Digital BW, The Print

I really like these kinds of replies to my posts. Simply because we have an 
incremental increase of information in only 3 posts. 

> >Misinformation is worse than ignorance.
> 
> Agreed...GOOD
> 
> There is some minor misinformation, and some major misinformation in your 
> replies, so I'll address that, but not in all caps. Despite your disclaimer, it 
> is shouting. And, from a human perceptual viewpoint, it slows down the 
> information flow, considerably.


Ok,, then I won't shout any more. Hey diclaimers work for lawyers as well as 
the word "but" works for everyone else in reverse order of apperance.

> 
> 
> >(There are about 50% more green sensors than those filtered for red
> >>
> >>and blue, once again to provide more luma information.)
> >
> >THERE ARE TWICE AS MANY GREEN SENSOR ON A NON-FOVEON BAYER ARRAY SENSOR, 
> NOT 
> >HALF AS MANY.
> 
> He didn't say "half as many". That's what "more" means. Now, it would have 
> been better if he had gotten the number right, and said "100% more" or "twice 
> as many", or if he had simply left the number off and said "more". But he 
> never said "half", which is not more.


No, he said 50% more, which is half as many more, not twice more. We are both 
wrong.

> 
> >DON'T MAKE THIS KIND OF ERROR ON MY PAYCHECK OR TAX RETURN. THE 
> >FOVEON HAS ALWAYS HAD THE SAME NUMBER OF SENSORS FOR ALL 3 COLORS.
> 
> Yes, but not the same resolution, because of diffusion. This most strongly 
> affects the red layer, hence the need for red sharpening in the raw processing 
> algorithms. 


Perhaps. The whole idea of curves on curves on curves makes a non-linear, 
variable frequency detection, with various frequencies of light energy sources, 
reflecting from natural objects and incredible exercise of applied science. The 
print ends up pretty in any case.

>  
> >>And it is impossible for there to be such a thing as an "interpolated'
> >>RAW file: either it is RAW info, or it is interpolated info, but it
> >>cannot be both, by definition.
> 
> Have a look at an SD9 or SD10 raw file in "medium" resolution. The 
> horizontal and vertical pixel counts aren't even multiples of the sensor's pixel pitch 
> (like they are in "low" resolution) so the Foveon VPS (pixel binning) isn't 
> what produces the medium resolution. It's (gasp) interpolated.


I'm not interested in looking at RAW files. Just like I don't care how many 
and what kinds of glass elements are in my lenses. I only care about the end 
result and selling prints and not having GROSS misinformation permeating the 
boards I read.

> 
> >RAW is what the CCD photo sensors put
> >>out: period. (I understand the confusion, the tyranny of words, that
> >>can arise, since the Foveon only puts out a "raw" file, but to keep
> >>the terminology correct, once that file is interpolated, it is no
> >>longer "raw" in the sense normally used when speaking of digital
> >>camera RAW files.
> >
> >
> >ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT COLOR INTERPOLATION? FOVEON DOES NOT COLOR 
> INTERPOLATE, 
> >EVER. TYRANNY INDEED.
> 
> Actually, it does interpolate, and quite elaboratly. There have been some 
> excellent technical papers by scientists at Foveon and HanVision (a maker of 
> industrial cameras using Foveon sensors) explaining how the output of the 
> Foveon sensor isn't colormetric, and conventional processing (such as the linear 
> 3x3 matrix transforms) used with Bayer filter or sequential color filter 
> cameras produces color errors. Therefore color interpolation (such as the 3-space 
> to 3-space interpolation used in ICC profiles) is applied to increase color 
> accuracy.
> 
> The SPP software also appears to lean quite heavily on other color 
> interpolation techniques such as memory color recognition.


OK, fine. I was basing my comments on the interpolation of Bayer sensors, 
Fuji being the worst (best) in this regard vis-a-vis the Foveon X3 and original 
prism camera. Dogmatic vs. pragmatic.

> 
> >>Yes, the Foveon is great, particularly for color. Excellent stuff. But
> >>there is a trade-off on sheer resolution vs the lack of need for
> >>anti-aliasing. Bottom line, for color, is how you like the result.
> >>It's the photo, stupid!  :-)
> >
> >
> >THIS IS THE ONLY TRUE STATEMENT YOU HAVE MADE SO FAR. JUST LUCKY I GUESS.
> 
> You're really not doing all that well, yourself. 

There is no absolute here, now is there. It all depends on one's frame of 
reference and how far you want to go with the science. It's the photo, stupid (we 
are studid in another's frame of reference).

> >>
> >>But for B&W, if using RAW files, then there is no anti-aliasing, and
> >>no matter how you slice the pie, 3.5 megs is less information than 6.1. 
> >
> >
> >FOVEON RAW FILES HAVE HISTORICALLY BEEN 12 MEGAPIXELS, 16 MEGAPIXELS (ON 
> >THEIR MONOCHROME SENSOR, NEVER PRODUCED) OR 10.5 MEGAPIXELS ON THEIR 
> CURRENT X3 
> >CHIPS. THEY HAVE NEVER BEEN 3.5 IN RAW. THEY ARE 4.5 ON THEIR SMALLEST 
> CHIP, NOT 
> >YET IN PRODUCTION CAMERAS, BUT FORTHCOMING IN POLAROID CAMERAS, IT WOULD 
> >SEEM.
> 
> Pixels (outside the world of Foveon marketing literature) are spatial. The 
> X3 sensor has 3.4 of them. It doesn't matter if you sample 1 color, 3 colors, 
> or 31 colors at each pixel, it's still a pixel. I enjoy working with Foveon 
> cameras, but their attempted redefinition of the term "pixel" is, as far as 
> I'm concerned, an excellent example of your old salesman's credo "BS spoken 
> with conviction sounds better than the truth."
> 
> p.s. it's actually a political observation, typically referred to as the 
> doctrine of "the big lie", not a salesperson's credo.
> 
> "Nothing overshadows truth so much as authority."
>            ---Leon Battista Alberti
> 
> "Tell a lie loud enough and long enough and people will believe it."
>       --- frequently attributed to Adolph Hitler, sometimes to Joseph 
> Goebbels, probably spuriously in both cases.


In the most basic sense, oversampling in audio or video has it's data 
integrity benefits. However imperfect the Forveon sensor might be deemed, it is still 
something no one has ever done before. It samples the Z as opposed to just 
XY, like everyone else. I applaud their efforts and time may prove them right.

The whole idea of making IR sensitive silicon look like UV sensitive 
emulsions of the past is pretty ridiculous in many regards and I'm still amazed at how 
good the images look out of the printer at a lower cost, which pretty much 
takes out whole academic argument down the proberbial toilet anyhow.

Thanks for your reply. It has been a positive learning experience from an 
obviously intelligment person...........for me.

Claude Jodoin
Questing for truth, justice, and higher quality pixels (which are NOT created 
equal).





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> 
> 
> I'm not interested in looking at RAW files.

Since this forum is for black and white (luma information) prints, the RAW information is 
relevant, since it's just gray-scale information. My point is that 6.1 megapixels of luma 
information (spatially)  is more information than 3.4 megapixels of luma information, 
spatially. Thus there is, in fact, >>>as far as B&W goes<<<, an advantage to having a 
Bayer layout, since it provides twice as many photosites... twice the resolution. (The size of 
a native Fuji image is 3024 pixels by 2024 pixels... 6.1 megapixels. The size of a native 
Foveon image is 1512 pixels by 2268 pixels ... 3.4 megapixels.) 

>It's the photo, stupid (we 
> are studid in another's frame of reference).

I'm sorry. I'm a veteran, and thought that most folks would recognize the reference to 
"KISS - Keep it Simple, Stupid" as that reminder is intended: not to get lost in minutia, and 
keep site of the ultimate goal: a quality picture.

If you were unfamiliar with that phrase, and thus failed to understand my usage, I 
apologize.

(In case it was missed, my "50% more" (instead of 100% more) comes from retail-speak. 
While it is counter-intuitive, in retail  an item that sells for $3, and cost $1.50 has a 50% 
markup... There is no such thing as 100% markup, unless the cost is zero, and then 
anything from one cent to a million dollars is "100%" markup...)

> > 
> > Pixels (outside the world of Foveon marketing literature) are spatial. The 
> > X3 sensor has 3.4 of them. It doesn't matter if you sample 1 color, 3 colors, 
> > or 31 colors at each pixel, it's still a pixel. I enjoy working with Foveon 
> > cameras, but their attempted redefinition of the term "pixel" is, as far as 
> > I'm concerned, an excellent example of your old salesman's credo "BS spoken 
> > with conviction sounds better than the truth."
> > 

Thank you, sir, for that explanation, for it is exactly what I was saying. I'm sorry if I did not 
explain it properly, and failed to understand that my vitriolic friend did not know the 
proper definition of the word.

I do not believe that I have propagated -any- misinformation here, and if that is not the 
case, again apologize, and would appreciate a clear explanation of how I have 
misinformed, so that I can learn from my mistakes, and correct my misunderstandings.

While I've not found it necessary to trumpet my own experience, I'll say that I've been 
involved in pushing pixels around on computers since 1978; and a photographer since 
1957. I purchased the first consumer digital camera and have used them since. 

All that however does not mitigate that there is always more to learn. If someone with a bit 
more tolerance than the gentleman(?) who issued personal attacks would care to explain 
exactly what I've gotten wrong in all this (other than perhaps my failure to define my 
terms) I'd be delighted to learn.

Finally I must say, in my 30 years of technical experience, and countless postings on 
hundreds of boards, seldom have I been so unfairly vilified. Fortunately, it does not appear 
to be the general tenor of this board, but it has gone a long way toward turning me into a 
lurker, rather than a contributor.

There are always "list bullies" and it has been my apparent misfortune to run into one.

I consider this matter closed now, and although there will most likely be further personal 
attacks, I'll refrain from replying, since I believe my postings to be correct, not "gross 
misinformation" unless it can be otherwise shown.