[Brightcolours]

[quote name='Lomskij' timestamp='1306311475' post='8798']

Bold claim, do you have any calculations to back you up?





You haven't tried photographing any clothing, have you? Because if you had, you wouldn't dismiss it so easily as "theoretical". The thing is that any garment with the colour on the darker side of red or blue suffers from tremendous drop in detail, and they're not so uncommon. For example, shooting something navy already feels as if you just upped your iso by few steps.



The example below *is* in focus, however detail is just poor. Of course there's no such an issue if you shoot gray scarf instead.







Another thing I find really annoying is the ability of camera to pick up colour moiré everywhere. Yes, low-pass filter suppose to fix that. No, it doesn't work in lots of situations. Try shooting some fine fabric under a bright light and you'll see what I mean. And the problem is that post-processing routines you would use to correct that quite often do lead to a loss of detail.



Keeping all of that in mind I was more than willing to give the new sensor a try. Obviously with the current pricing it's not going to happen and it's a pity.

[/quote]

That is a nice example, that red knitwear. However, to fully show a difference, you do need to shoot a similar gray example, and convert both to grey scale in order to bypass our own eye's trouble with seeing red in detail.

Without any other sample, it is difficult to quantify anyway.



Also, the difference in detail depends a LOT on the RAW converter you use. (That is a plus for Foveon/Sigma: the RAW converter does not make such a big difference in detail. But a difference in colour, though).



My 6-7% in about normal scenes, not red knitwear. Of course there are situations thinkable which show a bigger difference (like your red knitwear). Just like there are situations thinkable where Sigma/Foveon struggles (it is "colour blind" for certain specific hues, for instance).



I have not calculated the 6-7% myself, I have read articles studying the difference, or rather, the influence Bayer CFA has on luminance information.

I can not just produce articles I read a while ago, but a quick google found this interesting page:

http://www.xs4all.nl/~bvdwolf/main/foto/...er_cfa.htm

A host of interesting articles can be found on the subject of demosaicking, luminance and chrominance information:

http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summ....1.14.4073

http://www.site.uottawa.ca/~edubois/CFA/



The moire issue.... my camera never has shown any moire, either luminance only or with chrominance problems (at least, I have not come across it myself). That is very camera specific: if a camera shows colour moire, its AA-filter is not optimal.

Moire areas already have lost the detail, as they have overwritten it with their own pretend-detail. So getting rid of the moire always will mean the loss of the "fake" detail, whether there are colour artifacts in the detail or if it is only luminance moire.



I too would like to try a foveon style sensor, but with AA-filter and, like you, for a more "normal" price. And a Canon lens mount <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />.



There are also other CFA's which do better jobs than the Bayer CFA. It will take a lot for a manufacturer to switch to alternatives, though, concerning processing software for instance.