So how about the three of you get together and show all your results with a Foveon processor which substantiate your continuing BS??
Are you referring to the BS where I agree that Foveon images are better per-pixel than Bayer? Or the BS where I point out that it is mathematically impossible for any sampled system to record an accurate reproduction of the input above Nyquist, which you seem to be claiming with your defense of the test results showing Foveon resolving more lines of resolution than it actually has?
Contrary to your claims, I am NOT anti-Foveon. Capturing all 3 primaries at each pixel site is better than capturing only one. But every comparison I have made and seen indicates that the advantages of Foveon, while real, are significantly exaggerated by the more enthusiastic proponents of the technology such as yourself. I have never seen any evidence to support the notion that Foveon pixels are twice as good as Bayer--4MP Foveon = 8MP Bayer in overall image quality and detail--my analysis indicates that 3MP Foveon = ~5MP Bayer when both are optimally sharpened. That is a solid performance advantage for the Foveon, at least on a per-pixel basis.
Foveon's crippling weakness right now is its low pixel count. No matter how good your ~4MP are, there's only so much detail you can cram into those pixels. Here's an experiment anyone can try at home to demonstrate this. Start out with a
1Ds RAW, and open it in Photoshop in 16-bit mode at its original resolution (4064x2704). Make a copy of it. Now downsize the copy using Bicubic Sharper, and print both files the same size (say 12x18 inches) and compare the prints. Undo the changes, and repeat the resizing, reducing by a greater percentage each time. How small can you resize the file before significant loss of image quality and detail starts showing up in the print?
When you size the image down to 60% of the original pixel count (77.46% of original linear dimensions) the damage to the image is very slight; one has fewer pixels, but they are better quality, and there is little difference to be seen in prints. Reducing to 50% of the pixel count (70.71% of original linear dimensions), one starts seeing a loss of fine detail. The individual pixels in the resized image are better than in the original image, but there aren't enough of them to keep the high-frequency detail and the image as a whole suffers. It follows then that given a perfect sensor that records all color channels for each pixel, one can achieve similar image quality with somewhere between 50-60% of the pixel count of a comparable Bayer sensor. This notion tracks fairly well with the comparisons I've done between the 10D and SD9; Foveon approaches, but does not quite match the IQ and detail of a Bayer sensor with double the pixel count.
If the most exuberant claims about Foveon were true (X Foveon photosites = X Bayer photosites), then you could reduce any Bayer-sensor image to 57.74% of its original pixel dimensions (which will leave you with 1/3 of the original pixel count) with little or no loss of image quality or detail when printed. But this is most certainly not the case; reducing 4064x2704 pixels down to 2347x1561 tosses out an awful lot of fine detail. The remaining pixels are very nice on a per-pixel basis, but the image as a whole has suffered irreparable damage; much of the fine detail present in the original capture is gone. There are simply not enough pixels to hold all of it. So the most extreme claims about Foveon are simply not credible.
I would LOVE to see a Foveon sensor with a pixel count that is more competitive with Bayer-sensor cameras. But given the current pixel count limitations of available Foveon sensors, I can do better with my 1Ds.