On my monitor the Motorcycle shot on Ron Finleys site has tons of banding, looks unprintable to me.
Originally Posted by jkuska
On my monitor the Motorcycle shot on Ron Finleys site has tons of banding, looks unprintable to me.
File size might be a more interesting comparison, the BL Super 6 in normal mode produces a 274 MB file and in enhanced mode a 618 MB file and the Super 8 in those two modes a 488 MB and 1.1 GB file... and in panorama mode those file sizes could be 5 to 8 times as large when recording up to 65,000 lines of data in a single scan.
Last edited by jkuska; 10-Nov-2009 at 16:07. Reason: more detail
If I take one "RED" picture by itself (which I can do by simply turning off the other two channels) it will contains 48 mp. Then if I take two more pictures (a BLUE and a GREEN) which contain 48 mp each then the sum (combined pixel density) of all three pictures is 144 mp and NOT 48 mp. I believe it is generally accepted throughout the industry that "a sensor" equals "a pixel." So I can go on location a capture a single exposure using the red channel alone to darken the sky then come back and make black and white print of this single channel file and since the file was recorded using 48 million sensors that print would be the result of a 48 mp capture. If I did the same thing with the other two channels so I had three separate B&W prints hanging on the wall there would be a total of 144mp worth of data hanging on that wall in those three prints. Then when these three images were combined to produce a color print none of those sensors or pixels are thrown away or discarded or restructured so the sum would be 144mp. “The eye altering, alters all” -WB
So the sensor in the BL scanning back is similar to the Sigma Fovenon. Are Fovenon type sensors produced by just one source, or several?
Sandy King
For discussion and information about carbon transfer please visit the carbon group at groups.io
[url]https://groups.io/g/carbon
None of this changes the fact that your "144mp images" do not have 3 times the resolution of a 48mp bayer sensor. So you can hide behind standards and use all the contrived justifications that you want, it doesn't change the reality that your specs are misleading. I find it especially ironic that the standard you quote from talks about avoiding consumer misunderstanding. All you have to do is look at the post that started this thread to see that there is confusion on this matter.
Imagine if Creo (Kodak) or Dainippon Screen claimed three times the capability of their scanners. If they used the same marketing language that Better Light and Foveon use, they could rightly claim that the moving tri-linear CCD is capturing three times the normal data. The Better Light is not functionally that different than a scanner. It would not surprise me if the sensor was made by Kodak, though knowing which CCD would definitely clear up the true capability.
To the Better Light people: there are no people arguing that the Better Light is not a very capable scan back that can produce great results. The issue is that the usable amount of information contained in a file is the true measure of your device; so why is it so vastly difficult for you to state that, without resorting to marketing speak that is NOT clear?
All you have is a 48mp colour sensor. The advantage of being trilinear is that your chroma resolution is (almost - depending on the aliasing filter) as good as the luminance resolution, while Bayer sensors have only half to 1/4 of their luminance resolution for each colour. You might advertise that thing as 48 (48-48-48) MP whereas manufacturers of a 48MP Bayer sensor would in all truth have to admit that their sensor is 48 (24-12-12) MP. But 144MP your sensor is not, unless used for black and white photography of purely black and white subjects using a subpixel to pixel conversion...
From my understanding, there is only a small difference (almost unnoticed) between between a Bayer sensor without an antialiasing filter and that of a monochromatic sensor. Here is a link:http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...hromatic.shtml
The same should apply for a scanning back. In other words, it is the antialiasing filter that typically degrades a sensor's resolution, and not the fact that it uses a color-Bayer design.
Here is another interesting link: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...er-light.shtml
In my biased opinion, the BL system is about a 10-20% improvement, overall, over what can be had in a similar resolving DMF system.
No BL is not similar to the Foveon and Foveon is produced by one source. The technology that Foveon uses is based on the fact that the different wave lengths of light (RGB) penetrate silicon to different depths, so from the same single sensor they take the B data from the top, the G data from the center and the R data from the bottom (boy, if Foveon would ever make a full frame sensor they would kill):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foveon_X3_sensor
The Kodak tri-linear array has 3 rows of 6000 (or 8000) sensors each about 8 pixels apart so while while scanning there are 3 pictures being taken, one each for R, G & B so that the true RGB data is recorded for every point in the scene with no interpolation, again that's 144 million sensors recording data during the scan. Each of these pictures is 48mp in itself.
With a Bayer Pattern sensor the true RGB data is only known for the area of a 2x2 grid composed of 2 green sensors and 1 each blue and red. To properly display or print this Bayer pattern data the 2 missing data values for each point in the scene has to be interpolated through algorithms (guessed at, speculated on), that 300% interpolation out the gate in every picture. The algorithms are very good but try photographing a diamond with a Bayer patterned sensor then with a BL back, the false color artifacts created by processing the file through these algorithms become immediately apparent and deny the true clarity of diamonds.
So for both BL and Foveon one point on the imaging plane contains ALL the true RGB values for every point in the scene while it takes 4 points on the imaging plane to interpolate the possible RGB values for those same 4 points in the scene. Sort of sounds like both Foveon and BL are 4 times as accurate as Bayer patterned sensors.
But there are obviously both nay-sayer and yea-sayers who in spite of published industry standards have their biases and opinions. The proof is always in the pudding, just try out shooting, out enlarging and out printing a BL file (the notable exceptions would be from a Cruse or Anagram system which equal BL but are 4 to 10 times more expense) every thing else falls apart. The entire instant capture market target the aforementioned "double truck" - an 11x17" spread, all that's needed for publication.
Interesting... I posted links to the Kodak sensors BL uses (which clearly state the 12 and 9 micron pixel size), and I posted file sizes as well, which clearly exemplify a great deal more data coming from some where, if not from the great increased pixel density then where? Remember there are NO algorithms at work on a BL file; no anti-aliasing, no anti-moire, no sharpening, no compression, no interpolation (in normal mode), just pure, clean, accurate and unadulterated data. Think how much your data is being stepped on and pushed around with ALL of those algorithms at work in most instant capture systems. Enough so that many academicians, scholars, archivists, technicians and photographers prefer BL files when it comes to recordings images of maps, fragments of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the heat tiles on the underside of the Space Shuttle, the Book of Kells, great works of art, stress fracture analysis in jet engine components, uranium rod cross sections out of nuclear reactors, diamonds and yes, even landscape and commercial photography - now that's "marketing speak."
Talking is one thing... taking pictures is another... just get out there and shoot with whatever kind of camera you have and follow your bliss
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks