09-22-2010, 11:36 PM
[quote name='wim' timestamp='1285195185' post='3111']
My note was based on previous Foveon sensors and comparisons of test shots. The thing is that the Foveon actually still only has 1/3 of the number of actual sensels or pixels indicated by Sigma, just that they can read the full spectrum. And this gives them a slight edge over Bayer sensors, as I mentioned, in the past anyway, of about 30 % to 40 % over their actual number of sensels, but certainly nothing like 3X that.
Regarding diffraction and sensors: I won't go into this, except maybe for a thread specifically dealing with that. Let me just note here that we never talked about diffraction limits with film and halide grains, so why should we all of a sudden with sensors. In my book it is a total non-issue, except for engineers specialized in this subject <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />.
Kind regards, Wim
[/quote]
I look at it a slightly different way. A foveon stack gives what I consider a true output pixel. The way bayer type sensors are sold are a marketing trick to make the numbers sound higher than they really are. But because it is what almost everyone uses, it sticks. The required interpolation means it can never be pixel perfect sharp other than using sharpening tricks.
And personally I'm not bothered with diffraction other than just another law of physics to get in the way. It is there when it is there. But in the specific case of this new sensor, I think it is a worthy consideration when people start pixel peeping. Will the sensor deliver the theoretical benefit or not? To answer that, you need to avoid possible scenarios where the limit is elsewhere. Because it isn't a bayer pattern sensor, we need to consider the differences.
At the end of the day, this could, and probably should, be better than a similar nominal bayer sensor. Like everyone else I'll have to be patient and wait for samples to see if it can deliver.
My note was based on previous Foveon sensors and comparisons of test shots. The thing is that the Foveon actually still only has 1/3 of the number of actual sensels or pixels indicated by Sigma, just that they can read the full spectrum. And this gives them a slight edge over Bayer sensors, as I mentioned, in the past anyway, of about 30 % to 40 % over their actual number of sensels, but certainly nothing like 3X that.
Regarding diffraction and sensors: I won't go into this, except maybe for a thread specifically dealing with that. Let me just note here that we never talked about diffraction limits with film and halide grains, so why should we all of a sudden with sensors. In my book it is a total non-issue, except for engineers specialized in this subject <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />.Kind regards, Wim
[/quote]
I look at it a slightly different way. A foveon stack gives what I consider a true output pixel. The way bayer type sensors are sold are a marketing trick to make the numbers sound higher than they really are. But because it is what almost everyone uses, it sticks. The required interpolation means it can never be pixel perfect sharp other than using sharpening tricks.
And personally I'm not bothered with diffraction other than just another law of physics to get in the way. It is there when it is there. But in the specific case of this new sensor, I think it is a worthy consideration when people start pixel peeping. Will the sensor deliver the theoretical benefit or not? To answer that, you need to avoid possible scenarios where the limit is elsewhere. Because it isn't a bayer pattern sensor, we need to consider the differences.
At the end of the day, this could, and probably should, be better than a similar nominal bayer sensor. Like everyone else I'll have to be patient and wait for samples to see if it can deliver.
<a class="bbc_url" href="http://snowporing.deviantart.com/">dA</a> Canon 7D2, 7D, 5D2, 600D, 450D, 300D IR modified, 1D, EF-S 10-18, 15-85, EF 35/2, 85/1.8, 135/2, 70-300L, 100-400L, MP-E65, Zeiss 2/50, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300/2.8, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Olympus E-P1, Panasonic 20/1.7, Sony HX9V, Fuji X100.