ðòïåëôù 


  áòèé÷ 


Apache-Talk @lexa.ru 

Inet-Admins @info.east.ru 

Filmscanners @halftone.co.uk 

Security-alerts @yandex-team.ru 

nginx-ru @sysoev.ru 

  óôáôøé 


  ðåòóïîáìøîïå 


  ðòïçòáííù 



ðéûéôå
ðéóøíá












     áòèé÷ :: Filmscanners
Filmscanners mailing list archive (filmscanners@halftone.co.uk)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[filmscanners] Re: Newish Digital Tech




"Paul D. DeRocco" <pderocco@ix.netcom.com> writes:

>>>>>>>>
The point is that the more photons you capture, the less noise you get.
Assuming the Foveon wastes the same percentage of its area on interconnect
as a Bayer pattern chip, the Bayer chip will filter out all the "wrong"
color photons that hit each sensor, while the Foveon will actually use them.
<<<<<<<<<

But it's a different fabrication/sensor technology, so you don't know how it
will compare until you try it. And the SD9 isn't all that impressive in
either sensitivity or noise.

>>>>>>>>>
Obviously, implementation matters. But I see no reason to expect that a
Bayer pattern chip is intrinsically better--it's just been worked on longer.
<<<<<<<<<

This is exactly right. There's no reason to expect that a Bayer pattern chip
is intrinsically better. There's also, so far, no proof that the Foveon chip
is enough better to be worth the hype.

David J. Littleboy
davidjl@gol.com
Tokyo, Japan

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe 
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or 
body



 




Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.