Future of resolution, accurate colour = linear arrays??

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

Rich - 25 Sep 2005 08:03 GMT

There are some industrial scanning CCD cameras that use them.
It could work in higher end DSLRs. But dedicated arrays
for each colour would be a good idea.

http://marsoweb.nas.nasa.gov/HiRISE/papers/6th_int_mars_conf/Delamere_HiRISE_Ins
tDev.pdf

Reply to this Message

Randall Ainsworth - 25 Sep 2005 15:05 GMT

> There are some industrial scanning CCD cameras that use them.
> It could work in higher end DSLRs. But dedicated arrays
> for each colour would be a good idea.

They've already tried sensors dedicated to the primary colors and it
worked poorly (Sigma).

Reply to this Message

Rich - 25 Sep 2005 18:45 GMT

>> There are some industrial scanning CCD cameras that use them.
>> It could work in higher end DSLRs. But dedicated arrays
>> for each colour would be a good idea.
>
>They've already tried sensors dedicated to the primary colors and it
>worked poorly (Sigma).

Bad implementation? Colours are more accurately represented by
using RGB filters and a monochromatic CCD, individual exposures
combined together. It's not really a debate.
-Rich

Reply to this Message

no_name - 26 Sep 2005 00:54 GMT

>>There are some industrial scanning CCD cameras that use them.
>>It could work in higher end DSLRs. But dedicated arrays
>>for each colour would be a good idea.
>
> They've already tried sensors dedicated to the primary colors and it
> worked poorly (Sigma).

I dunno, I've been kind of impressed with the Foveon sensor's color
rendition & saturation.

Every pixel location on the Foveon has 3 pixels stacked blue, green,
red, just like film emulsions.

If I didn't have such an investement in Pentax glass ...

I really wish Pentax or Nikon would adopt that sensor. Pentax for the
glass I've got or Nikon to make it worth switching over.

Actually, what I'd like to see is a full frame size sensor maintaining
the current pixel pitch. That'd give an effective 31 Mp sensor (3944
columns X 2629 rows X 3 layers) that recorded pretty much like film.

That wouldn't be such a bad thing.

Reply to this Message

JPS@no.komm - 26 Sep 2005 01:28 GMT

>I dunno, I've been kind of impressed with the Foveon sensor's color
>rendition & saturation.

The Foveon's sensor has almost no saturation at all. The saturation you
see in the images comes from software interpolation, and the hue noise
can be pretty strong in the blue/green area. In fact, in sea and in sky
you can see little blotches of greener and more magenta blues. This is
especially true in shadows; in an image of a grey stone bridge that
someone linked to here a while back, there were big color blotches when
the stones were boosted in illumination.

Signature

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>

><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

Reply to this Message

mark - 26 Sep 2005 12:52 GMT

> >I dunno, I've been kind of impressed with the Foveon sensor's color
> >rendition & saturation.
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> the stones were boosted in illumination.
> --

With what is *your* sensor saturated? Green thee? Whats this mumbling
about saturation coming from software? Whats this got to do with hue
noise? How do you boost your stones (or someone elses stone) in
illumination.

Big load of bullshit.

> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

Reply to this Message

no_name - 26 Sep 2005 13:15 GMT

>>I dunno, I've been kind of impressed with the Foveon sensor's color
>>rendition & saturation.
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> someone linked to here a while back, there were big color blotches when
> the stones were boosted in illumination.

I understand what you're saying, but I just don't see it looking at the
images.

Reply to this Message

Bart van der Wolf - 25 Sep 2005 20:23 GMT

> There are some industrial scanning CCD cameras that use them.
> It could work in higher end DSLRs. But dedicated arrays
> for each colour would be a good idea.

Scanning backs (= current, not really future) are useless for
non-stationary subjects and for variable lighting.

Bart

Reply to this Message

John A. Stovall - 25 Sep 2005 20:54 GMT

>> There are some industrial scanning CCD cameras that use them.
>> It could work in higher end DSLRs. But dedicated arrays
>> for each colour would be a good idea.
>
>Scanning backs (= current, not really future) are useless for
>non-stationary subjects and for variable lighting.

Here are some images which show that for Rich's education.

http://www.outbackphoto.com/reviews/equipment/betterlight/betterlight_pointlobos.html

*********************************************************

"I have been a witness, and these pictures are
my testimony. The events I have recorded should
not be forgotten and must not be repeated."

-James Nachtwey-
http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/

Reply to this Message

Rich - 26 Sep 2005 03:14 GMT

>>> There are some industrial scanning CCD cameras that use them.
>>> It could work in higher end DSLRs. But dedicated arrays
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
>http://www.outbackphoto.com/reviews/equipment/betterlight/betterlight_pointlobos.html

How does fixing those images differ from you sharpening, removing CA,
keystoning? It's just another digital correction.
Nice shots, BTW.
-Rich

Reply to this Message