If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Sigma, tired of LYING about resolution, admit they needed more
In article , David J.
Littleboy wrote: Are there any differences that are noticeable? It'd be pretty easy to compare in-camera with ACR/LR. And there are test chart results on Dpreview and the other sites for just about every camera. So we (if we look) have a very good idea of what these things do. Most of the difference I see is more in the AA filter, with cameras like the D70 and 5D letting more color aliasing into the picture. FWIW, here's the old 5D with old Lightroom vs. RawShooterProfessional. RSP's low-ISO sharpening was overmuch in the extreme, but it kept high ISO noise under better control. (Maybe it'd be fun to redo this with LR 3.2 vs. 5D2's in-camera processing.) http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/85596346/original Again, my basic axe to grind here is that (a) assuming you want accurate imaging you have to have an AA filter, and (b) once you have an AA filter, the difference between Bayer and any of the 3-color per pixel methods isn't going to be all that large*. Oh, yes. (c) Bayer images really look great. Why aren't we being insanely happy at how good 5D2 images look printed at 12x18 (remember, 35mm film looks like god-awful crap by comparison) than screaming how terrible Bayer is? *: How much "stronger" an AA filter is needed to suppress color artifacts in Bayer vs. only luminance artifacts in a 3-color sensor is, of course, the question. My guess is that that difference wouldn't be all that large, but others' intuitions will differ. Enough techno-babble! Who gives a ****? Sigma/Foveon is crap. Just look at the images the thing produces. Sigma is a company which revolves around screwing people. Move on...nothing to see here. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Sigma, tired of LYING about resolution, admit they needed more
"Mr. Strat" wrote: David Littleboy wrote: Oh, yes. (c) Bayer images really look great. Why aren't we being insanely happy at how good 5D2 images look printed at 12x18 (remember, 35mm film looks like god-awful crap by comparison) than screaming how terrible Bayer is? Enough techno-babble! There's NEVER enough techno-babble. Never. Never never never. Absolutely never. -- David Techno-Babble Littleboy Tokyo, Japan |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Sigma, tired of LYING about resolution, admit they needed more
David J. Littleboy wrote:
"Mr. wrote: David wrote: Oh, yes. (c) Bayer images really look great. Why aren't we being insanely happy at how good 5D2 images look printed at 12x18 (remember, 35mm film looks like god-awful crap by comparison) than screaming how terrible Bayer is? Enough techno-babble! There's NEVER enough techno-babble. Never. Never never never. Absolutely never. Heh :-) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Sigma, tired of LYING about resolution, admit they needed more | Rich[_6_] | Digital Photography | 126 | October 19th 10 01:28 PM |
Sigma, tired of LYING about resolution, admit they needed more | TheRealSteve | Digital SLR Cameras | 5 | October 16th 10 11:49 PM |
Sigma, tired of LYING about resolution, admit they needed more | Gary Eickmeier | Digital SLR Cameras | 4 | October 9th 10 07:38 PM |
film scanner resolution needed for ISO 200 | Monte Castleman | 35mm Photo Equipment | 3 | August 30th 04 06:15 PM |