10-04-2010, 08:04 AM
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1286127597' post='3463']
Of course you can think of very specific examples where you get a lower detail resolution. We are not talking about that, now are we? No, we are talking about detail in general. The point is (was): The main "advantage" of the foveon sensors (other than theoretical more precise colour infor per pixel) is that Sigma chooses not to use AA-filters, which makes them seemingly more sharp (but that sharpness is mostly fake detail, aliasing).
Don't make a caricature of things.
[/quote]
Right, right. The problem I see here is that you rather conveniently put an '=' sign between luminance data and image sharpness. To my understanding, it's 100% true in only one possible scenario - when someone shoots a pure B/W scene. Because as soon as you introduce any details based on colour transition (i.e. wavelength change instead of brightness change), demosaicing guesswork kicks in and resolution will degrade. I guess pure B/W scenes (the best case scenario for Bayer) occur naturally about as frequent as my "caricature" worst-case red-and-blue scenario, so if we assume that typical scene is somewhere in the middle, Bayer normally will have worse sharpness than Foveon. With AA filter or without.
P.s. I think we're back to square one here - I believe at the beginning of the conversation I agreed that Bayer would be equally sharp if it's B/W.
Of course you can think of very specific examples where you get a lower detail resolution. We are not talking about that, now are we? No, we are talking about detail in general. The point is (was): The main "advantage" of the foveon sensors (other than theoretical more precise colour infor per pixel) is that Sigma chooses not to use AA-filters, which makes them seemingly more sharp (but that sharpness is mostly fake detail, aliasing).
Don't make a caricature of things.
[/quote]
Right, right. The problem I see here is that you rather conveniently put an '=' sign between luminance data and image sharpness. To my understanding, it's 100% true in only one possible scenario - when someone shoots a pure B/W scene. Because as soon as you introduce any details based on colour transition (i.e. wavelength change instead of brightness change), demosaicing guesswork kicks in and resolution will degrade. I guess pure B/W scenes (the best case scenario for Bayer) occur naturally about as frequent as my "caricature" worst-case red-and-blue scenario, so if we assume that typical scene is somewhere in the middle, Bayer normally will have worse sharpness than Foveon. With AA filter or without.
P.s. I think we're back to square one here - I believe at the beginning of the conversation I agreed that Bayer would be equally sharp if it's B/W.