No, nobody uses a 3-strip/3-sensor approach anymore. It was used in the early Technicolor process, and was revived during the digital era with cameras like the

No, nobody uses a 3-strip/3-sensor approach anymore. It was used in the early Technicolor process, and was revived during the digital era with cameras like the Minolta RD-175, and it lingered on in cine cameras for a while longer, but nowadays almost everyone uses a bayer-filter approach (or a very similar one - there are several proprietary alternatives for the mosaic layout that claim various quality improvements). The only similar thing nowadays is Foveon sensors where you have 3 color sites stacked on top of each other, but Foveon didn't really have the money to keep up with the arms race and nowadays the modern sensors are far better even though they do have to apply a low-pass filter to avoid mosaicing. When you have many, many, many nodes of improvement past the Foveon sensor, that stops being a big deal. It was also never particularly widely adopted, because none of these things are new - it was a tough sell to market a "really high color-resolution!" 5mp camera going up against 20mp filtered sensors and 50mp unfiltered sensors even 10 years ago. Interestingly though, the Foveon approach is similar to film. Film has multiple layers and all are exposed at once. There's no denying bayer is sort of weird. It's just very expensive to be the odd man out doing your own sensors. "Good enough" usually wins, Foveon may be betamax but bayer is VHS - and I use that analogy knowingly, in the sense of Betamax also doing key features worse in areas that consumers care a lot about.