...and you appear to have backed off on claiming that Foveon sensors are delivering three times the resolution per photosite that BFA sensors deliver.
Actually, I have never once in any post that I've made online, anywhere, claimed that the Foveon sensor wasn't flat out lying about it being 3x the sensors. It's 4.6MP, because according to the definition of a "pixel" by every other source in printing and optical history other than digital camera manufacturers marketing claims, a "pixel" is:
The most basic unit of an image displayed on a computer or television screen or on a printer. Pixels are generally arranged in rows and columns; a given combination among the pixels of various brightness and color values forms an image. ◇ A subpixel is one of three components of a pixel used in the representation of a color image. Each subpixel represents the contribution of a single color—red, green, or blue—to the overall color and brightness of the pixel.
Labeling sub-pixels as the real thing has always been a *major* pet peeve of mine, since it's flat out lying. 12,000 sub-pixels arranged in a Bayer pattern isn't close to what you really need to fully replace film.
Since it's not quite as easy to convert a Bayer pattern into exact true pixels, due to the interpolation that's required, a conversion factor of about 60-65% has proven to be fairly accurate. I'm being generous at 65%, though, since a smaller sensor with tiny sub-pixels is going to take a massive hit to its ability to capture vibrant colors and deal with contrast. And few DSLRs have 1:1 ratio sensors.(do any? I honestly might have missed a model or two) Most cameras seem to be making them *smaller* lately, when they really need to get larger, if anything.(or move to a non-Bayer pattern)
See, my point wasn't about absolute resolution, but about what is required by a typical Bayer patten sensor to overcome these technical limitations and be equivalent to a 2400DPI scan of film in terms of how it looks.(which most Pros consider to be a *minimum* acceptable limit - most say it's closer to 3000dpi with good equipment and low speed film) No jaggies, no moires, no fringing... Because film doesn't have those digital artifacts to begin with. Claiming 12MP is equal to film when defects in the image are present that have to be blurred/anti-aliased out at that resolution is a bit disingenuous.
P.S. I'm not attacking you, but rather the marketing lies by the camera makers. Current technologies have serious flaws in their designs that need to be solved and their marketing hype and misinformation isn't making it any better.