Beyond Megapixels...

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Fuzzy Logic, Apr 28, 2004.

  1. Fuzzy Logic

    Fuzzy Logic Guest

    Here is an excerpt:

    My contention on this issue is that the average photographer does not need
    more megapixels, they need better megapixels. I would much, much rather own
    a 5 megapixel digicam with good resolution at high ISO sensitivities and
    tough shooting situations than an 8 megapixel camera with great resolution
    only in ideal situations. Thankfully, some manufacturers have moved beyond
    pushing megapixels. Cameras that utilize Foveon’s X3 sensor produce smaller
    images, but they are much sharper, as red, blue and green color channels are
    captured in every photosite, as opposed to the more standard use of Bayer
    interpolation. Fujifilm is also taking things up a notch by adding a set of
    photosites just for the purpose of improving dynamic range with their
    SuperCCD IV SR sensors.

    Read the rest here:

    http://www.thetechlounge.com/article.php?directory=beyond_megapixels_part_1
     
    Fuzzy Logic, Apr 28, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Fuzzy Logic

    hfs2 Guest

    I wonder.....

    Will you ever 'pick your film'? Different sensors
    for different situations? Something like: screw off lens, pop out
    fuji sensor, snap in Sharp sensor. I know there's more to it
    than that, but not that much. Then we can have our 'film' discussions
    just like the chemical boys. "Oh it's so much better at color" or
    "the saturation is just ..." and so on. Along with the usb hot shoe,
    I wonder who will do it first (camera's over $10,000 don't count!)

    Fuzzy Logic <> wrote in message news:<Xns94D996C43D171bobarcabca@198.161.157.145>...
    > Here is an excerpt:
    >
    > My contention on this issue is that the average photographer does not need
    > more megapixels, they need better megapixels. I would much, much rather own
    > a 5 megapixel digicam with good resolution at high ISO sensitivities and
    > tough shooting situations than an 8 megapixel camera with great resolution
    > only in ideal situations. Thankfully, some manufacturers have moved beyond
    > pushing megapixels. Cameras that utilize Foveon?s X3 sensor produce smaller
    > images, but they are much sharper, as red, blue and green color channels are
    > captured in every photosite, as opposed to the more standard use of Bayer
    > interpolation. Fujifilm is also taking things up a notch by adding a set of
    > photosites just for the purpose of improving dynamic range with their
    > SuperCCD IV SR sensors.
    >
    > Read the rest here:
    >
    > http://www.thetechlounge.com/article.php?directory=beyond_megapixels_part_1
     
    hfs2, Apr 29, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Fuzzy Logic

    Jürgen Eidt Guest

    "hfs2" <> schrieb im Newsbeitrag

    > Will you ever 'pick your film'? Different sensors
    > for different situations? Something like: screw off lens, pop out
    > fuji sensor, snap in Sharp sensor.


    This is great, but you forgot the processor/software module ;)

    --
    Regards
    Jürgen

    http://cpicture.de/en
     
    Jürgen Eidt, Apr 29, 2004
    #3
  4. "Fuzzy Logic" <> wrote in message
    news:Xns94D996C43D171bobarcabca@198.161.157.145...
    > Here is an excerpt:
    >
    > My contention on this issue is that the average photographer does not need
    > more megapixels, they need better megapixels. I would much, much rather

    own
    > a 5 megapixel digicam with good resolution at high ISO sensitivities and
    > tough shooting situations than an 8 megapixel camera with great resolution
    > only in ideal situations.


    So far, so good.

    > Thankfully, some manufacturers have moved beyond
    > pushing megapixels.


    Yes. The Canon 300D and Nikon D70 bring high-quality pixels to an affordable
    price point.

    > Cameras that utilize Foveon’s X3 sensor produce smaller
    > images, but they are much sharper, as red, blue and green color channels

    are
    > captured in every photosite, as opposed to the more standard use of Bayer
    > interpolation.


    But this is, as has been said before, incorrect: Foveon insists that they
    don't need an antialiasing filter, which is simply a lie. (The mathematics
    of sampling require that the signal be low-pass filtered before sampling:
    this is an unavoidable law of nature: it's not even physics: it's
    mathematics; not even God can revoke it.) As a result, the apparent
    sharpness comes at a cost of incorrect imaging, Moire, and other problems.

    X3 is also bad engineering in that it requires three charge storage devices
    at each location, reducing dynamic range, making the Sigma cameras the
    lowest dynamic range digital cameras ever made. Of course, that makes for
    very contrasty images that look good at first glance. Until you need some
    shadow detail.

    > Fujifilm is also taking things up a notch by adding a set of
    > photosites just for the purpose of improving dynamic range with their
    > SuperCCD IV SR sensors.


    This one, however, is an interesting idea.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Apr 29, 2004
    #4
  5. Fuzzy Logic

    gsum Guest

    This is OK if you only want to print to 8x10 inches. For wide format
    more, and better, pixels are definately needed.

    The contention that a 3.4 mp Foveon is sharper than a 3.4 mp Bayer
    is incorrect. The Bayer design takes advantage of the fact that the
    eye/brain is more sensitive to detail and luminance than it is to colour.
    Foveon does not do this and is an overcomplex and therefore inferior
    design.

    Graham


    "Fuzzy Logic" <> wrote in message
    news:Xns94D996C43D171bobarcabca@198.161.157.145...
    > Here is an excerpt:
    >
    > My contention on this issue is that the average photographer does not need
    > more megapixels, they need better megapixels. I would much, much rather

    own
    > a 5 megapixel digicam with good resolution at high ISO sensitivities and
    > tough shooting situations than an 8 megapixel camera with great resolution
    > only in ideal situations. Thankfully, some manufacturers have moved beyond
    > pushing megapixels. Cameras that utilize Foveon's X3 sensor produce

    smaller
    > images, but they are much sharper, as red, blue and green color channels

    are
    > captured in every photosite, as opposed to the more standard use of Bayer
    > interpolation. Fujifilm is also taking things up a notch by adding a set

    of
    > photosites just for the purpose of improving dynamic range with their
    > SuperCCD IV SR sensors.
    >
    > Read the rest here:
    >
    >

    http://www.thetechlounge.com/article.php?directory=beyond_megapixels_part_1
    >
     
    gsum, Apr 29, 2004
    #5
  6. "gsum" <> wrote in message
    news:4090a8c7$...
    > This is OK if you only want to print to 8x10 inches. For wide format
    > more, and better, pixels are definately needed.

    []
    > Graham


    ... but are the greater number of pixels for wide format better obtained by
    increases in sensor pixel count, or by stitching images together?

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Apr 29, 2004
    #6
  7. Fuzzy Logic

    gsum Guest

    Good question. I do a lot of panoramic landscapes, usually by stitching two
    or
    three frames, which I then crop/size to a 5x2 ratio image. 5x2 is
    great for landscapes as it is fairly near to what the eye 'sees'.
    I print these to 24x9.5 or 30x12 inches to fit my favourite frame sizes.
    This is fine for panoramics, where lens distortion correction is
    reasonably simple as it is only necessary to correct in one plane.
    It is much more difficult to stitch e.g.4 frames into a landscape format
    (3x2 or 4x3) as the stitching is done in both planes. It is also harder
    to compose the scene and keep the images accurately in the vertical
    and horizontal planes.
    I'll be happy when I can get my hands on a full frame 20mp dSLR as
    this will provide good quality 18x24 inch images, assuming that the
    quality of each pixel is as good as we get from the Nikon D100.

    Graham

    "David J Taylor" <-this-bit> wrote in
    message news:p92kc.5071$...
    > "gsum" <> wrote in message
    > news:4090a8c7$...
    > > This is OK if you only want to print to 8x10 inches. For wide format
    > > more, and better, pixels are definately needed.

    > []
    > > Graham

    >
    > .. but are the greater number of pixels for wide format better obtained by
    > increases in sensor pixel count, or by stitching images together?
    >
    > Cheers,
    > David
    >
    >
     
    gsum, Apr 29, 2004
    #7
  8. "David J. Littleboy" <> wrote in message news:<c6prm2$drg$>...
    > "Fuzzy Logic" <> wrote in message
    > news:Xns94D996C43D171bobarcabca@198.161.157.145...
    > > Here is an excerpt:
    > >
    > > My contention on this issue is that the average photographer does not need
    > > more megapixels, they need better megapixels. I would much, much rather

    > own
    > > a 5 megapixel digicam with good resolution at high ISO sensitivities and
    > > tough shooting situations than an 8 megapixel camera with great resolution
    > > only in ideal situations.

    >
    > So far, so good.
    >
    > > Thankfully, some manufacturers have moved beyond
    > > pushing megapixels.

    >
    > Yes. The Canon 300D and Nikon D70 bring high-quality pixels to an affordable
    > price point.
    >
    > > Cameras that utilize Foveon?s X3 sensor produce smaller
    > > images, but they are much sharper, as red, blue and green color channels

    > are
    > > captured in every photosite, as opposed to the more standard use of Bayer
    > > interpolation.

    >
    > But this is, as has been said before, incorrect: Foveon insists that they
    > don't need an antialiasing filter, which is simply a lie. (The mathematics
    > of sampling require that the signal be low-pass filtered before sampling:


    A blur filter is needed with Bayer because of color sampling. It
    prevents rainbowing at the expense of accuracy. Foveon obviously
    doesn't need one since color is not sampled then guessed, but rather
    directly measured at every photosite, same for luminance.

    > this is an unavoidable law of nature: it's not even physics: it's
    > mathematics; not even God can revoke it.) As a result, the apparent
    > sharpness comes at a cost of incorrect imaging, Moire, and other problems.
    >
    > X3 is also bad engineering in that it requires three charge storage devices
    > at each location, reducing dynamic range, making the Sigma cameras the
    > lowest dynamic range digital cameras ever made. Of course, that makes for
    > very contrasty images that look good at first glance. Until you need some
    > shadow detail.


    Foveon obviosuly has 3X as many locations to store charges than Bayer,
    which is why it has so much more dynamic range, roughly 10 stops vs.
    only 4 or 5 for the twice as expensive 300D. This is why Canon DSLR
    images have white skies if there is any shadow detail, while Foveon
    images are much better than all film sizes and formats, and almost as
    good, if not better than the human eye...

    http://www.pbase.com/image/24653641
     
    George Preddy, Apr 29, 2004
    #8
  9. In article <>,
    (hfs2) wrote:

    > camera's over $10,000 don't count


    Jesu's wept.
     
    Simon Gardner, Apr 29, 2004
    #9
  10. Fuzzy Logic

    Don Stauffer Guest

    There is a lot of truth to your contention. However, I think it will be
    awhile before it comes true.

    The silicon CCD chip (or even CMOS, for that matter) is limited in its
    photoresponse by the basic EO properties of the material. For faster
    (more sensitive) chip we must use some different material. Silicon is a
    wonder material for its fabrication qualities, so there is little push
    to develop other semiconductor materials. Even with the increasing
    popularity of digital cameras, the image chips represent a small
    fraction of the total silicon ICs sold. In order to develop a new
    material to the point where fabrication ease and expense is near today's
    silicon would take REALLY big bucks. And, for that matter, the EO
    properties of silicon are already pretty good, so it is going to be hard
    to find a better material.

    We have been spoiled by photographic film. It comes closer to magic
    than semiconductors. I am serious about that. Last time I really
    looked into photo-physics of film, the film experts really were not
    fully able to explain the photo-chemical process and how it works and is
    so sensitive. Admittedly that was about twenty years ago, and they may
    have really discovered how it works by now, but at least two decades ago
    there was still a lot of art and black magic in making photo emulsions.

    Fuzzy Logic wrote:
    >
    > Here is an excerpt:
    >
    > My contention on this issue is that the average photographer does not need
    > more megapixels, they need better megapixels. I would much, much rather own
    > a 5 megapixel digicam with good resolution at high ISO sensitivities and
    > tough shooting situations than an 8 megapixel camera with great resolution
    > only in ideal situations. Thankfully, some manufacturers have moved beyond
    > pushing megapixels. Cameras that utilize Foveon’s X3 sensor produce smaller
    > images, but they are much sharper, as red, blue and green color channels are
    > captured in every photosite, as opposed to the more standard use of Bayer
    > interpolation. Fujifilm is also taking things up a notch by adding a set of
    > photosites just for the purpose of improving dynamic range with their
    > SuperCCD IV SR sensors.
    >
    > Read the rest here:
    >
    > http://www.thetechlounge.com/article.php?directory=beyond_megapixels_part_1


    --
    Don Stauffer in Minnesota

    webpage- http://www.usfamily.net/web/stauffer
     
    Don Stauffer, Apr 29, 2004
    #10
  11. Fuzzy Logic

    Paul H. Guest

    "David J. Littleboy" <> wrote in message
    news:c6prm2$drg$...
    <snip>
    > But this is, as has been said before, incorrect: Foveon insists that they
    > don't need an antialiasing filter, which is simply a lie. (The mathematics
    > of sampling require that the signal be low-pass filtered before sampling:
    > this is an unavoidable law of nature: it's not even physics: it's
    > mathematics; not even God can revoke it.) As a result, the apparent
    > sharpness comes at a cost of incorrect imaging, Moire, and other problems.
    >


    Not to quibble, David, but I don't think God, if He/She/It exists, routinely
    revokes the laws of nature, either. :)

    Besides, though I'm not defending Foveon in any way, I really think most
    camera makers are too aggressive with anti-aliasing filtering: After all,
    most of us don't routine photograph zebras or stair bannisters at 100 yards
    and the blurriness caused by extreme anti-aliasing is often more annoying
    than the occasional aliasing artefact might be. A switchable anti-aliasing
    filter would be nice, if it could be implemented (I'm thinking of the Canon
    G5's internal ND filter).

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ---------------------------
    "All science is either Physics, or stamp collecting."

    --Lord Kelvin.
     
    Paul H., Apr 29, 2004
    #11
  12. Don Stauffer <> wrote in news::

    > The silicon CCD chip (or even CMOS, for that matter) is limited in its
    > photoresponse by the basic EO properties of the material. For faster
    > (more sensitive) chip we must use some different material. Silicon is a
    > wonder material for its fabrication qualities, so there is little push
    > to develop other semiconductor materials. Even with the increasing
    > popularity of digital cameras, the image chips represent a small
    > fraction of the total silicon ICs sold. In order to develop a new
    > material to the point where fabrication ease and expense is near today's
    > silicon would take REALLY big bucks. And, for that matter, the EO
    > properties of silicon are already pretty good, so it is going to be hard
    > to find a better material.
    >
    > We have been spoiled by photographic film. It comes closer to magic
    > than semiconductors. I am serious about that. Last time I really
    > looked into photo-physics of film, the film experts really were not
    > fully able to explain the photo-chemical process and how it works and is
    > so sensitive. Admittedly that was about twenty years ago, and they may
    > have really discovered how it works by now, but at least two decades ago
    > there was still a lot of art and black magic in making photo emulsions.


    It is rather the oposite. Digital excels at high sensitivity, but film
    gives it a good match at lower ISO. A DSLR at ISO 1600 is much better
    than film at ISO 1600.


    /Roland
     
    Roland Karlsson, Apr 29, 2004
    #12
  13. Fuzzy Logic <> wrote in
    news:Xns94D996C43D171bobarcabca@198.161.157.145:

    > My contention on this issue is that the average photographer does not
    > need more megapixels, they need better megapixels. I would much, much
    > rather own a 5 megapixel digicam with good resolution at high ISO
    > sensitivities and tough shooting situations than an 8 megapixel camera
    > with great resolution only in ideal situations.


    This is correct.

    I took some pictures in bright sunlight over the sea today. It would
    be just fantastic if I could catch the tones in the reflections in
    the water at the same time as the rest of the picture. More dynamic
    range is the most important quest right now!

    > Thankfully, some
    > manufacturers have moved beyond pushing megapixels.


    Yes - there have been lots of very good cameras with
    few megapixels - some DSLR from Nikon comes to my mind.

    > Cameras that
    > utilize Foveon's X3 sensor produce smaller images, but they are much
    > sharper, as red, blue and green color channels are captured in every
    > photosite, as opposed to the more standard use of Bayer interpolation.


    This sounds good in theory, but the Foveon implementation
    is lacking.

    They omit an anti alias filter. I know that som prefere
    the "sharper" pictures you then get. But ... at some stage
    in our evolving skill in looking at digital pictures most
    of us will see that something is wrong. The sharpness is
    faked. It might look good - just as a any artificial image
    might look good - but it is faked, and most of us will eventually
    be able to see that. All textured areas (grass, greenery, rock,
    water, skin, ...) has a very unnatural look. It is not all about
    fences and zebras - it is all over the picture. And - it cannot
    be removed - as aliasing produces artefacts that might be larger
    than the pixels.

    Moreover - the filtering technique is not good. The color
    sensitivity of the three layers is weird. Converting leads to
    lots of noise and also faulty colors.

    Moreover - you lose dynamic range by stacking the three layers
    on top of each other.

    Lastly - they are lying. The call it a 10 MPixel camera. They
    have themselves redefined the word pixel to fit that description.

    > Fujifilm is also taking things up a notch by adding a set of
    > photosites just for the purpose of improving dynamic range with their
    > SuperCCD IV SR sensors.


    This is an interesting idea. Unfortunately - it is in the same
    cameras that tilt the sensor 45 degrees. This tilting doubles
    the needed Megapixels in the files without really any advantage
    IMHO.

    > Read the rest here:
    >
    > http://www.thetechlounge.com/article.php?directory=beyond_megapixels_pa
    > rt_1


    A typical B-grade article. Written to catch interest, but without
    any real knowledge by the writer.



    /Roland
     
    Roland Karlsson, Apr 29, 2004
    #13
  14. "George Preddy" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > "David J. Littleboy" <> wrote in message

    news:<c6prm2$drg$>...
    SNIP
    > > But this is, as has been said before, incorrect: Foveon insists
    > > that they don't need an antialiasing filter, which is simply a lie.
    > > (The mathematics of sampling require that the signal be low-
    > > pass filtered before sampling:

    >
    > A blur filter is needed with Bayer because of color sampling.


    Wrong. ALL sampling needs low-pass fitering to reduce aliasing.

    SNIP
    > Foveon obviosuly has 3X as many locations to store charges than Bayer,


    Wrong again, they are smaller because three have to share the same space as
    a single potential well.

    Bart
     
    Bart van der Wolf, Apr 29, 2004
    #14
  15. In article <>,
    Paul H. <> wrote:
    >Besides, though I'm not defending Foveon in any way, I really think most
    >camera makers are too aggressive with anti-aliasing filtering:


    There are plenty of pictures from dSLRs that show aliasing effects. I think
    the D70 is quite bad in that respect, but the 1Ds can have problems too.
    Of course, with a very high resolution sensor (say 20 Mpixel or more) an
    anti-alias filter is less important than for a 5 Mpixel sensor. 10 Mpixel
    might be a good trade-off. Anti-alias filters will reduce sharpness. For
    that reason, using a sensor a higher resolution than you would need in
    theory might be a good idea.



    --
    Everyone I've met who had any experience with the phenomenon have confirmed my
    opinion that if a Ph.D. in computer science knows anything at all about
    computers, it's probably pretty much an accident. -- J.D. Baldwin, in asr
     
    Philip Homburg, Apr 29, 2004
    #15
  16. "Philip Homburg" <> wrote in message
    news:bb96v4c2a3cintmudi84fa6537@inews_id.stereo.hq.phicoh.net...
    SNIP
    > Anti-alias filters will reduce sharpness.


    But only for the highest spatial frequencies. And the effect is more a
    reduction of contrast than a blur as we know it. A lot of that contrast can
    be restored by postprocessing, and now with less risk of false color
    artifacts.

    > For that reason, using a sensor a higher resolution than you would
    > need in theory might be a good idea.


    Unfortunately, as the Nikon D70 and the Kodak 14N show, aliasing artifacts
    are bigger than a single pixel, so there is no really practical limit to
    super sampling.

    Bart
     
    Bart van der Wolf, Apr 29, 2004
    #16
  17. "Paul H." <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > "David J. Littleboy" <> wrote in message
    > news:c6prm2$drg$...
    > <snip>
    > > But this is, as has been said before, incorrect: Foveon insists that

    they
    > > don't need an antialiasing filter, which is simply a lie. (The

    mathematics
    > > of sampling require that the signal be low-pass filtered before

    sampling:
    > > this is an unavoidable law of nature: it's not even physics: it's
    > > mathematics; not even God can revoke it.) As a result, the apparent
    > > sharpness comes at a cost of incorrect imaging, Moire, and other

    problems.
    >
    > Not to quibble, David, but I don't think God, if He/She/It exists,

    routinely
    > revokes the laws of nature, either. :)
    >
    > Besides, though I'm not defending Foveon in any way, I really think most
    > camera makers are too aggressive with anti-aliasing filtering: After all,
    > most of us don't routine photograph zebras or stair bannisters at 100

    yards
    > and the blurriness caused by extreme anti-aliasing is often more annoying
    > than the occasional aliasing artefact might be. A switchable

    anti-aliasing
    > filter would be nice, if it could be implemented (I'm thinking of the

    Canon
    > G5's internal ND filter).


    Actually, most dSLRs' AA filters are insufficient. The Nikon D100 is the
    only dSLR with a fully adequate AA filter, and they get ranked on for soft
    images. So they built the D70 with the most inadequate AA filter (other than
    the Kodak dSLRs) out there, and it (occasiohnally) does horrible things with
    patterns with fine detail. But makes very sharp images otherwise.

    With regards to the G5. Put your camera on a tripod, set it to ISO 50,
    manual focus at infinity, aperture priority mode at f/5.6 or f/8, and take
    some landscape or cityscape shots with lots of detail. You will find that
    the images are extremely sharp.

    By the way, note that there's a basic tradeoff between sharpness and
    accuracy: if you insist on pixel-per-pixel sharpness, then the accuracy of
    placement of detail is lower relative to the size of the detail that you are
    resolving. So the same apparent sharpness with more pixels and more AA
    filtering is far more accurate than that apparent sharpness with fewer
    pixels and less AA.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Apr 30, 2004
    #17
  18. Fuzzy Logic

    Guest

    In message <>,
    (George Preddy) wrote:

    >A blur filter is needed with Bayer because of color sampling. It
    >prevents rainbowing at the expense of accuracy. Foveon obviously
    >doesn't need one since color is not sampled then guessed, but rather
    >directly measured at every photosite, same for luminance.


    Wrong. Foveon samples, and all sampling requires an AA filter, unless
    the optics do the job with softness, or the display is so hi-res that
    individual pixels are much smaller than what can be seen. Bayer merely
    requires a slightly stronger AA filter than a stacked-RGB sensor.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    , Apr 30, 2004
    #18
  19. Fuzzy Logic

    Dave Haynie Guest

    On 28 Apr 2004 18:51:06 -0700, (hfs2) wrote:

    >I wonder.....
    >
    >Will you ever 'pick your film'? Different sensors
    >for different situations?


    Possible, maybe. But before then, I expect you'll have realtime DSP
    living between the raw sensor data and the stored JPG, especially in
    consumer cameras. Imagine, for example, 12 to 16 bit image sensors,
    enough extra data to effectively simulate the color curves of your
    favorite films. You want Veliva, you dial up the Veliva plug-in; you
    want Tri-X or a tin-type, you dial up that "virtual film". Folks with
    RAW cameras could certainly do some of this today, at least where the
    selected "virtual film" isn't dramatically messing with your exposure.


    >Something like: screw off lens, pop out
    >fuji sensor, snap in Sharp sensor. I know there's more to it
    >than that, but not that much.


    A standard for, basically, sensor modules (pop off the camera back,
    unplug the Canon module, plug in the Sony module) is possible, but not
    easy. For one, the modules would have to be smart. Today, the camera's
    software is written specifically for that sensor. That level of
    intelligence would have to travel with the sensor, not the camera, and
    you'd need a standard API to still support things like RAW formats,
    some of the film emulations I've suggested, etc. So it's not just the
    CCD/CMOS there, but something else (which could be integrated on a
    CMOS chips, but would require an extra part or more for a CCD).

    And then there's the practical aspect: who would cooperate? Camera
    companies can't usually agree on the same lens mount, much less a more
    advanced plug-in sensor standard. They also are, currently, the
    beneficiaries of the "cameras change like computers" phenomena, which
    is not making the camera companies sad, you can be sure. They love the
    idea that you might upgrade every couple years, rather than every
    decade or two. The main reason you'd upgrade is for a new sensor, so
    it's going to be hard to eliminate that reason. One company might try
    to build their market share by offering that as a competitive
    advantage (eg, probably not Canon or Sony, they don't need to convince
    Minolta or Sigma users, or any of the other dozen or so companies who
    aren't Canon, Sony, Kodak, Nikon, or Olympus, to switch -- let them
    fight over the remaining 25% or less of the digital camera market.

    So this sort of thing, maybe from a company like Pentax or KM?
    Probably also not from one of the companies (Canon, Sony, Kodak)
    making their own sensors -- why make it easy for 47th Street Photo to
    bundle your body with the cheap knock-off sensor?


    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
     
    Dave Haynie, May 2, 2004
    #19
  20. Fuzzy Logic

    Dave Haynie Guest

    On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 18:50:48 +0200, "Bart van der Wolf"
    <> wrote:

    >
    >"George Preddy" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> "David J. Littleboy" <> wrote in message

    >news:<c6prm2$drg$>...
    >SNIP
    >> > But this is, as has been said before, incorrect: Foveon insists
    >> > that they don't need an antialiasing filter, which is simply a lie.
    >> > (The mathematics of sampling require that the signal be low-
    >> > pass filtered before sampling:


    >> A blur filter is needed with Bayer because of color sampling.


    >Wrong. ALL sampling needs low-pass fitering to reduce aliasing.


    Of course it does. But George doesn't even begin to understand the
    issues he talks about, that much is clear. I doubt he could explain
    alising or imaging in digital sampling systems to save his life.
    "Foveon isn't sampling", George? I'm sure the image just magically
    grows in the X3 sensor, tended by faries and elves. Do us all a favor
    and learn what Analog to Digital Sampling actually is, before
    pretending to have half a clue (and coming up short).

    >SNIP
    >> Foveon obviosuly has 3X as many locations to store charges than Bayer,


    >Wrong again, they are smaller because three have to share the same space as
    >a single potential well.


    Which is also one reason they have to be kept at such low resolutions,
    versus CCDs or conventioal CMOS chips. Foveon, for example, makes a
    16MPixel CMOS sensor (used by Hasselblad, at least last I checked),
    but not an X3 type. Not a sensor for the professional market, for many
    of the reasons stated.
    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
     
    Dave Haynie, May 2, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. =?Utf-8?B?bWFyYnk=?=

    How to get beyond a shared internet connection

    =?Utf-8?B?bWFyYnk=?=, Jan 4, 2005, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    468
    =?Utf-8?B?bWFyYnk=?=
    Jan 4, 2005
  2. Frank

    Wap and beyond

    Frank, Jun 18, 2005, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    494
  3. Bill Hilton

    39 megapixels? 31 megapixels? Get 'em here ...

    Bill Hilton, Jul 16, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    363
    Bill Hilton
    Jul 18, 2005
  4. jdanield
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    282
    jdanield
    Oct 17, 2012
  5. Rob
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    408
Loading...

Share This Page