>>3814180>Again, "too reddish" is meaningless unless we are on the scene and can check the object. For all you know the M240 was more accurate.And yet, my guess was confirmed. The reason is simple, to get those vibrant reds in the lettering, the editor had to boost saturation for reds. This made the wood under sunlight become almost pink because there's extrapolation.
>>3814179>There's significant overlap with every CFA just like there's significant overlap in your eye. No CFA is "pure" and completely isolates each pixel.Yes, and the pigments in the eye of people with "moderate" forms of color blindness are characterized by being overly sensitive to the wrong color, much to a similar effect.
>Do you have any evidence that the increased overlap affected RAW converter accuracy in assigning color to individual pixels?Garbage in, garbage out. Maximum overlap is no filter, you get a monochrome sensor (in fact sensors are monochrome, it's the CFA and the interpretation of the RAW data that assigns colors).
>You were already wrong about WHEN they weakened CFAs for improved light sensitivity. No, I wasn't. Your 2009 claim is based on nothing and there's plenty of earlier cameras that showcase this trend. Easy examples, 5D vs 5D2. D200 vs D300. They improved low light a lot but caused a lot of complaints about the colors.
>Your evidence?My word should suffice :^)
If you're so interested you're welcome to go look for yourself, I'm not too interested in showing proof that water is wet. This isn't reddit.
>There is not a dime's worth of difference>votingThe voting is close because people don't know what to look for. Similar colors where one sensor detects the difference and the other doesn't. Same with the pic of the neighborhood where one sensor can separate the bricks from the painted wall next to it. Same way you test someone for color blindness, similar colors together.
>biasesIt's not about biases but the ability to discern similar colors.
