The difference is a matter of degree with the Fuji sensor. A Fuji red pixel is only touching 3 blue pixels, but it's also touching 5 green pixels. A Bayer red pixel is touching 4 blue pixels and 4 green pixels. Now, you can try to make a huge deal out of the fact that a Fuji red pixel touches more greens and less blues is somewhat not to your liking...
Finaldesign: First of all, the more green sensels on a sensor, the better the probable luminance accuracy and thus perceived resolution of the sensor for most scenes.Vladimirovich: only if they are spaced...
I guess what you are trying to say is that green pixels only contribute to resolution and luminance accuracy when they are separated from each other by at least one pixel of some other color. I can't make the slightest sense of such an assertion. Why wouldn't a bunch of green pixels clustered together just give you great green luminance accuracy across that cluster? And since green light is the dominant part of perceived luminance, it's not just a green-accurate cluster, it's a probably-luminance-and-resolution accurate cluster.
True, within the confines of any such an all-green cluster, you would have to do more guessing of the red and blue values (of course "guessing other values by looking at the other colors nearby" is the very definition of "demosaicing")
. Fortunately even with the Xtrans pixel layout, even though there are more green pixels than in the more common Bayer sensor, each green pixel is "touching" (if only diagonally) at least 2 red and 2 blue pixels. Meaning that even in the 4-pixels "green clusters" that seem to bother you so much, there are still 2 pixels of each other color fairly nearby each green sensel point
...To use for "guessing" the red and blue values to assign to those "green points".Vladimirovich: in this case you have a cluster of 4 green filters forming a supergreen sensel
This sounds like a concern troll, attempting to mislead. There is no way that any sane demosaicing algorithm would "bin" 4 green pixels of a 16 megapixel sensor (that happen to be touching each other) and call them one huge, low-resolution green superpixel. That would be just turning the 16 megapixel sensor into a 4 megapixel sensor. You don't need to look at the green pixels #2 etc that happen to be touching green pixel #1 in order to estimate #1's green value. You only look at neighboring pixels of some other color besides green
in order to come up with an estimate for the other color components besides green that you assign to the green pixel point
. Basically you are simply name-calling Fuji engineers as idiots, not unlike your other name-calling in this thread.Vladimirovich: and I bet w/ any hardware binning to justify... so there is no gain really and only loss...
Even on repeated re-readings I can make no sense of these words. There is no need for "binning" in hardware or software with the Xtrans layout, every single pixel of the Fuji sensor is "touching" at least 2 and sometimes 3 pixels of all the other colors. Meaning that there is some other-color information fairly nearby
to every sensel point from which to form a guess as to all the other colors. Which is just like the neighbor-guessing ("demosaicing") you do with any Bayer sensor. The difference is a matter of degree with the Fuji sensor. A Fuji red pixel is only touching 3 blue pixels, but it's also touching 5 green pixels. A Bayer red pixel is touching 4 blue pixels and 4 green pixels.
Now, you can try to make a huge deal out of the fact that a Fuji red pixel touches more greens and less blues is somewhat not to your liking
. Because you think red and blue accuracy is more important than green accuracy I guess. But the Fuji engineers are favoring green accuracy over red and blue
, which doesn't make them idiots, or doomed to fail, nor justifies any of your other careless, example-free condemnations.Vladimirovich: perceived resolution exists only in Fuji fanboys postings...
Information-free namecalling will get you everywhere. Sure, everybody who disagrees with your no-facts, misleading criticisms must be "fanboys". And probably we hate cute little children, too. Do you mean to imply that there is no such thing as "perceived resolution"? If you think that's true, then you must also think that deep shadow detail and resolution is perceived just as acutely as highlight detail in a scene. I guess we have to go over the tiresome lesson that nobody but a CIA analyst cares about anything about "the real" resolution of an image, all the rest of us care about is the "perceived" or "apparent" resolution, which is a function of many other things besides the extinction resolution of an optical system. As a simple example, coarse details that are rendered with excellent contrast might give rise to a "sharper-looking" image than a low-contrast image that might have technically smaller, but more dimly rendered, finest details.Vladimirovich: take any 24mp APS-C regular bayer sensor, remove AA filter and say good buy to Fuji.
Why don't you do
that, Vladimirovich, instead of just emptily talking about it? Go to the DPreview studio test comparison page for the Pentax K-5 IIs
, and compare it with the Fuji XE-1 at ISO 3200 (I happen to work a lot at ISO 3200).
The Fuji XE-1 ISO 3200 sample is much nicer to look
at than the moire-plagued, speckled-looking Pentax K-5 IIs image. Which doesn't tell me that the Xtrans sensor is "overall better or worse". It depends too much on your priorities. The fact that the Xtran camera takes nicer, moire-free ISO 3200 pictures, and nicer-plus-sharper-looking, relatively moire-free ISO 200 photos
than the nice K-5 IIs no-moire-filter camera tells me that the huge Fuji Corp's Xtrans sensor is not the product of child-like idiots as you repeatedly imply.
Yes, the K-5 IIs ISO 3200 photos have somewhat more finest detail than the Xtrans photos. The K-5 IIs photos also have somewhat less
finest details at ISO 200. But in either case the Xtrans photos simply look better at a glance than the K-5 IIs, a quality which will appeal to a huge number of people. Really at ISO 200 I prefer the look of the Xtrans sample to the mighty Nikon D600's, despite the D600's slightly higher finest detail resolution, simply because the XE-1 has much less moire in the DPreview sample images (see attached).