05-25-2011, 07:30 AM
I am a software developer too, do I care much about your "i have written blahblah"? No, it does not impress much. That you copied an example demosaicking algorithm for your very own hobby converter, great. get over it, though.
As you might be aware, some RAW convertors and not as good as others in recovering detail. Fill in your own conclusion.
I already am clear on that you love the false detail aliased results. That you love the oversharpened look, the stair stepping of every edge.
That you think that is "better", is your problem/preference. But it is not more actual detail.
Like I said, until you have a Bayer CFA sensor without AA-filter, or a Sigma sensor with AA-filter, you have to be careful with comparisons, as you are unable to filter the false detail visually.
And there are ways to compare those: The Leica M9 has no AA-filter. There are a few files to be found online for Cameras, like a 5D, that have their AA-filter removed. There are some MF backs without AA-filter.
It is stupid of you to say that I am "criticizing" the SD1, that that is "outrageous". I am not attacking any camera, least of all the SD1. I am just pointing out that that what people like YOU seem to love (the false detail, the exaggerated defined edges) mostly is from the missing AA-filter, and has less to do with the lack of CFA. No idea how that can be seen as ""criticizing" the SD1 "outrageously". That is not about SD1, that is about Sigma not putting in AA-filters on their sensors (when they actually should, as any signal processing person will tell you).
That you like that is fine. That I don't, should be fine too. Some people love to turn up the bass and the volume, to be impressed when listening to music. I am not one of those either.
fact: Sigma/Foveon results APPEAR more detailed, but actaully just show false detail, like an oversharpened photo from a bayer CFA photo will show too.
Fact: Sigma/Foveon sensors would benefit from AA-filters, to prevent the creating of edges where in the projected image there are not such defined edges on pixel borders (aliasing), and to prevent moire in areas of high frequency detail.
I am fine with people being impressed with AA-filterless results. They should be fine with someone pointing out that the extra detail they are perceiving mostly is false detail due to the square, hard edged nature of pixels.
As you might be aware, some RAW convertors and not as good as others in recovering detail. Fill in your own conclusion.
I already am clear on that you love the false detail aliased results. That you love the oversharpened look, the stair stepping of every edge.
That you think that is "better", is your problem/preference. But it is not more actual detail.
Like I said, until you have a Bayer CFA sensor without AA-filter, or a Sigma sensor with AA-filter, you have to be careful with comparisons, as you are unable to filter the false detail visually.
And there are ways to compare those: The Leica M9 has no AA-filter. There are a few files to be found online for Cameras, like a 5D, that have their AA-filter removed. There are some MF backs without AA-filter.
It is stupid of you to say that I am "criticizing" the SD1, that that is "outrageous". I am not attacking any camera, least of all the SD1. I am just pointing out that that what people like YOU seem to love (the false detail, the exaggerated defined edges) mostly is from the missing AA-filter, and has less to do with the lack of CFA. No idea how that can be seen as ""criticizing" the SD1 "outrageously". That is not about SD1, that is about Sigma not putting in AA-filters on their sensors (when they actually should, as any signal processing person will tell you).
That you like that is fine. That I don't, should be fine too. Some people love to turn up the bass and the volume, to be impressed when listening to music. I am not one of those either.
fact: Sigma/Foveon results APPEAR more detailed, but actaully just show false detail, like an oversharpened photo from a bayer CFA photo will show too.
Fact: Sigma/Foveon sensors would benefit from AA-filters, to prevent the creating of edges where in the projected image there are not such defined edges on pixel borders (aliasing), and to prevent moire in areas of high frequency detail.
I am fine with people being impressed with AA-filterless results. They should be fine with someone pointing out that the extra detail they are perceiving mostly is false detail due to the square, hard edged nature of pixels.