The death of the Bayer filter? Maybe not.

Mxsmanic writes:

RichA writes:

Didn't Sony produce a sensor with yellow pixels at one point in a
P&S? Anyone know how that turned out?

I know there are video cameras that have done this, but I don't know about
still cameras.

Using cyan, yellow, and magenta instead of red, blue, and green increases
light sensitivity by a factor of 2, but at the expensive of color resolution
and accuracy.

I think Kodak played with that in some models, don't remember if it was
early DSLRs or later consumer models.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

On Thu, 05 Apr 2012 07:50:52 +1200, Me wrote:
IIRC that was white pixels - but then again nothing would surprise me.
Sharp make TV panels with yellow pixels. This seems to be 99% BS.
Sometimes competition/marketing ends up driving complex and even elegant
solutions to problems which never existed.

You should do an A-B comparison between the quadpixel and a standard
TV watching something with turquiose blues or bright yellows. I did it
with one of those planet earth shows with bright tropical fish against
a similar Samsung, Toshiba, Pioneer and a few others. You'll be
surprised at the difference.

It would make a good monitor for photo processing since it seems to be
able to display a wider gamut of colors.

Steve

On 6/04/2012 1:34 p.m., TheRealSteve wrote:

On Thu, 05 Apr 2012 07:50:52 +1200, wrote:
IIRC that was white pixels - but then again nothing would surprise me.
Sharp make TV panels with yellow pixels. This seems to be99% BS.
Sometimes competition/marketing ends up driving complex and even elegant
solutions to problems which never existed.

You should do an A-B comparison between the quadpixel and a standard
TV watching something with turquiose blues or bright yellows. I did it
with one of those planet earth shows with bright tropical fish against
a similar Samsung, Toshiba, Pioneer and a few others. You'll be
surprised at the difference.

It would make a good monitor for photo processing since it seems to be
able to display a wider gamut of colors.

I've actually got one here (Sharp 60"), and compared to our (budget -
bottom of range, CCFL 1080p) Sony 40", I can't tell the difference. I'm
not going to set them up side by side to test - that would be kind of
silly - the "general impression" is plenty good enough - and there's far
more quality variation between source material than there is between any
two TV sets.
The general impression is that the LED backlight in the Sharp is waaaaay
too bright, default "AV modes" were pretty hideous, and the auto ambient
light sensor worked better in the Sony. But these can tweaked, so it's
an OK TV set.
The colour that bugs me most is blown reds, but that's not the fault of
the TV.

In article , Mxsmanic
wrote:

IIRC this camera uses a "pseudo random" pattern for RGBG filters, which
theoretically gets rid of *colour moire, and possibly reduces luminance
moire (by more random placement of green sensels than a repeating bayer
pattern), so there's less need for a low pass filter.

It would also reduce color resolution. If it's actually being done, it sounds
like a gimmick.

not really, but bayer already has higher colour resolution than the eye
can resolve so there's no issue if it does reduce it.

The whole issue of aliasing is past history; I don't know why people still
worry about it.

aliasing is definitely not past history. it's still very real.

When you have a large number of pixels, you don't need to
worry about aliasing.

not as much.

So the ultimate solution for aliasing is more pixels.
There will always be aliasing of details that are sufficiently small, if the
lens can resolve them, but the aliasing will not be noticeable or troublesome.

it might be noticeable.

Even in the old days, when sensors had far fewer pixels, I never really
noticed problems with aliasing.

then you are either blind or don't know what to look for.

I'd rather take the risk of aliasing than put
up with the blur of anti-aliasing.

it doesn't blur.

In article
,
RichA wrote:

Didn't Sony produce a sensor with yellow pixels at one point in a
P&S? Anyone know how that turned out?

they used emerald as the 4th colour and it didn't work out too well
since it's no longer made.

In article , Bruce
wrote:

More green is welcome, because that is where the Bayer pattern is
deficient - and that's in spite of having 50% of the pixels against
25% for each of red and blue.

how is it deficient if it has twice as many?

In article , Mxsmanic
wrote:

Photos already have problems with shimmering reds and blues because there are
too few pixels of both.

no they don't.

And remember that lossy compression often reduces blue
and red resolution even further.

nothing you can see.

In article , Mxsmanic
wrote:

Using cyan, yellow, and magenta instead of red, blue, and green increases
light sensitivity by a factor of 2, but at the expensive of color resolution
and accuracy.

no, it's a wash. you get better sensitivity but you lose it in
conversion to rgb. there's a reason nobody does this anymore.

In article , David Dyer-Bennet
wrote:

If there is horrible aliasing, it can be adjusted in post. That's way
preferable to blurring every single photo just on the off chance that there
might be a problem with aliasing.

Nope, horrible aliasing (generally moire) is really terribly hard to
adjust in post.

it's impossible. if you remove the moire you will remove real detail,
particularly if the moire is low frequency banding.

In article , Mxsmanic
wrote:

I've seen recent examples of pictures containing horrible aliasing.

If there is horrible aliasing, it can be adjusted in post.

no it can't.

That's way
preferable to blurring every single photo just on the off chance that there
might be a problem with aliasing.

no it isn't because the fix will affect real details.

You mostly haven't had that choice. And if you're working fast and in
field conditions, you're MUCH better off with the AA filter.

Nope, I want the output of the camera to be as unmanipulated as possible, so
that I can make any necessary adjustments in post. Changes made in the camera
cannot be undone, and if they ruin a photo, you're out of luck.

shoot raw.

That's why so many DSLRs actually produce poor video, incidentally.

actually, very good video.