Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Foveon and Bayer - quality is the photog

Reply
Thread Tools

Foveon and Bayer - quality is the photog

 
 
mark_digital
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-06-2004
I spent the good part of the morning looking at images
from both types of cameras. the Foveon owners seem
to have a better understanding of their cameras. They
also seem to use filters quite often. The range of colors
seems to be greater, or maybe they know how to
selectively enhance later with software. the images I
looked at were on both photosig and pbase.

Of course not all the Foveon pics were jawdropping
but the really good ones had a very nice three dimensional
look to them. I'm impressed.

mark_


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
gsum
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-06-2004
So, if I dump my D100 and get an SD9, I'll suddenly be able to
understand my camera better, will know how to use filters
and will know how to enhance later with s/w.
How does that work? Please explain.

Graham


"mark_digital" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> I spent the good part of the morning looking at images
> from both types of cameras. the Foveon owners seem
> to have a better understanding of their cameras. They
> also seem to use filters quite often. The range of colors
> seems to be greater, or maybe they know how to
> selectively enhance later with software. the images I
> looked at were on both photosig and pbase.
>
> Of course not all the Foveon pics were jawdropping
> but the really good ones had a very nice three dimensional
> look to them. I'm impressed.
>
> mark_
>
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
mark_digital
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-06-2004

"gsum" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:40725ed7$(E-Mail Removed)...
:So, if I dump my D100 and get an SD9, I'll suddenly be able to
:understand my camera better, will know how to use filters
:and will know how to enhance later with s/w.
:How does that work? Please explain.

:Graham

--------
Maybe a new camera will inspire you to do better. That's
the best reply I can give you based on how little I know
you. Please don't take offence.
mark_


 
Reply With Quote
 
Peter A. Stavrakoglou
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-06-2004
"mark_digital" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> "gsum" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:40725ed7$(E-Mail Removed)...
> :So, if I dump my D100 and get an SD9, I'll suddenly be able to
> :understand my camera better, will know how to use filters
> :and will know how to enhance later with s/w.
> :How does that work? Please explain.
>
> :Graham
>
> --------
> Maybe a new camera will inspire you to do better. That's
> the best reply I can give you based on how little I know
> you. Please don't take offence.
> mark_
>


If you dare mention a Foveon camera and speak positively, some people
get all up in arms.


 
Reply With Quote
 
gsum
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-06-2004
No offence taken.

If you've been reading this NG over the past few months you will
have seen the passions ignited by the Foveon/Bayer debate which
has been done to death. I thought you might have been stiring that
one up again hence the slightly over-sharp reply.

Graham


"mark_digital" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> "gsum" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:40725ed7$(E-Mail Removed)...
> :So, if I dump my D100 and get an SD9, I'll suddenly be able to
> :understand my camera better, will know how to use filters
> :and will know how to enhance later with s/w.
> :How does that work? Please explain.
>
> :Graham
>
> --------
> Maybe a new camera will inspire you to do better. That's
> the best reply I can give you based on how little I know
> you. Please don't take offence.
> mark_
>
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
John Navas
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-06-2004
[POSTED TO rec.photo.digital - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <Zcwcc.25478$(E-Mail Removed) > on Tue, 06 Apr 2004
11:08:41 GMT, "Peter A. Stavrakoglou" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>"mark_digital" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>
>> "gsum" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:40725ed7$(E-Mail Removed)...


>> :So, if I dump my D100 and get an SD9, I'll suddenly be able to
>> :understand my camera better, will know how to use filters
>> :and will know how to enhance later with s/w.
>> :How does that work? Please explain.


>> Maybe a new camera will inspire you to do better. That's
>> the best reply I can give you based on how little I know
>> you. Please don't take offence.
>> mark_

>
>If you dare mention a Foveon camera and speak positively, some people
>get all up in arms.


The problem isn't Foveon per se, it's sweeping generalizations (like the
"Foveon owners seem to have a better understanding of their cameras" in this
thread) that seem more inflammatory than informative.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
[PLEASE NOTE: Ads belong *only* in rec.photo.marketplace.digital, as per
<http://bobatkins.photo.net/info/charter.htm> <http://rpdfaq.50megs.com/>]
 
Reply With Quote
 
mark_digital
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-06-2004

"John Navas" <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote in message news:O3zcc.4107$(E-Mail Removed)...
[POSTED TO rec.photo.digital - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

:The problem isn't Foveon per se, it's sweeping generalizations (like the
:"Foveon owners seem to have a better understanding of their cameras"
:in this thread) that seem more inflammatory than informative.

--
:Best regards,
:John Navas
--------
Sweeping generalizations would be if I said they have instead of seems.
Overall there are more Bayer pics than Foveon pics and it's quite possible
the Bayer pics that are very good in quality and composition are lost in
the crowd so to speak. Foveon pics have both quality and the type of
composition that draw me to take serious time. The pics I'm talking about
don't_just_happen. Call it talent. Call it mind's eye. From what I've seen
they are classy images. They seem to have a deeper 3 dimensional sense
to them. They seem to have better tonal quality. So I'm freakin
impressed by them. I certainly can't be the only one that feels this way.
mark_



 
Reply With Quote
 
eawckyegcy@yahoo.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-06-2004
"mark_digital" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> I spent the good part of the morning looking at images
> from both types of cameras. the Foveon owners seem
> to have a better understanding of their cameras.


I spent the good part of the last 8 months reading this newsfroup,
particularly postings from both the foveon and bayer side of the, um,
"debate". The foveon "supporters" seem to have a basic
misunderstanding of logic, evidence and (remarkably) even honesty.
The simple act of using their own brains for rational intent appears
to be beyond their ken.

Am I permitted in taking this observation -- many citations are
available upon request -- and generalizing?

If I am not, then what is it that permits you, from whole cloth, to
synthesize an argument as equally, if not more, void of cogent
content?
 
Reply With Quote
 
mark_digital
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-06-2004

<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) om...
>snip<

:I spent the good part of the last 8 months reading this newsfroup,
articularly postings from both the foveon and bayer side of the,
:um, "debate". The foveon "supporters" seem to have a basic
:misunderstanding of logic, evidence and (remarkably) even honesty.
:The simple act of using their own brains for rational intent appears
:to be beyond their ken.
:Am I permitted in taking this observation -- many citations are
:available upon request -- and generalizing?
--------
Sure, you can generalize all you want. I don't take your generalizations
personally. I didn't participate in those threads other than to say I hoped
the arguing wasn't going to make newcomers decide against digital
cameras. - mark_
--------

:If I am not, then what is it that permits you, from whole cloth, to
:synthesize an argument as equally, if not more, void of cogent
:content?
--------
If you were forthright you wouldn't try a loaded question on me.
mark_


 
Reply With Quote
 
John Navas
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-06-2004
[POSTED TO rec.photo.digital - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <(E-Mail Removed)> on Tue, 6 Apr 2004 15:18:48 -0400,
"mark_digital" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>"John Navas" <(E-Mail Removed)>
>wrote in message news:O3zcc.4107$(E-Mail Removed)...
>
>:The problem isn't Foveon per se, it's sweeping generalizations (like the
>:"Foveon owners seem to have a better understanding of their cameras"


>Sweeping generalizations would be if I said they have instead of seems.


I'd say it's an SG either way.

>Overall there are more Bayer pics than Foveon pics and it's quite possible
>the Bayer pics that are very good in quality and composition are lost in
>the crowd so to speak. Foveon pics have both quality and the type of
>composition that draw me to take serious time. The pics I'm talking about
>don't_just_happen. Call it talent. Call it mind's eye. From what I've seen
>they are classy images. They seem to have a deeper 3 dimensional sense
>to them. They seem to have better tonal quality.


Thus Foveon owners are a cut above Bayer owners? What about all the pros that
shoot Bayer, and the notable lack of pros that shoot Foveon?

>So I'm freakin
>impressed by them. I certainly can't be the only one that feels this way.
>mark_


Indeed -- in addition to you, there's George, Guido, and David, versus all the
pros shooting Bayer.

As I wrote, this seems more inflammatory than informative.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
[PLEASE NOTE: Ads belong *only* in rec.photo.marketplace.digital, as per
<http://bobatkins.photo.net/info/charter.htm> <http://rpdfaq.50megs.com/>]
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Bayer vs Foveon--real world results George Preddy Digital Photography 0 04-14-2004 05:42 AM
Foveon X3 sensor, entropy, and Bayer sensors William Wallace Digital Photography 30 01-29-2004 10:31 AM
do our eyes work like foveon or bayer chips Mike Digital Photography 32 12-10-2003 08:35 AM
Foveon images on Bayer monitors K2 Digital Photography 30 12-01-2003 04:14 PM
Foveon vs 3.2MP Bayer George Preddy Digital Photography 25 10-30-2003 05:30 AM



Advertisments