In article <030720091617268453%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam says...
> try it with a picture of a solid colour wall
> and downsize/upsize all you want
You enjoy taking pictures of solid colour walls with no detail in them?
--
In article <MPG.24baba794facc3c98c080@news.supernews.com>, Alfred Molon
<alfred_molon@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > If the
> > luminance signal is accurate then small chroma errors are invisible.
>
> Luminance is not accurate in a Bayer sensor.
it's very accurate, although obviously, it's not 100% accurate. nothing
is 100% accurate. there's always *some* error. the key is how much of
an error there is, and it's very low with bayer.
> > However, full colour imaging is not one of them. Bayer sensors are
> > already good enough.
>
> No, they are not.
they very definitely are, as can be seen by the results from current
cameras.
> But feel free to continue using cameras with crippled
> Bayer sensors, once high performance full colour sensors are available.
once that happens, sure. until then, bayer is the best technology
available.
you can keep waiting for the perfect sensor but meanwhile everyone else
will be taking fantastic pictures with the 'crippled' bayer sensors.
> Besides, have you ever thought why video cameras with three CCDs are
> available, if one CCD is sufficient?
have you ever thought why the red video camera, the camera that is
regarded as having some of the highest quality video output, uses just
one ccd?
In article <MPG.24babe60941c42c198c081@news.supernews.com>, Alfred
Molon <alfred_molon@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > What on earth is the point of recording something in a colour photograph
> > that the human eye cannot distinguish when you could use the same
> > resources to better effect?
>
> By this logic we would not need very high resolution image sensors,
> because the human eye cannot see the fine detail anyway.
that's true. if you are going to print 4x6 prints, the most common
print size, there is absolutely no reason to be carrying around a 10+
megapixel cameras. 2-3 megapixels is sufficient for a 4x6 print.
> Make an enlargement and the human eye will notice very well the
> deficiencies of a Bayer sensor.
as it would with any other sensor. no sensor is perfect. there's
always some level of enlargement where problems will be noticed.
In article <MPG.24bad0a25809a58a98c082@news.supernews.com>, Alfred
Molon <alfred_molon@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > try it with a picture of a solid colour wall
> > and downsize/upsize all you want
>
> You enjoy taking pictures of solid colour walls with no detail in them?
nospam wrote:
> Alfred Molon wrote:
>
>> Besides, have you ever thought why video cameras with three CCDs are
>> available, if one CCD is sufficient?
>
> have you ever thought why the red video camera, the camera that is
> regarded as having some of the highest quality video output, uses just
> one ccd?
Isn't the purpose low light performance and or dynamic range? These are
better accomplished with a larger sensor but I guess they do that to
avoid using larger lenses.
> it's more than good enough for the vast majority of subjects and the
> anti-alias filter is a requirement of any sampling system for accurate
> resolution.
Many P&S can eliminate AA filters.
The diffraction spots are large enough even wide open at the
short end.
> and lower chrominance isn't anything the eye can see,
> which is exactly why bayer works so well.
In article <2tsci6-kd9.ln1@ID-52418.user.berlin.de>, Wolfgang
Weisselberg <ozcvgtt02@sneakemail.com> wrote:
> > it's more than good enough for the vast majority of subjects and the
> > anti-alias filter is a requirement of any sampling system for accurate
> > resolution.
>
> Many P&S can eliminate AA filters.
> The diffraction spots are large enough even wide open at the
> short end.
a better way to put it is that it replaces the aa filter, not
eliminates it.
> Now just see the Nikon D3 and its high ISO
> performance - much better than the Canon 5D which does not have live
> view.
From that we can conclude that live view is essential to high
ISO performance, while it certainly has nothing to do with the
advance of the arts.
> The bottom line is that there are a lot of technological advances which
> people here seem to be totally opposed initially. Yet, once they are
> introduced, these new features become quickly essential.
Essential? I do not think it means what you think it means.
On Tue, 7 Jul 2009 23:56:18 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
<ozcvgtt02@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>> it's more than good enough for the vast majority of subjects and the
>> anti-alias filter is a requirement of any sampling system for accurate
>> resolution.
>
>Many P&S can eliminate AA filters.
>The diffraction spots are large enough even wide open at the
>short end.
>
Revealing yet again how much of a moron you are. If what you said was true
then all manufacturers would be creating smaller sensors without AA filters
in them to save on production costs. Don't be so obviously stupid.
Diffraction isn't an issue until the smallest apertures are used on P&S
cameras. The rest of the 90% of the aperture range requires sensors with AA
filters in them. Lenses, focal-lengths, apertures, and sensor-sizes are
purposely matched to butt-up against the very limits of the physics of
light itself. At smallest apertures in P&S cameras diffraction is far less
than any diffraction problems and defects caused by poorly figured
NON-diffraction-limited DSLR glass which is only sharper at one aperture
setting, if lucky. The reason that you may not see detectable diffraction
in your DSLR glass is because it is so poorly figured that it can't even
create observable diffraction. The overwhelming other errors in your glass
hides this. You do know what "diffraction limited optics" are, don't you?
No? It's the very best optics that can be created. How long have you been
this ignorant and stupid? Even then, on the smallest apertures where
diffraction may or may not show up, a talented photographer can use that to
their advantage for the right feeling in their photograph. Are you this
amazingly dense and inexperienced?
Do yourself and everyone a favor. Stop living in your theoretical,
virtual-reality, pretend-photographer's mind. Go out and compare some real
cameras and lenses one day. You'll see where you went wrong. Or rather,
where your mother went wrong when she discovered she wasn't brave enough to
use that bent coat-hanger to sc**** you out long ago.
In article <n5uci6-nlc.ln1@ID-52418.user.berlin.de>, Wolfgang
Weisselberg says...
> Alfred Molon wrote:
>
> > Now just see the Nikon D3 and its high ISO
> > performance - much better than the Canon 5D which does not have live
> > view.
>
> From that we can conclude that live view is essential to high
> ISO performance, while it certainly has nothing to do with the
> advance of the arts.
No, the only conclusion is that it does not affect negatively the high
ISO performance.
By the way, in your reply line you show the poster name and the poster
email address. It would be better if you did not show the email address.
--
Re: Future of the megapixel race 
Linear Mode
