If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Sigma cameras try to appeal to real shooters
In article ,
nospam wrote: In article , Alfred Molon wrote: That would put the real resolution between 6.5 and 25.4MP. Well no, it's not that simple. it's not simple but it's correct. the actual resolution of that sigma camera varies depending on the colour of the subject, something which is *never* desirable. Unless you are going for monochrome. Put on a blue filter and a 25MP monochrome you've got. Think Gershwin and "Rhapsody in blue"... because the bottom two layers are 6 mp, it can only resolve slightly better than an ordinary 6 mp camera, unless the subject is mostly blue, in which case it will be a bit better because the top layer, which responds to blue, has higher pixel count and can resolve more detail. real world subjects are *not* mostly blue nor are they a spectral match for the top layer. in other words, it's a 6 mp camera that in some cases can do a little better, with a whole ****load of artifacts because it's guessing most of the details. The real resolution of a Bayer sensor is probably around 50%-70% of the pixel count, depending on the scene. nonsense. first of all, resolution is not measured by pixel count and second of all, bayer is close to its theoretical maximum (nyquist). This Foveon sensor, if it doesn't have three complete colour layers as you claim, that's not what was claimed. will have a somewhat higher real resolution - perhaps 70% to 90% of the pixel count. only if you properly count the pixels, which sigma nor its followers do. The photo sites in a Bayer matrix should be a tad fuzzy. I would correct the MP count through a dividing by the square root of two. I don't have the math in order for that but it feels about right. A stack like the Foveon have the pixel rate that the least dense layer has. In this case 6MP. Another complication regarding the resolution of color: If you take a look at the Foveon stack you must understand that the colors ain't 100 percent pure since every color but blue is filtered by the above layers. I doubt that those filters are very clean... You posted this link once. Thanks for that: http://static.rcgroups.net/forums/at...51638-191-Stac ked%20imager%20color%20response%20curves.jpg?d=114 9316976 The main wiki on the Foveon: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foveon_X3_sensor -- teleportation kills |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Sigma cameras try to appeal to real shooters
In article , android
wrote: That would put the real resolution between 6.5 and 25.4MP. Well no, it's not that simple. it's not simple but it's correct. the actual resolution of that sigma camera varies depending on the colour of the subject, something which is *never* desirable. Unless you are going for monochrome. Put on a blue filter and a 25MP monochrome you've got. Think Gershwin and "Rhapsody in blue"... that's about the only use for that camera. because the bottom two layers are 6 mp, it can only resolve slightly better than an ordinary 6 mp camera, unless the subject is mostly blue, in which case it will be a bit better because the top layer, which responds to blue, has higher pixel count and can resolve more detail. real world subjects are *not* mostly blue nor are they a spectral match for the top layer. in other words, it's a 6 mp camera that in some cases can do a little better, with a whole ****load of artifacts because it's guessing most of the details. The real resolution of a Bayer sensor is probably around 50%-70% of the pixel count, depending on the scene. nonsense. first of all, resolution is not measured by pixel count and second of all, bayer is close to its theoretical maximum (nyquist). This Foveon sensor, if it doesn't have three complete colour layers as you claim, that's not what was claimed. will have a somewhat higher real resolution - perhaps 70% to 90% of the pixel count. only if you properly count the pixels, which sigma nor its followers do. The photo sites in a Bayer matrix should be a tad fuzzy. they're not fuzzy. I would correct the MP count through a dividing by the square root of two. what for? I don't have the math in order clearly. for that but it feels about right. math isn't about what feels right. A stack like the Foveon have the pixel rate that the least dense layer has. In this case 6MP. that part is true. the sensor is limited by the two layers of 6 mp. the 25 mp top layer is a slight improvement over a 6mp top layer, but there's still roughly 2/3rds of the spectrum limited to 6 mp. its biggest problem is that it has to upscale the bottom two layers to 25 mp, faking nearly everything in the process. sigma claims a 51 mp equivalent which is pure fantasy. Another complication regarding the resolution of color: If you take a look at the Foveon stack you must understand that the colors ain't 100 percent pure since every color but blue is filtered by the above layers. I doubt that those filters are very clean... there's a ****load of overlap, which throws yet another wrench into their claims. You posted this link once. Thanks for that: http://static.rcgroups.net/forums/at...51638-191-Stac ked%20imager%20color%20response%20curves.jpg?d=114 9316976 that looks like it's from the patents. The main wiki on the Foveon: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foveon_X3_sensor nothing more than a rehash of their false claims. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Sigma cameras try to appeal to real shooters
In article ,
nospam wrote: In article , android wrote: That would put the real resolution between 6.5 and 25.4MP. Well no, it's not that simple. it's not simple but it's correct. the actual resolution of that sigma camera varies depending on the colour of the subject, something which is *never* desirable. Unless you are going for monochrome. Put on a blue filter and a 25MP monochrome you've got. Think Gershwin and "Rhapsody in blue"... that's about the only use for that camera. because the bottom two layers are 6 mp, it can only resolve slightly better than an ordinary 6 mp camera, unless the subject is mostly blue, in which case it will be a bit better because the top layer, which responds to blue, has higher pixel count and can resolve more detail. real world subjects are *not* mostly blue nor are they a spectral match for the top layer. in other words, it's a 6 mp camera that in some cases can do a little better, with a whole ****load of artifacts because it's guessing most of the details. The real resolution of a Bayer sensor is probably around 50%-70% of the pixel count, depending on the scene. nonsense. first of all, resolution is not measured by pixel count and second of all, bayer is close to its theoretical maximum (nyquist). This Foveon sensor, if it doesn't have three complete colour layers as you claim, that's not what was claimed. will have a somewhat higher real resolution - perhaps 70% to 90% of the pixel count. only if you properly count the pixels, which sigma nor its followers do. The photo sites in a Bayer matrix should be a tad fuzzy. they're not fuzzy. It's extrapolated data, dufuzz... I would correct the MP count through a dividing by the square root of two. what for? It's extrapolated data, dufuzz... And since the matrix is two by two the correction factor should be between one and two... I don't have the math in order clearly. Yet the sky is blue... for that but it feels about right. math isn't about what feels right. Sure is: Black numbers feels good, but red not so... -- teleportation kills |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Sigma cameras try to appeal to real shooters
In article , android
wrote: will have a somewhat higher real resolution - perhaps 70% to 90% of the pixel count. only if you properly count the pixels, which sigma nor its followers do. The photo sites in a Bayer matrix should be a tad fuzzy. they're not fuzzy. It's extrapolated data, dufuzz... it's neither extrapolated nor is it fuzzy. I would correct the MP count through a dividing by the square root of two. what for? It's extrapolated data, dufuzz... And since the matrix is two by two the correction factor should be between one and two... it isn't. the number of pixels is a physical property of the sensor. there is no correction factor and it does not change. it is what it is. I don't have the math in order clearly. Yet the sky is blue... actually, it's cyan. for that but it feels about right. math isn't about what feels right. Sure is: Black numbers feels good, but red not so... use blue ink. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Sigma cameras try to appeal to real shooters
In article ,
nospam wrote: In article , android wrote: will have a somewhat higher real resolution - perhaps 70% to 90% of the pixel count. only if you properly count the pixels, which sigma nor its followers do. The photo sites in a Bayer matrix should be a tad fuzzy. they're not fuzzy. It's extrapolated data, dufuzz... it's neither extrapolated nor is it fuzzy. I would correct the MP count through a dividing by the square root of two. what for? It's extrapolated data, dufuzz... And since the matrix is two by two the correction factor should be between one and two... it isn't. Sure is since the color measured by photo site is determined by of site pixels. -- teleportation kills |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Sigma cameras try to appeal to real shooters
In article , android
wrote: will have a somewhat higher real resolution - perhaps 70% to 90% of the pixel count. only if you properly count the pixels, which sigma nor its followers do. The photo sites in a Bayer matrix should be a tad fuzzy. they're not fuzzy. It's extrapolated data, dufuzz... it's neither extrapolated nor is it fuzzy. I would correct the MP count through a dividing by the square root of two. what for? It's extrapolated data, dufuzz... And since the matrix is two by two the correction factor should be between one and two... it isn't. Sure is since the color measured by photo site is determined by of site pixels. chroma is determined by very complex calculations which have a negligible effect on spatial resolution. it also doesn't matter, since the human eye can't resolve chroma particularly well (about 1/10th that of luma). bayer samples chroma at half the rate it samples luma, which is about 5x more than people can see. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Sigma cameras try to appeal to real shooters
In article ,
nospam wrote: In article , android wrote: will have a somewhat higher real resolution - perhaps 70% to 90% of the pixel count. only if you properly count the pixels, which sigma nor its followers do. The photo sites in a Bayer matrix should be a tad fuzzy. they're not fuzzy. It's extrapolated data, dufuzz... it's neither extrapolated nor is it fuzzy. I would correct the MP count through a dividing by the square root of two. what for? It's extrapolated data, dufuzz... And since the matrix is two by two the correction factor should be between one and two... it isn't. Sure is since the color measured by photo site is determined by of site pixels. chroma is determined by very complex calculations which have a negligible effect on spatial resolution. it also doesn't matter, since the human eye can't resolve chroma particularly well (about 1/10th that of luma). bayer samples chroma at half the rate it samples luma, which is about 5x more than people can see. Since you don't have a BW channel... Oki... -- teleportation kills |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Sigma cameras try to appeal to real shooters
In article , android
wrote: I would correct the MP count through a dividing by the square root of two. what for? It's extrapolated data, dufuzz... And since the matrix is two by two the correction factor should be between one and two... it isn't. Sure is since the color measured by photo site is determined by of site pixels. chroma is determined by very complex calculations which have a negligible effect on spatial resolution. it also doesn't matter, since the human eye can't resolve chroma particularly well (about 1/10th that of luma). bayer samples chroma at half the rate it samples luma, which is about 5x more than people can see. Since you don't have a BW channel... Oki... i didn't say bw. i said luma/chroma. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Sigma cameras try to appeal to real shooters
In article ,
nospam wrote: In article , android wrote: I would correct the MP count through a dividing by the square root of two. what for? It's extrapolated data, dufuzz... And since the matrix is two by two the correction factor should be between one and two... it isn't. Sure is since the color measured by photo site is determined by of site pixels. chroma is determined by very complex calculations which have a negligible effect on spatial resolution. it also doesn't matter, since the human eye can't resolve chroma particularly well (about 1/10th that of luma). bayer samples chroma at half the rate it samples luma, which is about 5x more than people can see. Since you don't have a BW channel... Oki... i didn't say bw. i said luma/chroma. Oki... -- teleportation kills |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Okay, a real message about technology in cameras | ben brugman | Digital Photography | 0 | July 10th 08 07:17 PM |
which 35mm cameras used real prisms? | joe mama | 35mm Photo Equipment | 14 | August 4th 06 01:31 AM |
real cameras ARE made out of wood.. | m II | Digital SLR Cameras | 3 | February 2nd 06 01:18 PM |
real cameras ARE made out of wood.. | [email protected] | Digital SLR Cameras | 0 | February 1st 06 12:33 AM |
There is no market for real cameras anymore. | Joseph Kewfi | 35mm Photo Equipment | 265 | January 22nd 06 03:52 PM |