«

"dylan" <> wrote in message news:<N77uc.923$wk7.223@newsfe2-win>...
> "Most people have no idea Bayer Megapixels are monochrome as rated, while
> Foveon MPs are full color"
>
> and yet...
>
> (It's ) .."universally accepted".
>
> Interesting.
>
> Anyway...
>
> For Foveon to be in full colour the rating is 3.43MP and yet you constantly
> quote 10.2MP which is monochrome (RG&B).
> So what do you know ?

The SD9 is...
3.43 MP full color
13.72 MP monochrome

The low end Canon 10D is only...
1.5 MP full color
6.0 MP monochrome

The SD9 has 230% more MPs for less than half the price, but without
the heavy Bayer interpolation artifacts.

Kibo informs me that (Georgette Preddy)
stated that:

>"dylan" <> wrote in message news:<N77uc.923$wk7.223@newsfe2-win>...
>> "Most people have no idea Bayer Megapixels are monochrome as rated, while
>> Foveon MPs are full color"
>>
>> and yet...
>>
>> (It's ) .."universally accepted".
>>
>> Interesting.
>>
>> Anyway...
>>
>> For Foveon to be in full colour the rating is 3.43MP and yet you constantly
>> quote 10.2MP which is monochrome (RG&B).
>> So what do you know ?
>
>The SD9 is...
>3.43 MP full color
>3.43 MP monochrome

Good boy, George.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

Georgette Preddy wrote:

<< Snipped bits out >>

The person posting under the name of George or Georgette Preddy (and
other pseudonyms) has an ungrounded but zealous faith that current
implementation of the Foveon chip is superior to all other chip
technologies. He will cite portions of reviews to ostensibly support his
claims, and will repeat, ad naseum, complete lines of out-of-context
material, as well as manufacturing some pure bull manure.

Moreover, "Mr." "Preddy" has claimed to be a photographer (pro!), but
cannot bring himself to post a single picture with EXIF info that he
shot himself, in spite of repeated requests and challenges to do so.

Apparently he loathes anything related to Canon and loves everything
about Sigma cameras and lenses. His "claims" may be ignored, and he is
doing Sigma, and anyone related to the Foveon chip, no good at all by
arousing ire, increasing the N/S ratio, and generally spamming this
newsgroup.

--
John McWilliams

"Georgette Preddy" <> wrote in message
news: om...

> The SD9 is...
> crap
>
> The high end pro Canon 10D is
> superlative


And George(tte) knows what it's talking about.
Here's an example of what the Preddy/Sigma combination is capable of:
http://www.pbase.com/image/29304545

(Georgette Preddy) writes:

>The SD9 is...
>3.43 MP full color
>13.72 MP monochrome

Wrong. The SD9/SD10 are 3.4 MP for all possible subject matter, colour
or monochrome. There are only 3.4 million sensor locations.

>The low end Canon 10D is only...
>1.5 MP full color
>6.0 MP monochrome

Wrong. The 10D has 6 million sensor locations, and acquires 6 MP of
luminance information. It acquires the equivalent of 1.5 MP worth of
*colour difference* information, not colour information. For almost all
real-world photographic subjects, this is virtually equivalent to full
6MP RGB. Only on specially-constructed test patterns with no luminance
change does the resolution drop to 1.5 MP.

>The SD9 has 230% more MPs for less than half the price, but without
>the heavy Bayer interpolation artifacts.

Wrong. The SD9 has about half the useful luminamce resolution, and the
colour is less acurate than Bayer sensors. And it includes aliasing
artifacts for free. (The SD10 markedly improves this one problem).

Dave

On Mon, 31 May 2004 23:45:19 +0000 (UTC), (Dave
Martindale) wrote:

> (Georgette Preddy) writes:
>
>>The SD9 is...
>>3.43 MP full color
>>13.72 MP monochrome

>Wrong. The SD9/SD10 are 3.4 MP for all possible subject matter, colour
>or monochrome. There are only 3.4 million sensor locations.

Say "only 3.4 million pixels". That IS the definition of pixel, it
always has been, and always will be. I'm typing this on a monitor with
1,920,000 pixels. They happen to be 24-bit RGB pixels, but
independently of the color, there are exactly 1,920,000 pixels
on-screen. The fact of their being 24-bit doesn't triplicate them; if
I ran a program that imposed a Bayer color scheme on the screen, I
would still have exactly 1,920,000 pixels. That is what pixels are.
>
>>The low end Canon 10D is only...
>>1.5 MP full color
>>6.0 MP monochrome

>Wrong. The 10D has 6 million sensor locations, and acquires 6 MP of
>luminance information. It acquires the equivalent of 1.5 MP worth of
>*colour difference* information, not colour information.

And, while it's maybe not obvious to fools and children, but anyone
who's well versed in imaging, video, or even (like me) has taken
several college course in cognative psychology, will understand that
color information is far less important to the human imaging system
than spatial information. All forms of video you're likely to see are
decimated in color, 4:1, and yet, no one notices (if anything, you
notice how much better the color on DVDs or HDTV is, simply because
it's ONLY 4:1).

>For almost all
>real-world photographic subjects, this is virtually equivalent to full
>6MP RGB.

Yup. And anyone who actually understands imaging knows this. And we
laught at fools like George, who continue to make themselves abject
fools in public.

Dave Haynie | Chief Toady, Frog Pond Media Consulting
| Take Back Freedom! Bush no more in 2004!
"Deathbed Vigil" now on DVD! See http://www.frogpondmedia.com

In article <>,
Dave Haynie <> wrote:

[snip]

>Yup. And anyone who actually understands imaging knows this. And we
>laught at fools like George, who continue to make themselves abject
>fools in public.

Oh dear, you do realise that you're putting poor "George" in a difficult
and possibly irreconcilable position? One thing that's become clear is that
he has some sort of hero worship thing going for the people behind the
particular bits of technology he likes, and places great store in the things
they have to say. We also know that in addition to Foveon sensors and all
things Sigmoid, he really likes Amigas as well. ;->

In message <ncp4p1->,
Chris Brown <_uce_please.com> wrote:

>In article <>,
>Dave Haynie <> wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>>Yup. And anyone who actually understands imaging knows this. And we
>>laught at fools like George, who continue to make themselves abject
>>fools in public.
>
>Oh dear, you do realise that you're putting poor "George" in a difficult
>and possibly irreconcilable position? One thing that's become clear is that
>he has some sort of hero worship thing going for the people behind the
>particular bits of technology he likes, and places great store in the things
>they have to say. We also know that in addition to Foveon sensors and all
>things Sigmoid, he really likes Amigas as well. ;->

This is too funny... Dave Haynie and "George Preddy" have met in usenet
before. Dave was a Commodore engineer who designed much of the last
wave of Amiga Computers. George (going by his real name, Steve
Giovanella) was trying to teach Dave about Amiga hardware in
comp.sys.amiga.advocacy. He was also tried to teach another fellow who
wrote an emulator to run the Amiga Operating System and software on PCs
with a modified Linux kernel about how Amigas multitask.

Talk about spitting into the fan!
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

(Dave Haynie) wrote in message news:<>...
> On Mon, 31 May 2004 23:45:19 +0000 (UTC), (Dave
> Martindale) wrote:
>
> > (Georgette Preddy) writes:
> >
> >>The SD9 is...
> >>3.43 MP full color
> >>13.72 MP monochrome
>
> >Wrong. The SD9/SD10 are 3.4 MP for all possible subject matter, colour
> >or monochrome. There are only 3.4 million sensor locations.

Incorrect, all the sensors have locations. Is that a strange concept
for you? Is your world 3D or 2D?

> Say "only 3.4 million pixels". That IS the definition of pixel, it
> always has been, and always will be. I'm typing this on a monitor with
> 1,920,000 pixels. They happen to be 24-bit RGB pixels, but
> independently of the color, there are exactly 1,920,000 pixels
> on-screen. The fact of their being 24-bit doesn't triplicate them; if
> I ran a program that imposed a Bayer color scheme on the screen, I
> would still have exactly 1,920,000 pixels. That is what pixels are.
> >
> >>The low end Canon 10D is only...
> >>1.5 MP full color
> >>6.0 MP monochrome
>
> >Wrong. The 10D has 6 million sensor locations, and acquires 6 MP of
> >luminance information. It acquires the equivalent of 1.5 MP worth of
> >*colour difference* information, not colour information.

The number of complete RGB triples is the absolute insurmountable
limit of full color resolution (which is all that matters) with any
sensor using a 3 color model. This inludes the F828, btw, which
converts every E reading to 50/50 Green/Blue.

> And, while it's maybe not obvious to fools and children, but anyone
> who's well versed in imaging, video, or even (like me) has taken
> several college course in cognative psychology,

You took several college course?

> will understand that
> color information is far less important to the human imaging system
> than spatial information. All forms of video you're likely to see are
> decimated in color, 4:1, and yet, no one notices (if anything, you
> notice how much better the color on DVDs or HDTV is, simply because
> it's ONLY 4:1).

You absolutely cannot use the "double green" sensor count of a Bayer
sensor quantitatively, without producing a green shifted image. You
can get double the green component's measurement accuracy for each
complete RGB triple, a small qualitative increase, that's all.

And even so, Bayer are so ridiculously far behind Foveon in sensor
power, even with "double-green" count (which is of no quantitative
value) Foveon has a massively higher green sensor count in absolute
terms than a tiny 6MP interpolated monochrome Bayer sensor, like the
diminutive Canon 10D CMOS.

On 3 Jun 2004 18:57:45 -0700, (Georgette
Preddy) wrote:

> (Dave Haynie) wrote in message news:<>...
>> On Mon, 31 May 2004 23:45:19 +0000 (UTC), (Dave
>> Martindale) wrote:
>>
>> > (Georgette Preddy) writes:
>> >
>> >>The SD9 is...
>> >>3.43 MP full color
>> >>13.72 MP monochrome
>>
>> >Wrong. The SD9/SD10 are 3.4 MP for all possible subject matter, colour
>> >or monochrome. There are only 3.4 million sensor locations.
>
>Incorrect, all the sensors have locations. Is that a strange concept
>for you? Is your world 3D or 2D?

they only have 3.43MP locations when it comes to resolution, the Z
axis means nothing in 2D photography.
>
>> Say "only 3.4 million pixels". That IS the definition of pixel, it
>> always has been, and always will be. I'm typing this on a monitor with
>> 1,920,000 pixels. They happen to be 24-bit RGB pixels, but
>> independently of the color, there are exactly 1,920,000 pixels
>> on-screen. The fact of their being 24-bit doesn't triplicate them; if
>> I ran a program that imposed a Bayer color scheme on the screen, I
>> would still have exactly 1,920,000 pixels. That is what pixels are.
>> >
>> >>The low end Canon 10D is only...
>> >>1.5 MP full color
>> >>6.0 MP monochrome
>>
>> >Wrong. The 10D has 6 million sensor locations, and acquires 6 MP of
>> >luminance information. It acquires the equivalent of 1.5 MP worth of
>> >*colour difference* information, not colour information.
>
>The number of complete RGB triples is the absolute insurmountable
>limit of full color resolution (which is all that matters) with any
>sensor using a 3 color model. This inludes the F828, btw, which
>converts every E reading to 50/50 Green/Blue.

Actually resolution is entirely dependent on pixel count. Resolution
is defined by pixel count in digital imaging. Remeber data/pixel is
irrelevent in defining a pixel.

Your misunderstanding of how the human visual system works also plays
hell with your arguments.
>
>> And, while it's maybe not obvious to fools and children, but anyone
>> who's well versed in imaging, video, or even (like me) has taken
>> several college course in cognative psychology,
>
>You took several college course?
>
>> will understand that
>> color information is far less important to the human imaging system
>> than spatial information. All forms of video you're likely to see are
>> decimated in color, 4:1, and yet, no one notices (if anything, you
>> notice how much better the color on DVDs or HDTV is, simply because
>> it's ONLY 4:1).
>
>You absolutely cannot use the "double green" sensor count of a Bayer
>sensor quantitatively, without producing a green shifted image. You
>can get double the green component's measurement accuracy for each
>complete RGB triple, a small qualitative increase, that's all.
>
>And even so, Bayer are so ridiculously far behind Foveon in sensor
>power, even with "double-green" count (which is of no quantitative
>value) Foveon has a massively higher green sensor count in absolute
>terms than a tiny 6MP interpolated monochrome Bayer sensor, like the
>diminutive Canon 10D CMOS.

You're a clown, and likely only one of a handfull of people who
actually believe that.

GK