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 |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Sony A100 to A700
[A complimentary Cc of this posting was sent to
Alfred Molon ], who wrote in article : In other words, this kit lens can overload the sensor in many settings. I'm not sure 70% of the sensor line count is sufficient. But I'm not deep enough in the math to be able to discuss this further. In any case, if the sensor were full colour, you'd want to have an ideal lens with 100% MTF until the line count of the sensor (and an ideal AA filter with a rectangle response until Nyquist). With a Bayer sensor you do the colour interpolation, and the situation is different. Yes, this "70%" figure is mostly related to the sensor being of Bayer type. (See the comparison of Sigma vs Canikon in one of the latest reviews on dpreview: it turns out that there is a significant "portion of truth" in Sigma's "Foveon pixel count".) On the other hand, 100%MTF is in no way necessary. Remember that MTF=50% means "with proper postprocessing no information is lost, the price being about 1/2 step decrease in S/N ratio". Besides most if not all reviews of the Sony Alpha 350 (14MP, approx. 3000 lines) point out that the Sony 18-70 lens is a limiting factor and state that a better lens is desperately needed. Did not see anything even close to this said about SAL1680Z. As I said already, the Alpha kit lens is slightly lousier than Canikon's. Hope this helps, Ilya |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Sony A100 to A700
Ilya Zakharevich wrote:
[A complimentary Cc of this posting was sent to Alfred Molon ], who wrote in article : In other words, this kit lens can overload the sensor in many settings. I'm not sure 70% of the sensor line count is sufficient. But I'm not deep enough in the math to be able to discuss this further. In any case, if the sensor were full colour, you'd want to have an ideal lens with 100% MTF until the line count of the sensor (and an ideal AA filter with a rectangle response until Nyquist). With a Bayer sensor you do the colour interpolation, and the situation is different. Yes, this "70%" figure is mostly related to the sensor being of Bayer type. (See the comparison of Sigma vs Canikon in one of the latest reviews on dpreview: it turns out that there is a significant "portion of truth" in Sigma's "Foveon pixel count".) Not as significant as the fact that there's something fundamentally wrong with the science behind the idea that you should devise a special way of testing to show an "advantage" not seen using methods accepted for many years. Foveon "advantage" in resolving primary colour patterns is mainly irrelevant to colour photography. Yes I know that foveon zealots take delight in occasionally finding such patterns in flower petals etc in order to try and prove a point. On balance, present foveon sensors suck. The DP1 might get away with being okay as a novelty item, but the dslrs don't. On the other hand, 100%MTF is in no way necessary. Remember that MTF=50% means "with proper postprocessing no information is lost, the price being about 1/2 step decrease in S/N ratio". Besides most if not all reviews of the Sony Alpha 350 (14MP, approx. 3000 lines) point out that the Sony 18-70 lens is a limiting factor and state that a better lens is desperately needed. Did not see anything even close to this said about SAL1680Z. As I said already, the Alpha kit lens is slightly lousier than Canikon's. Hope this helps, Ilya |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Sony A100 to A700
In article , Ilya Zakharevich
wrote: I'm not sure 70% of the sensor line count is sufficient. But I'm not deep enough in the math to be able to discuss this further. In any case, if the sensor were full colour, you'd want to have an ideal lens with 100% MTF until the line count of the sensor (and an ideal AA filter with a rectangle response until Nyquist). With a Bayer sensor you do the colour interpolation, and the situation is different. Yes, this "70%" figure is mostly related to the sensor being of Bayer type. (See the comparison of Sigma vs Canikon in one of the latest reviews on dpreview: it turns out that there is a significant "portion of truth" in Sigma's "Foveon pixel count".) there is no truth in the 'foveon pixel count.' pixels are pixels, regardless what sigma/foveon claim (and they even use the term inconsistently, further proof that their method is bogus). the reason for the difference is that sigma omits the anti-alias filter and thereby the sensor can resolve closer to nyquist, along with a lot of aliasing and heavy sharpening, which some people mistake for real resolution. it also does better on colour resolution charts but that isn't anything that matters to human vision. it just makes bayer look worse in an edge case that never occurs in nature. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Sony A100 to A700
[A complimentary Cc of this posting was sent to
frederick ], who wrote in article 1212458499.612758@ftpsrv1: Yes, this "70%" figure is mostly related to the sensor being of Bayer type. (See the comparison of Sigma vs Canikon in one of the latest reviews on dpreview: it turns out that there is a significant "portion of truth" in Sigma's "Foveon pixel count".) Not as significant as the fact that there's something fundamentally wrong with the science behind the idea that you should devise a special way of testing to show an "advantage" not seen using methods accepted for many years. I suspect you may have very little clue in this topic. Read the dpreview analysis (turns out that THIS topic is well within THEIR level of technical expertise; I did not find any obvious goofs in what they write). The conclusion is quite surprising... [Keep in mind that they did not do any analysis of precision of color reproduction; HERE Foveon should be, according to X3 documentation, quite bad.] Hope this helps, Ilya |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Sony A100 to A700
[A complimentary Cc of this posting was sent to
nospam ], who wrote in article : there is no truth in the 'foveon pixel count.' pixels are pixels, regardless what sigma/foveon claim (and they even use the term inconsistently, further proof that their method is bogus). the reason for the difference is that sigma omits the anti-alias filter and thereby the sensor can resolve closer to nyquist, along with a lot of aliasing and heavy sharpening, which some people mistake for real resolution. it also does better on colour resolution charts but that isn't anything that matters to human vision. it just makes bayer look worse in an edge case that never occurs in nature. You can count angels at the point of a needle as long as you want. The fact remains the fact. DPreview (which is often suspected for prejudice in Canikon direction) compares shots from a 5MP x 3 sensor, and from Bayer sensors with (several) larger MP count. The conclusion was quite surprising (for me). Hope this helps, Ilya |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Sony A100 to A700
Ilya Zakharevich wrote:
[A complimentary Cc of this posting was sent to frederick ], who wrote in article 1212458499.612758@ftpsrv1: Yes, this "70%" figure is mostly related to the sensor being of Bayer type. (See the comparison of Sigma vs Canikon in one of the latest reviews on dpreview: it turns out that there is a significant "portion of truth" in Sigma's "Foveon pixel count".) Not as significant as the fact that there's something fundamentally wrong with the science behind the idea that you should devise a special way of testing to show an "advantage" not seen using methods accepted for many years. I suspect you may have very little clue in this topic. Read the dpreview analysis (turns out that THIS topic is well within THEIR level of technical expertise; I did not find any obvious goofs in what they write). The conclusion is quite surprising... [Keep in mind that they did not do any analysis of precision of color reproduction; HERE Foveon should be, according to X3 documentation, quite bad.] Hope this helps, It doesn't help. The defense for the DP review "analysis" is the words "per pixel" resolution, and their noting of the fact that bayer sensors of higher pixel count have (unsurprisingly except to Foveon zealots) higher resolution. Their conclusion also lists more "cons" than I've seen for any camera for quite a while - as well as a low overall rating. And I stand behind my comments above - it's dishonest / unscientific to put the colour-resolution chart test in place of the normal chart tests. If you wanted to show "optimum" performance in those charts, then DPreview don't do it with other cameras (usually default jpeg output and using old design lenses - not raw converted and optimised with OEM converters and using the best possible lenses), so making an exception for the unusual and generally not very good Sigma foveon cameras is only helping to perpetuate myths. Hope this helps. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Sony A100 to A700
[A complimentary Cc of this posting was sent to
frederick ], who wrote in article 1212478815.530753@ftpsrv1: It doesn't help. The defense for the DP review "analysis" is the words "per pixel" resolution, and their noting of the fact that bayer sensors of higher pixel count have (unsurprisingly except to Foveon zealots) higher resolution. Wrong. If you wanted to show "optimum" performance in those charts, then DPreview don't do it with other cameras (usually default jpeg output and using old design lenses - not raw converted and optimised with OEM converters and using the best possible lenses), so making an exception for the unusual and generally not very good Sigma foveon cameras is only helping to perpetuate myths. Now we know that it is not a myph. Visual comparison of Foveon images and Bayer images gives an advantage of about 2x in pixel count. (Myself, I was expecting something about 1.5x...) Hope this helps, Ilya |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Sony A100 to A700
Ilya Zakharevich wrote:
[A complimentary Cc of this posting was sent to frederick ], who wrote in article 1212478815.530753@ftpsrv1: It doesn't help. The defense for the DP review "analysis" is the words "per pixel" resolution, and their noting of the fact that bayer sensors of higher pixel count have (unsurprisingly except to Foveon zealots) higher resolution. Wrong. If you wanted to show "optimum" performance in those charts, then DPreview don't do it with other cameras (usually default jpeg output and using old design lenses - not raw converted and optimised with OEM converters and using the best possible lenses), so making an exception for the unusual and generally not very good Sigma foveon cameras is only helping to perpetuate myths. Now we know that it is not a myph. Visual comparison of Foveon images and Bayer images gives an advantage of about 2x in pixel count. (Myself, I was expecting something about 1.5x...) Hope this helps, Ilya I don't know what you are arguing about. 4.69 x 2 = 10mp IIRC DPreview already said the ("3.4mp x 3") SD10 was similar to 6mp dslrs in resolution - so nothing new here. "So what we'd really like to see is a sensor that combines the Foveon's per pixel resolution with the output size of a modern DSLR. It would no doubt take image quality onto another level and beat current Bayer sensors by a mile." Yes - sure - but not with noise etc.. By the time Foveon come up with this (a "10mp x 3" sensor), do you expect that Bayer sensors will still be where they are today? (or were yesterday - Sony, Canon, Nikon, Pentax are already beyond 10mp). |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Sony A100 to A700
In article , nospam says...
there is no truth in the 'foveon pixel count.' pixels are pixels, regardless what sigma/foveon claim (and they even use the term inconsistently, further proof that their method is bogus). the reason for the difference is that sigma omits the anti-alias filter and thereby the sensor can resolve closer to nyquist, along with a lot of aliasing and heavy sharpening, which some people mistake for real resolution. it also does better on colour resolution charts but that isn't anything that matters to human vision. it just makes bayer look worse in an edge case that never occurs in nature. This has been discussed to death and there is no point to reopen the discussion. Do a Google search on the archives to find out why with Bayer sensors the effective resolution is lower than the nominal pixel count. -- Alfred Molon ------------------------------ Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0 and E3 forum at http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/ http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Sony A100 to A700
In article 1212478815.530753@ftpsrv1, frederick says...
And I stand behind my comments above - it's dishonest / unscientific to put the colour-resolution chart test in place of the normal chart tests. Since the world is not black and white, it makes sense to use colour resolution test targets instead of black and white ones. -- Alfred Molon ------------------------------ Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0 and E3 forum at http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/ http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Sony A700 - two youtube videos - | Alan Browne | Digital Photography | 0 | September 16th 07 06:09 PM |
Sony A700 - color histogram | Alan Browne | Digital SLR Cameras | 0 | September 16th 07 04:57 PM |
New Sony A700 looks okay. | Pete D | Digital SLR Cameras | 2 | September 7th 07 05:06 AM |
New Sony A700 looks ok! | Pete D | Digital Photography | 0 | September 6th 07 11:03 AM |