Bayer Filter Obsolescence?

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/L/LOW_LIGHT_PHOTOS?SITE=LAALE&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE= DEFAULT

Eric Miller
www.dyesscreek.com

In article , Eric Miller
wrote:

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...ALE&SECTION=HO
ME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

http://news.com.com/2300-1041_3-6190778-1.html

including some samples to demonstrate what they are claiming.

nospam wrote

including some samples to demonstrate what they are claiming.

Hmmm, some of those photos don't really demonstrate a great
deal. They would have to shoot the same shot with the same
camera settings to demonstrate a difference in performance of
the sensor. Only the first shot is valid in this respect, although
the results, if representative, are very impressive.

Chris

Ï "Eric Miller" Ýãñáøå óôï ìÞíõìá
...

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...LAALE&SECTION=
HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Eric Miller
www.dyesscreek.com


Very nice.So, my "shutterbug" will become obsolete?
Very interesting article, though.Didn't know that the bayer filter was
discovered in 1976.



--
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
major in electrical engineering
mechanized infantry reservist
dimtzort AT otenet DOT gr

I may be dumb but it is not entirely clear that the panchromatic pixels can
convey picture information along with brightness in the way green pixels
convey both. Hence a sensor of given megapixel count may appear to have less
noise but would it not also be unable to capture as much picture
information?

Tzortzakakis Dimitrios wrote:
[]
Very nice.So, my "shutterbug" will become obsolete?
Very interesting article, though.Didn't know that the bayer filter was
discovered in 1976.

It wasn't. It was invented, not discovered. G

Cheers,
David

babaloo wrote:
I may be dumb but it is not entirely clear that the panchromatic
pixels can convey picture information along with brightness in the
way green pixels convey both. Hence a sensor of given megapixel count
may appear to have less noise but would it not also be unable to
capture as much picture information?

It trades off the spatial resolution in colour detail for a greater
precision in brightness level - if you like to look at it that way. By
using more of the incoming photos, there can be a net gain. The human eye
is much less sensitive to colour detail.

Unlike in the general population, some people on this group seem to have
eyes which are completely intolerant to even small amounts of image noise.
G

David

Eric Miller wrote:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/L/LOW_LIGHT_PHOTOS?SITE=LAALE&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE= DEFAULT

Eric Miller
www.dyesscreek.com


It is still pretty much the same as the basic Bayer sensor. Since the
Bayer sensor rather accurately models the human eye, I suspect that it
will remain popular as long as pictures are made for humans to look at.

On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 03:30:12 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote:

Eric Miller wrote:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/L/LOW_LIGHT_PHOTOS?SITE=LAALE&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE= DEFAULT

Eric Miller
www.dyesscreek.com


It is still pretty much the same as the basic Bayer sensor. Since the
Bayer sensor rather accurately models the human eye, I suspect that it
will remain popular as long as pictures are made for humans to look at.

Whereas the new technology will be used for cats to look at?

Ï "David J Taylor"
Ýãñáøå óôï ìÞíõìá
. ..
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios wrote:
[]
Very nice.So, my "shutterbug" will become obsolete?
Very interesting article, though.Didn't know that the bayer filter was
discovered in 1976.

It wasn't. It was invented, not discovered. G

Yeah, whatever.I will keep that in mind, though.
Thanks for the correction.
Cheers,
David





--
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
major in electrical engineering
mechanized infantry reservist
dimtzort AT otenet DOT gr