayer sensors are getting better, as is the processing. But it cannot, at a pixel level, match the Foveon direct and complete measurement at every surface pixel, and with no interpolation. Clearly that does not matter for every image. And the energy required to get that information at every Foveon pixel has led directly to the high ISO noise issues. The information at the level of the small lower layer Merrill pixels gets vanishingly small and difficult to use.

My reading of the information from Sigma and other sources about the Foveon quattro leads me to think that the new Sigma sensor will do better than ever at detail and produce very crisp images with more detail than before. Colors and shadows should be better. With smaller file sizes.

But I think in the end many will still prefer the Bayer sensor images, and they will be improving too. One issue that to me is telling is the usual report that the Bayer sensor images need more sharpening, and that it is (unfortunately) easy to over-sharpen the Foveon images.

I am glad that Sigma is being properly compared with Nikon and Canon et al, and with Pentax MF. It's impressive, really. And it is entirely possible (probable, really...) that better Foveon "quattro" type sensors can be produced than this initial version.

Richard

-- hide signature --
 richard stone's gear list:richard stone's gear list
Sigma SD10 Sigma sd Quattro Sigma 17-50mm F2.8 EX DC OS HSM Sigma 30mm F1.4 DC HSM Art
jennyrae Senior Member • Posts: 2,690
Re: Thanks to all: Nikon D4s: Bayer processing breakthru?

actually I find it opposite. it is easy to soften a picture compared to sharpen/enhance a picture. this is reason there is no demand drive by users to make Foveon look like Bayer except to improve high sensitivity performance. other than that, all Bayer manufacturers want to have that Foveon look that users are wanting at lower the cost.

Truman Prevatt
Truman Prevatt Veteran Member • Posts: 8,156
Re: Thanks to all: Nikon D4s: Bayer processing breakthru?
1

Tom Schum wrote:

I've seen posts about trying to make Bayer look like Foveon, but nary a one about making Foveon look like Bayer. The crisp softness of Bayer and other CFA images is not easily produced from Foveon images I think, because in post processing one might need the complementary function to sharpness enhancement. I don't know if such a function is available.

Boy Tom, you will get bounced on for that comment.  However, I liken it to the following.  Back in the days of enlarging negatives - particularly B&W one could get totally different looks from a condenser enlarger - point light sourced focused into directed bean thorough a condenser lenses.  The image produced by the condenser enlarger could be quite stark which some aficionados would declare to be superior sharpness.  The directed light from the condenser enlargers would scatter off the silver crystals and any negative imperfections (Callier effect) to cause of grain and imperfections to be enhanced.

The second type was a cold light head which was a large diffused light source larger than the negative that used no lenses.  This produced an image that was quite smooth but if inspected under a grain magnifier would show the edges as sharp as the same negative from a grain magnifier. However, the image was much smoother and some might call it softer - although that term had nothing to do with sharpness of the image.  The smoothness came from the smoothness of the tonal gradation from a cold light head compared to a condenser which in some cases give a "soot and chalk" pattern of gradation.

There was a in-between know as a diffusion enlarger in which the beam the directed beam is diffused by a translucent glass plate. This eliminates the Callier effect of a condenser enlarger but don't produce the same smooth image of the cold light enlarger.

Personally while I would describe a print out of a cold light head as smooth or soft but crisp the image was quite sharp.  I find my B&W conversions from my D800E to be very sharp focused but yet maintaining the smoothness and softness in the tonal gradation of my cold light enlarger prints. I know what you mean Tom.  Foveon images taken in the correct light are quite nice but they remind me of images printed with a condenser enlarger.  My preference is for smooth and crisp images.

-- hide signature --

Truman
www.pbase.com/tprevatt

 Truman Prevatt's gear list:Truman Prevatt's gear list
Fujifilm X-Pro2 Fujifilm X-H1 Fujifilm XF 18mm F2 R Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R Fujifilm XF 56mm F1.2 R +8 more
MOD rick decker Forum Pro • Posts: 15,579
Re: Thanks to all: Nikon D4s: Bayer processing breakthru?
1

I kind of like "Crisp Softness".

We have: light heavyweight...back of the front... last of the first...black light etc.

R

PrebenR Veteran Member • Posts: 3,529
Re: Thanks to all: Nikon D4s: Bayer processing breakthru?

Tom Schum wrote:

Many thanks to all for your input and opinions.

It seems to me that we all know how bayer has been continually optimized over the years and we are left with only about 70% of the pixel count in terms of resolution. A breakthrough would go beyond this, and nothing was said about a breakthrough in the Shutterbug review.

So for now I might call it a subjective reading of D4s resolution byt the Shutterbug staff, as suggested.

DPR lab tests carry a lot of weight, at least for me, so I'll be waiting for them.

Here are a few opinions of my own. I use a CFA camera (Fuji X-E1) as well as my Sigma DP3M. There is a different look to the images from each, and it might only be the style these days but CFA is a little more gentle in the images. Foveon will definitely wow you but the comfort level with CFA seems to be a little bit higher for me because it is not reaching out to grab your attention so much. There is a place for both in the photographic art.

You can always blur your Foveon image to look like CFA. But don't expect a CFA sensor to invent data point it does not have.

-- hide signature --

Lightwriting with Sigma
«Bad reputation»

dmaclau Senior Member • Posts: 2,710
Re: a masterful understatement

DMillier wrote:

I think any form of objective measurement that is reliable and repeatable is helpful.

The trouble is, review sites probably don't operate to the same standards of competence as a professional scientist publishing in a prestigious journal nor are their results peer reviewed. Anything could go wrong and no one would be checking. Even if you have no agenda, anyone can make a blunder.

On the other hand, they could also be 100% correct, just because you may not like the results doesn't automatically mean they are wrong...

can't really disagree, except....  With any complex device / system  there are so very many different "things" which might be measured and compared.  Regardless of a reviewer's capabilities they make decisions about what to measure.  Are these the correct decisions?

I seldom if ever see that the measured items are some sort of desirable output...a print or an interesting image.  Rather the measurements are plotted on graphs or in spreadsheets, surrounded in a verbose and often uninformed manner.

Thus my statement about an understatement.  Regardless of how objective and scientifically correct the comparisons (and I doubt each) they never seem to help determine how a camera will work for me.  How will it fit my hand?  How will it fit my style?  How will it fit my speed?  How does it work with my ideas about composition, art, beauty, interestingness?  These are the real reasons people own cameras.  To think that charts, pictures of brick walls, or fuzzy images of line pairs somehow works out to be "Wow! That's a great picture" is a sad disillusion.

 dmaclau's gear list:dmaclau's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix X100 Fujifilm X-Pro2 Samyang 8mm F2.8 UMC Fisheye Fujifilm XF 27mm F2.8 XF 90mm +1 more
DMillier Forum Pro • Posts: 20,592
Re: Thanks to all: Nikon D4s: Bayer processing breakthru?
2

I don't believe the D4s will come close at pixel level. There likely something amiss in the results you've seen.

I'm also a bit sceptical about Sigma's 2:1 claim; that reads like marketing to me even though it's the rue of thumb everyone seems to accept.

If I were going to accept anyone's simplified view of the comparison, I would choose Norman Koren (owner of Imatest). Back right when the SD9 was still new, he predicted on theoretical grounds that Foveon would be worth about 1.5x Bayer pixels.  That would pitch the Merrill sensor in with the 24MP class Bayers.  It's not an exact match, we know Bayer resolution varies and aliasing and anti-aliasing confound the comparisons but it appears to be in the ball park.

I've just received an email to say my DP2M is shipping and expected to be here on Monday. I know I swore I would never get one of these but now I have had my rush of blood moment due to an over-exciting debate on this very forum, I find I'm quite anticipating putting it through its paces.

Of all the people pushing the Foveon in recent years, the one that has had the biggest influence on me is Quentin Bargate. Quentin is a former forum pal from the Kodak (and possibly Olympus) forums a dozen years ago and I know for sure he is not a fanboy type.  He's a 10x8 viewcamera and drum scanner in his spare room type of guy and if he raving about the Dp2M (even going as far as calling it the best ever digital camera) then I listen. If you read his postings and see his photos, it's clear he thinks there is something special about the camera that is more than jsut resolution. Enough that he doesn't care about the flaws or inconvenience. You expect this attitude from fanboys, but not Quentin.

Looking forward to trying it next week (even though I know I'll hate using it!).

-- hide signature --

"...while I am tempted to bludgeon you, I would rather have you come away with an improved understanding of how these sensors work" ---- Eric Fossum
Galleries and website: http://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidmillier/

DMillier Forum Pro • Posts: 20,592
Re: Thanks to all: Nikon D4s: Bayer processing breakthru?

I guess we are talking about acutance again. Similar to the effect of developing in rodinal compared to a fine grain developer. It makes the end result look crunchy.  It wouldn't surprise me if luminance aliasing also contributes to that look.

-- hide signature --

"...while I am tempted to bludgeon you, I would rather have you come away with an improved understanding of how these sensors work" ---- Eric Fossum
Galleries and website: http://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidmillier/

DMillier Forum Pro • Posts: 20,592
Re: Thanks to all: Nikon D4s: Bayer processing breakthru?
1

Hmmm, technically it probably invents most of its datapoints - but then so does Foveon in a different way.  It's all about recording some quantity in nature then using what we know about human perception to convert those measures into something that fools us into accepting it as accurate.

Really, it's illusion all the way down...

-- hide signature --

"...while I am tempted to bludgeon you, I would rather have you come away with an improved understanding of how these sensors work" ---- Eric Fossum
Galleries and website: http://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidmillier/

Tom Schum
OP Tom Schum Veteran Member • Posts: 7,752
Re: Thanks to all: Nikon D4s: Bayer processing breakthru?

Truman Prevatt wrote:

Tom Schum wrote:

I've seen posts about trying to make Bayer look like Foveon, but nary a one about making Foveon look like Bayer. The crisp softness of Bayer and other CFA images is not easily produced from Foveon images I think, because in post processing one might need the complementary function to sharpness enhancement. I don't know if such a function is available.

Boy Tom, you will get bounced on for that comment. However, I liken it to the following. Back in the days of enlarging negatives - particularly B&W one could get totally different looks from a condenser enlarger - point light sourced focused into directed bean thorough a condenser lenses. The image produced by the condenser enlarger could be quite stark which some aficionados would declare to be superior sharpness. The directed light from the condenser enlargers would scatter off the silver crystals and any negative imperfections (Callier effect) to cause of grain and imperfections to be enhanced.

The second type was a cold light head which was a large diffused light source larger than the negative that used no lenses. This produced an image that was quite smooth but if inspected under a grain magnifier would show the edges as sharp as the same negative from a grain magnifier. However, the image was much smoother and some might call it softer - although that term had nothing to do with sharpness of the image. The smoothness came from the smoothness of the tonal gradation from a cold light head compared to a condenser which in some cases give a "soot and chalk" pattern of gradation.

There was a in-between know as a diffusion enlarger in which the beam the directed beam is diffused by a translucent glass plate. This eliminates the Callier effect of a condenser enlarger but don't produce the same smooth image of the cold light enlarger.

Personally while I would describe a print out of a cold light head as smooth or soft but crisp the image was quite sharp. I find my B&W conversions from my D800E to be very sharp focused but yet maintaining the smoothness and softness in the tonal gradation of my cold light enlarger prints. I know what you mean Tom. Foveon images taken in the correct light are quite nice but they remind me of images printed with a condenser enlarger. My preference is for smooth and crisp images.

This is exactly what I am talking about, but I never got beyond the cheapest Bessler enlarger in the late 1960s, which had a condenser system if I recall correctly.

Also, this has to be the best post I've read in months.

Thanks for contributing!

-- hide signature --

Tom Schum

 Tom Schum's gear list:Tom Schum's gear list
Sigma DP2 Sigma DP3 Merrill Fujifilm X30 Sigma dp0 Quattro Fujifilm X-E1 +10 more
richard stone Senior Member • Posts: 2,848
Re: Thanks to all: Nikon D4s: Bayer processing breakthru?

DMillier wrote:

I don't believe the D4s will come close at pixel level. There likely something amiss in the results you've seen.

I'm also a bit sceptical about Sigma's 2:1 claim; that reads like marketing to me even though it's the rue of thumb everyone seems to accept.

If I were going to accept anyone's simplified view of the comparison, I would choose Norman Koren (owner of Imatest). Back right when the SD9 was still new, he predicted on theoretical grounds that Foveon would be worth about 1.5x Bayer pixels. That would pitch the Merrill sensor in with the 24MP class Bayers. It's not an exact match, we know Bayer resolution varies and aliasing and anti-aliasing confound the comparisons but it appears to be in the ball park.

I've just received an email to say my DP2M is shipping and expected to be here on Monday. I know I swore I would never get one of these but now I have had my rush of blood moment due to an over-exciting debate on this very forum, I find I'm quite anticipating putting it through its paces.

Of all the people pushing the Foveon in recent years, the one that has had the biggest influence on me is Quentin Bargate. Quentin is a former forum pal from the Kodak (and possibly Olympus) forums a dozen years ago and I know for sure he is not a fanboy type. He's a 10x8 viewcamera and drum scanner in his spare room type of guy and if he raving about the Dp2M (even going as far as calling it the best ever digital camera) then I listen. If you read his postings and see his photos, it's clear he thinks there is something special about the camera that is more than jsut resolution. Enough that he doesn't care about the flaws or inconvenience. You expect this attitude from fanboys, but not Quentin.

Looking forward to trying it next week (even though I know I'll hate using it!).

David please, enough with the fanboy insults.

Mr. Bargate has been praising the DPMs for as long as they have been out. Him and M. Reichman. And a whole bunch of other people at LuLa. Fanboys all, apparently. MR went so far as to propose, not just suggest, that the cameras were meant for real photographers, not camera pussies? That's more than most fanboys would say. Did you read his review?

Best ever digital? Sounds extreme, does not specify criteria, and is therefor without logic: Equals Fanboy.

None of this is rational, and you make excuses, unnecessary ones in my opinion, for your own behavior.

Richard

-- hide signature --
 richard stone's gear list:richard stone's gear list
Sigma SD10 Sigma sd Quattro Sigma 17-50mm F2.8 EX DC OS HSM Sigma 30mm F1.4 DC HSM Art
Tom Schum
OP Tom Schum Veteran Member • Posts: 7,752
Re: Thanks to all: Nikon D4s: Bayer processing breakthru?

PrebenR wrote:

You can always blur your Foveon image to look like CFA. But don't expect a CFA sensor to invent data point it does not have.

I wonder if you can tell me how to use unsharp mask to selectively blur out detail finer than 0.4 pixel radius without touching any of the other detail in the image.

So far as I can tell, unsharp mask will sharpen to a radius but will not "unsharpen" to the same radius.  To do that I would have to set the % slider to negative values and it doesn't go lower than zero.  This might be entirely my own misconceptions about unsharp mask and they are getting in my way. I need some help here!

Thanks,

-- hide signature --

Tom Schum

 Tom Schum's gear list:Tom Schum's gear list
Sigma DP2 Sigma DP3 Merrill Fujifilm X30 Sigma dp0 Quattro Fujifilm X-E1 +10 more
richard stone Senior Member • Posts: 2,848
Re: even more...a masterful understatement

dmaclau wrote:

DMillier wrote:

I think any form of objective measurement that is reliable and repeatable is helpful.

The trouble is, review sites probably don't operate to the same standards of competence as a professional scientist publishing in a prestigious journal nor are their results peer reviewed. Anything could go wrong and no one would be checking. Even if you have no agenda, anyone can make a blunder.

On the other hand, they could also be 100% correct, just because you may not like the results doesn't automatically mean they are wrong...

can't really disagree, except.... With any complex device / system there are so very many different "things" which might be measured and compared. Regardless of a reviewer's capabilities they make decisions about what to measure. Are these the correct decisions?

I seldom if ever see that the measured items are some sort of desirable output...a print or an interesting image. Rather the measurements are plotted on graphs or in spreadsheets, surrounded in a verbose and often uninformed manner.

Thus my statement about an understatement. Regardless of how objective and scientifically correct the comparisons (and I doubt each) they never seem to help determine how a camera will work for me. How will it fit my hand? How will it fit my style? How will it fit my speed? How does it work with my ideas about composition, art, beauty, interestingness? These are the real reasons people own cameras. To think that charts, pictures of brick walls, or fuzzy images of line pairs somehow works out to be "Wow! That's a great picture" is a sad disillusion.

You stopped short, before getting to the other big issue: the camera itself will influence, if not determine or control, the images you produce. Could someone do a wedding with one DP2M? Yes, they could, but envision how the images would be different.

A high speed DSLR or mirror-less will lend itself to creating different images than you would create with a camera that essentially requires a more contemplative approach. For some people that will be a benefit, or a relief, and for others it will be a painful limitation, a complete failure, etc.

For most, it will just seem to be the way it is. Some will see that their images have changed, others will not, and still others will just produce the same images they did before.

Richard

-- hide signature --
 richard stone's gear list:richard stone's gear list
Sigma SD10 Sigma sd Quattro Sigma 17-50mm F2.8 EX DC OS HSM Sigma 30mm F1.4 DC HSM Art
Tom Schum
OP Tom Schum Veteran Member • Posts: 7,752
Re: Nikon D4s: Comparing the DPR test images
1

Note to moderator:  The studio shot comparison for the D4s won't allow me to select any Sigmas, so I can't easily compare them.  It would be nice if DPR allowed this.

As it is, I have to bring up two different DPR sessions; one for the D4s and one for the Sigma SD1, and the test images are different and I can only select the D4 in the Sigma test image set, not the D4s.  Any ideas here?

What I tried was to first compare the SD1 to the D4, then compare the D4 to the D4s.  This works because a D4 test image is in both formats.

Juggling the various screens around, the D4 seems to be not as good as the D4s in terms of resolution, and the overall appearance of the D4s images seems more nearly at parity with the SD1 images in terms of sharpness, but maybe this is only because the D4s images have a little more contrast than the D4 images.  The D4 and D4s images seem to me to have better color than the SD1 images.

I can read the small print in the D4s images and it is harder to read in the D4 images.  The SD1 resolves the print well, too, but the D4s seems to be quite close to the SD1 in terms of clarity.

Just my subjective impressions.

-- hide signature --

Tom Schum

 Tom Schum's gear list:Tom Schum's gear list
Sigma DP2 Sigma DP3 Merrill Fujifilm X30 Sigma dp0 Quattro Fujifilm X-E1 +10 more
Scottelly
Scottelly Forum Pro • Posts: 10,853
Re: Nikon D4s: Comparing the DPR test images

Tom Schum wrote:

Note to moderator: The studio shot comparison for the D4s won't allow me to select any Sigmas, so I can't easily compare them. It would be nice if DPR allowed this.

As it is, I have to bring up two different DPR sessions; one for the D4s and one for the Sigma SD1, and the test images are different and I can only select the D4 in the Sigma test image set, not the D4s. Any ideas here?

What I tried was to first compare the SD1 to the D4, then compare the D4 to the D4s. This works because a D4 test image is in both formats.

Juggling the various screens around, the D4 seems to be not as good as the D4s in terms of resolution, and the overall appearance of the D4s images seems more nearly at parity with the SD1 images in terms of sharpness, but maybe this is only because the D4s images have a little more contrast than the D4 images. The D4 and D4s images seem to me to have better color than the SD1 images.

I can read the small print in the D4s images and it is harder to read in the D4 images. The SD1 resolves the print well, too, but the D4s seems to be quite close to the SD1 in terms of clarity.

Just my subjective impressions.

I agree with you about the color from the SD1. It seems screwed up to me . . . but the photos from Foveon sensors often are "different" from photos produced by other camera. That's one thing I like about them. Maybe it's because I like to be different, but I like to think the Foveon sensors have an ability to capture/reproduce the colors of real life better than other sensors. Sometimes I think the Foveon sensor fails in that mission, but other times I am incredibly happy with its performance. I've seen inconsistency in color reproduction from other cameras too . . . my Sony A55, my Canon 5 D, my Nikon D5000, etc.

 Scottelly's gear list:Scottelly's gear list
Sony SLT-A65 Sigma SD1 Merrill Sony a7 Nikon D810 Sigma sd Quattro H +17 more
Scottelly
Scottelly Forum Pro • Posts: 10,853
Re: Thanks to all: Nikon D4s: Bayer processing breakthru?

Tom Schum wrote:

PrebenR wrote:

You can always blur your Foveon image to look like CFA. But don't expect a CFA sensor to invent data point it does not have.

I wonder if you can tell me how to use unsharp mask to selectively blur out detail finer than 0.4 pixel radius without touching any of the other detail in the image.

So far as I can tell, unsharp mask will sharpen to a radius but will not "unsharpen" to the same radius. To do that I would have to set the % slider to negative values and it doesn't go lower than zero. This might be entirely my own misconceptions about unsharp mask and they are getting in my way. I need some help here!

Thanks,

Try upscaling the image to 200% Tom. Then use a radius of 1. Otherwise try upscaling by 300% or 400% and use a radius of 1, 2 or 3. Experiment. That's how you learn. When all is said and done, you can downscale back to the original size or smaller, if you like . . . of course.

Here are two similar images. The first is one of the samples from the SD1 review here on DPreview, and the second is that same image upscaled by 300% and then blurred in GIMP 2.8, using the Gaussian Blur filter, with a value of 4 for x and 4 for y. Then I downsized it to 4704 wide, which returned it to its original size.

Original test image from SD1 Merrill review samples here at DPreview

Test image edited by upsizing 300%, blurring 4x and 4y, and then scaling the image back down to 4704x3136

If you open these two images in new tabs and flip back and forth between them (after resetting your browser zoom) you will see the difference a little gaussian blur can make. It's not a lot, but can be less or more, depending on the values you set. Do you like the second image better than the first? If so, then I suggest you stick with CFA sensors . . . with AA filters. The D610 should do just fine.

 Scottelly's gear list:Scottelly's gear list
Sony SLT-A65 Sigma SD1 Merrill Sony a7 Nikon D810 Sigma sd Quattro H +17 more
Scottelly
Scottelly Forum Pro • Posts: 10,853
Re: Thanks to all: Nikon D4s: Bayer processing breakthru?

Here's anther example, using the resolution test images, followed by the Nikon D4 test image:

Original test image from raw image comparison in SD1 Merrill review.

The following image is the same image as above, but it was upscaled 300%, blurred with a Gaussian blur of 4x and 4y, and then downscaled back to original size. I saved with 99% quality to JPEG with no smothing, though if you added some smoothing you might get the Bayer pattern CFA look you're after.

SD1 Merrill test image (from raw image quality comparison) upscaled, blurred, and downscaled.

The two images above are larger than the image from the Nikon D4, which follows. I suggest opening all three in new tabs in your browser, zooming into the same spot on each, and then cycling through them to see the difference in clarity between each.

Take note how over-saturated the colors in the Nikon appear. (Maybe it's just me, but don't think it looks like neutral settings were used to export from View NX 2.)

Nikon D4 test image from raw comparison at SD1 Merrill review.

Over-saturating the image can look very nice. This should have been done with the Merrill image file, if that is indeed the intent of the author(s).

What do you see, when you look at the three images at 100% size? What are the differences?

 Scottelly's gear list:Scottelly's gear list
Sony SLT-A65 Sigma SD1 Merrill Sony a7 Nikon D810 Sigma sd Quattro H +17 more
Scottelly
Scottelly Forum Pro • Posts: 10,853
Re: Thanks to all: Nikon D4s: Bayer processing breakthru?

I've got to say, after looking at the word SEYCHELLES on the little globe of the Earth, the first image looks visibly sharper than the second image, as it should, but the second image looks visibly sharper than the third image, from the Nikon D4. I would be interested to see a similar image from the Nikon D4s. I doubt it can beat the image from the much cheaper Sigma SD1 Merrill . . . even though the Nikon is a full-frame camera with the latest technology Nikon can bring to bare (or should I say "Bayer" here?) for their flagship camera.

I don't expect a CFA sensor to compete with a Foveon sensor, even though the Foveon sensor is half the size. This is one of the things that stands out in my mind about Foveon sensors. They give a greater depth of field, which is a significant advantage for a photographer shooting close-up subjects, such as flowers and even tightly cropped portraits of people. This can be an advantage when shooting most landscape photos too. Who wants stuff in a landscape photo to be blurred? (I'm thinking specifically about sunrise and sunset shots from the beach right now. I want the shells on the edge of the beach to look like they're in focus, even if I'm shooting with a 50mm lens and a sailboat on the horizon, which is in perfect focus. I know this is an impossibility, but the camera with the smaller sensor is more likely to get closer to my ultimate goal. In the end I know I need a tilt-shift (perspective control) lens . . . but I just can't afford that yet. Maybe one day.

 Scottelly's gear list:Scottelly's gear list
Sony SLT-A65 Sigma SD1 Merrill Sony a7 Nikon D810 Sigma sd Quattro H +17 more
DMillier Forum Pro • Posts: 20,592
Re: Thanks to all: Nikon D4s: Bayer processing breakthru?
1

What excuses, what behaviour? Do you mean for buying one?

Truth is I've secretly wanted one since they first came out just so I could see what the fuss was about but my head said: costs too much, already have too many cameras, won't use a camera that doesn't play nice with Lightroom, hate slow cameras with no viewfinder and terrible battery life, so I kept away. Rush of blood didn't listen to reason, so now got to live with spur of moment decision. Upside is I get to find out what all the fuss is about first hand. But I have been following Quentin's journey with the Merrills on getdpi.com forum where he has build the most impressive Foveon portfolio I've seen yet.

One thing is for sure, I'm definitely no fanboy, so if I end up respecting the camera, it will respect arrived at against my emotions, not rose tinted at all...

We'll see how it goes, but don't be surprised if I'm back here frequently begging for help on how to work the thing and particularly SPP which is simple to look at but surprisingly opaque to figure out.

-- hide signature --

"...while I am tempted to bludgeon you, I would rather have you come away with an improved understanding of how these sensors work" ---- Eric Fossum
Galleries and website: http://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidmillier/

DMillier Forum Pro • Posts: 20,592
Re: Nikon D4s: Comparing the DPR test images
1

All cameras have subjective "adjustments" built into their colour reproduction as the engineers try to make it look "nice".  The Foveon tend to be more inconsistent and white balance can be a fiddle.  You can also get colour casts with Foveon that don't seem to afflict bayer cameras in quite the same way. just one of the problems that need to be wrestled with I guess. Foveon seem to get better at colour with each generation.

-- hide signature --

"...while I am tempted to bludgeon you, I would rather have you come away with an improved understanding of how these sensors work" ---- Eric Fossum
Galleries and website: http://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidmillier/

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads