Tim, thanks for one of the most concise comparisons I've seen between
Foveon and other sensors. May take me a while to digest it . . .
Of course, those of us who have been around digital technology know
that the quality/technology of the sensor is only the beginning of the
equation. What the engineers do with the output makes a significant
difference in the results any given design can achieve.
ScottGee1
On 9/13/06, Tim Hughes <timhughes@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> The big claim to fame of Foveon is greatly reduced red and blue aliasing and
> the aliasing is
> consistent across the colors, so less objectionable. This also then does not
> require as much
> anti-alias filter. The camera resolution is then the same independent of
> color, unlike Bayer where
> the red and blue resolve only half that of the green. As you allude to ,the
> downside is the Si
> absorbtion "filters" are not nearly as sharp as discrete on chip filters , so
> the reconstruction
> algorithms to seperate colors, adds noise over the inherent sensor site noise.
> This at least partly negates the theoretical huge signal to noise ratio
> advantage, of not throwing
> away more that 2/3 of the photons, that occurs in a conventional Bayer
> sensor. You can think of
> the mathematical color seperation partially requiring the differencing and
> scaling of combinations
> of three large numbers, so the errors (noise) in the large numbers gets
> magnified by the
> differencing operation.
>
> Tim Hughes
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|