03-24-2015, 12:26 PM
Well, in "real world" there are not such things as pixels at all, those are as artificial as AA or lowpassfilters. I know what you mean with aliasing, but this concerns each sensor with a regular squarish pattern of receptors. I prefer one which I can smoothen afterwards to a degree I like, because regeneration of lost sharpness by using unsharp masking is as false and fake and artificial as all those digital (meaning: picture consisting out of 1 and 0) pictures.
We're used to this techniques in music reproduction and in graphic reproduction and we rely on the smudging caused by printers, screens, loudspeakers - none of them could reproduce a squarish pixel / tone, all of them add something to it. I don't see much aliasing in the Sigma pictures and I doubt you do. If there would be more smoothness, more natural behavior in a Bayer sensor made picture - great, tell me which one. So far I only saw Bayer pictures when comparing with Foveon as less powerful in contrast and less clear in color. So, each one who adds more contrast, micro contrast, more saturation, more clarity actually adds more artificial parts to a picture which already IS artificial.
I think each photographer has to decide how far he wants to use digital reproduction techniques - or go to film (and I purposely avoid the word "back" in this sentence) or paint on canvas. I wonder how people would decide when two samples are in an exhibition on display.
Short version - the Foveon samples are different from he Bayer samples, but using fake or false doesn't make sense as no digital way is working without breaking reality into little bits and bytes.
We're used to this techniques in music reproduction and in graphic reproduction and we rely on the smudging caused by printers, screens, loudspeakers - none of them could reproduce a squarish pixel / tone, all of them add something to it. I don't see much aliasing in the Sigma pictures and I doubt you do. If there would be more smoothness, more natural behavior in a Bayer sensor made picture - great, tell me which one. So far I only saw Bayer pictures when comparing with Foveon as less powerful in contrast and less clear in color. So, each one who adds more contrast, micro contrast, more saturation, more clarity actually adds more artificial parts to a picture which already IS artificial.
I think each photographer has to decide how far he wants to use digital reproduction techniques - or go to film (and I purposely avoid the word "back" in this sentence) or paint on canvas. I wonder how people would decide when two samples are in an exhibition on display.
Short version - the Foveon samples are different from he Bayer samples, but using fake or false doesn't make sense as no digital way is working without breaking reality into little bits and bytes.