>>3870793>still believing that color depth and low light sensitivity are opposing goalsngmi
>>3870793>You're just so wrong it's not even funny.Says the person who is ignorant of color theory.
>>You don't understand how color works. Colors are not "bleeding into each other.">They do, because we only sample using RGB. They do not as was explained to you in that post, and will be explained to you again in this one.
>Everything in between is from mixing Yes, exactly, which is why you would expect 'everything in between' to pass some photons through 2 or 3 CFA points. Once again for the kids riding the short bus to school (that's you): the cones in the human eye also have overlap (pic related). You could not accurately reconstruct most colors without overlap.
>and some sensors have poor separation between primaries, meaning reds from RAW may look orange vs red because they have a relatively high amount of green mixed in.Take a good look at the red/green overlap for the human eye. Also: I have never seen orange where red should appear in the RAW file from any camera in 18 years of working with digital cameras.
>>An accurate CFA would have to allow overlap, as do the cones in your eye.>This is true but some simply fail to do a good job.Post the RAW files you think illustrate this.
>This is also wrong because ISO is just gain. You increase gain when you're collecting fewer photons. Fewer photons collected = lower S/N from both photon shot noise and read noise. More noise = lower color depth.
