The death of the Bayer filter? Maybe not.

In article , TheRealSteve
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.

there are wide gamut lcd displays that can display argb, and that's
without that nonsense.

In article , Mxsmanic
wrote:

You're probably not going to get it; because it doesn't match the
behavior of the human eye very well, so it'll look less good than a less
"fair" design does (to human eyes).

It will look just as well. After all, the real world has the three colors
balanced, too.

the eye's response is not equal on all colours.

A Bayer filter is compensation for an inadequate number of pixels to begin
with. If you have enough pixels--or three sensors--you don't need a Bayer
pattern.

nonsense, and 3 sensors is *very* impractical. even pro video is moving
to bayer (red).

nospam wrote:
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?

I suspect the idea is that luminance information should be weighted
more like 2/3 green.

Peter.

In article , Mxsmanic
wrote:

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

So does an AA filter.

wrong. an aa filter prevents the moire from happening in the first
place, so the real detail won't need to be altered.

In article , Mxsmanic
wrote:

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

An AA filter simply deprives you of those details to begin with, whether you
want it to or not.

no it doesn't. what an aa filter does is reduce the details the sensor
cannot resolve, so you aren't losing anything. take away the aa filter
and you won't get those details, you'll get fake details, aka alias
artifacts.

shoot raw.

If raw is available. But that won't help if there's a AA filter on the sensor.

two totally different things.

actually, very good video.

Actually very poor. The performance of a DSLR for video typically is nothing
like its performance for still photos. I've seen and done the side-by-side
comparisons.

millions of others have seen both and they're buying dslrs *for* video
because they are very good and a fraction of the price of what they
were buying, particularly pros.

In article , Mxsmanic
wrote:

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

Color resolution doesn't depend just on the filter pattern. And comparisons to
what the eye can resolve involve many factors. I still see shimmering reds and
blues in photos, so there's still a problem.

see an eye doctor.

In article , Mxsmanic
wrote:

the eye's response is not equal on all colours.

You may want to do something with the photos besides look at them. And the
solution to inadequate color is more and better pixels.

what else would i want do with photos than look at them?

if you mean image analysis, then there are special cameras for that
purpose.

nonsense, and 3 sensors is *very* impractical. even pro video is moving
to bayer (red).

Three sensors have worked very well for video for decades.

they have, and now they've been replaced by something better, a bayer
sensor.

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

Irrelevant, because if you enlarge the image enough the eye can very
well appreciate the colour details.

Besides, the Bayer interpolation impacts the overall image resolution,
not just the colour one.

But again, it's pointless to conduct this discussion with you, because
you refuse to accept simple facts, and routinely go into a "no-no-no"
denial mode. Maybe I should filter out your posts and save my time on
other issues.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

"Alfred Molon" wrote in message
. ..
[]
Irrelevant, because if you enlarge the image enough the eye can very
well appreciate the colour details.

Besides, the Bayer interpolation impacts the overall image resolution,
not just the colour one.
[]
--

Alfred Molon

Alfred,

If you enlarge a print enough you can probably see the individual fibres
in the paper, and if you enlarge a display enough you can see the
individual RGB pixels. The image need only contain enough resolution
(whether it be colour or monochrome) for the intended application.

What point is there in presenting a final image of greater resolution than
the eye can perceive? In engineering terms, it is a waste.

David

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
nospam writes:

wrong. an aa filter prevents the moire from happening in the first
place, so the real detail won't need to be altered.

The AA filter works by removing the real detail.

The AA filter works by removing the detail which cannot be accurately
recorded by a sensor made up of discrete pixels (at regular intervals).
The lack of such filtering will lead to artefacts such as steps on near
horizontal or near vertical edges, and false-colours on finely textured
material, and these artefacts cannot be removed in post-processing.

David