Has Foveon future?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by ThomasH, Oct 17, 2003.

  1. ThomasH

    ThomasH Guest

    The time passes and seemingly with the exception of Sigma,
    nobody is really eager to replace the color pattern sensors
    with the Foveon chip.

    Sony has even clearly indicated its decision to stick with
    the color pattern sensors by releasing its original 4-color
    chip with RGBE pattern (E=Emerald, similar to desaturated
    cyan) promising to cover a wider color gamut.

    Nikon's latest chip for the D2H is also a color pattern
    cheap, so is the chip in the latest Olympus 3/4 E1 DSLR.


    The concept of Foveon appeared sound, what went wrong?


    Thomas
     
    ThomasH, Oct 17, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. ThomasH

    Guest

    In message <>,
    ThomasH <> wrote:

    >The time passes and seemingly with the exception of Sigma,
    >nobody is really eager to replace the color pattern sensors
    >with the Foveon chip.
    >
    >Sony has even clearly indicated its decision to stick with
    >the color pattern sensors by releasing its original 4-color
    >chip with RGBE pattern (E=Emerald, similar to desaturated
    >cyan) promising to cover a wider color gamut.
    >
    >Nikon's latest chip for the D2H is also a color pattern
    >cheap, so is the chip in the latest Olympus 3/4 E1 DSLR.
    >
    >
    >The concept of Foveon appeared sound, what went wrong?


    The camera only uses Sigma lenses, which means no image stabilization is
    possible, and less quality lenses to chose from.

    The output is noisier than anticipated in theory.

    The camera has no anti-aliasing filter, and the files look a bit too
    sharp out of the camera.

    The benefits of having 3 color samples at each cell site are highly
    over-rated.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    , Oct 18, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. ThomasH

    bmoag Guest

    Sony and a few others manufacture the majority of sensors used in all
    digital cameras. Foveon cannot break that stranglehold and lacks the capital
    to go much further. Also consumers are used to the sorts of heavy processing
    that yields the images they are getting off current sensor types: it is a
    case where the apparent qualities of the image outweigh the actual technical
    qualities of the image.
     
    bmoag, Oct 18, 2003
    #3
  4. "ThomasH" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > The time passes and seemingly with the exception of Sigma,
    > nobody is really eager to replace the color pattern sensors
    > with the Foveon chip.
    >
    > Sony has even clearly indicated its decision to stick with
    > the color pattern sensors by releasing its original 4-color
    > chip with RGBE pattern (E=Emerald, similar to desaturated
    > cyan) promising to cover a wider color gamut.
    >
    > Nikon's latest chip for the D2H is also a color pattern
    > cheap, so is the chip in the latest Olympus 3/4 E1 DSLR.
    >
    >
    > The concept of Foveon appeared sound, what went wrong?


    It wasn't sound; the human eye's luminance resolution is about 3 times it's
    chrominance resolution. So Bayers sensors provide nearly the exactly right
    ratio of luminance to chrominance information. Foveon provides information
    you can't see. Not particularly useful.

    They managed to fool a few people by leaving off the antialiasing filter, so
    Sigma sold a few cameras to folks who flunked, or never took, an intro to
    digital signal processing course.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Oct 18, 2003
    #4
  5. ThomasH

    Tony Spadaro Guest

    Basically the pictures are not impressing anyone, and without impressive
    pictures it's real hard to convince anyone to buy a whole new camera
    system - especially Sigma.

    --
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
    home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
    The Improved Links Pages are at
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
    A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html
    "ThomasH" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > The time passes and seemingly with the exception of Sigma,
    > nobody is really eager to replace the color pattern sensors
    > with the Foveon chip.
    >
    > Sony has even clearly indicated its decision to stick with
    > the color pattern sensors by releasing its original 4-color
    > chip with RGBE pattern (E=Emerald, similar to desaturated
    > cyan) promising to cover a wider color gamut.
    >
    > Nikon's latest chip for the D2H is also a color pattern
    > cheap, so is the chip in the latest Olympus 3/4 E1 DSLR.
    >
    >
    > The concept of Foveon appeared sound, what went wrong?
    >
    >
    > Thomas
     
    Tony Spadaro, Oct 18, 2003
    #5
  6. "Tony Spadaro" <> wrote:

    > Basically the pictures are not impressing anyone, and without impressive
    > pictures it's real hard to convince anyone to buy a whole new camera
    > system - especially Sigma.


    Actually, the pictures _are_ impressing people. Most people don't notice the
    gross aliasing on near horizontal and near vertical lines, so the images
    appear very sharp out of the camera. Looking at the images, my guess is that
    the sensel area is quite small relative to the size of the pixel (the pixel
    spacing), and combined with the lack of an antialiasing filter, that gives
    extremely sharp extremely high contrast images, that, per pixel, look a lot
    sharper than the mainstream dSLR images. If you don't mind all your detail
    being in the wrong place by up to 1/2 the pixel spacing, it's quite amazing.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Oct 18, 2003
    #6
  7. ThomasH <> wrote in message news:<>...
    > The time passes and seemingly with the exception of Sigma,
    > nobody is really eager to replace the color pattern sensors
    > with the Foveon chip.
    >
    > Sony has even clearly indicated its decision to stick with
    > the color pattern sensors by releasing its original 4-color
    > chip with RGBE pattern (E=Emerald, similar to desaturated
    > cyan) promising to cover a wider color gamut.
    >
    > Nikon's latest chip for the D2H is also a color pattern
    > cheap, so is the chip in the latest Olympus 3/4 E1 DSLR.
    >
    >
    > The concept of Foveon appeared sound, what went wrong?


    It is sound, the SD-9 is an amazing digital camera. The Foveon sensor
    presents both unique opportunities and unique
    challenges--unfortunately the challenges just aren't worth Joe
    Schmoe's time, even with 10.3MP for the price of 5MP. But if you want
    the best digital image quality money can buy, the SD-9 stands head and
    shoulders above the rest.

    The only two DSLRs that can give it's image quality a run for its
    $1000 price tag are the 14n and the 1Ds. The 1Ds is a fantastic all
    around machine at an even more fantastic price, but in typical Canon
    fashion the sensor is way too blurry and a bit too low res for its
    specs. The 14n is every bit a match for the SD-9's optical
    resolution, since the SD-9 lack of a need for a blur filter and no
    requirement for color interpolation about makes up for the 14n's
    slightly higher sensor count, but it is an even less refined machine
    than the first Sigma effort. The 6MP DSLRs are essentially prosumer
    camera in terms of image quality, if not worse than some high end
    prosumers, but with exceptional build quality, but none even approach
    the image quality of the SD-9, 1Ds, or 14n.

    As far as the price, things are quite interesting right now. Sigma's
    marketing strategy is completely different than any other DSLR
    manufacturer, since it only has 1 dog in the digital camera race and
    Sigma makes their real money on lenses, not cameras. So they hardware
    dump the SD-9 to sell lenses. They could probably give the SD-9 away
    and still make tons of money on the lens demand it creates, which is
    why its a proprietary mount, btw. They'll continue to drop the price
    to keep production capacity at 100%, and they will happily cut into
    the prosumer price structure to the tune of no bottom. The big camera
    manufactures must hate them.
     
    George Preddy, Oct 18, 2003
    #7
  8. ThomasH

    Matti Vuori Guest

    (George Preddy) wrote in
    news::
    > The only two DSLRs that can give it's image quality a run for its
    > $1000 price tag are the 14n and the 1Ds. The 1Ds is a fantastic all
    > around machine at an even more fantastic price, but in typical Canon
    > fashion the sensor is way too blurry and a bit too low res for its
    > specs.


    How can a _sensor_ be too low res for its specs? More likely the lenses
    just can't cut it.

    > As far as the price, things are quite interesting right now. Sigma's
    > marketing strategy is completely different than any other DSLR
    > manufacturer, since it only has 1 dog in the digital camera race


    It is not necessarily a "strategy". Creatind a DSLR is a tremendous effort
    and every manufacturer has to start with one model. Do a count: how many
    removable lens DSLR's does Olympus have now? And estimate how many they
    will have in five years?

    --
    Matti Vuori, <http://sivut.koti.soon.fi/mvuori/index-e.htm>
     
    Matti Vuori, Oct 18, 2003
    #8
  9. ThomasH

    Chris Brown Guest

    In article <>, <> wrote:
    >
    >The benefits of having 3 color samples at each cell site are highly
    >over-rated.


    In addition to this, I'm given to understand that the actual frequency
    seperation of each sample is less than ideal for creating RGB output,
    leading to questionable colour accuracy and performance in some situations.
    I am given to understand that this isn't so bad provided you are willing to
    trade off a bit of dynamic range at the top-end and expose slightly less
    than you might otherwise want to. The upshot is that, although the Sigma SLR
    produces impressive resolution for a 3 megapixel camera (albeit at the
    expense of some aliasing), the colour accuracy can leave something to be
    desired. YMMV.
     
    Chris Brown, Oct 18, 2003
    #9
  10. "George Preddy" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    SNIP
    > It is sound, the SD-9 is an amazing digital camera. The Foveon sensor
    > presents both unique opportunities and unique
    > challenges--unfortunately the challenges just aren't worth Joe
    > Schmoe's time, even with 10.3MP for the price of 5MP.


    Oh boy, here we go again.
    The camera is only 2268x1512=3429216 pixels or 3.3MP.

    The rest of your comments sound like you're trying to justify your purchase,
    so I'll leave them for what they are, ill-informed marketing blah-blah at
    best.

    Sorry to disappoint you, but I suggest reading some of the earlier threads
    in this group. You might learn enough to avoid basing you purchase decision
    on a folder next time.

    Bart
     
    Bart van der Wolf, Oct 18, 2003
    #10
  11. ThomasH

    Todd Walker Guest

    In article <>,
    says...
    > It is sound, the SD-9 is an amazing digital camera. The Foveon sensor
    > presents both unique opportunities and unique
    > challenges--unfortunately the challenges just aren't worth Joe
    > Schmoe's time, even with 10.3MP for the price of 5MP. But if you want
    > the best digital image quality money can buy, the SD-9 stands head and
    > shoulders above the rest.


    Aren't worth Joe Schmoe's time? So I take it you are suggesting that
    only the pros who know what they are doing are buying the SD9 huh?
    Interesting. So where are all these pros with their SD9s anyway? Most of
    the portrait photogs, wedding photogs, press photogs, etc. that I know
    of are using Canon and Nikon. Show me some that use Sigmas.

    And 10.3 mp? You have swallowed Sigmas bullshit marketing hook, line,
    and sinker haven't you? It is a 3.3 megapixel camera -- that's it. Try
    printing an 11x14 on an SD9 and a 10D or D100 then tell me that the
    Sigma is 10.3 mp.

    > The only two DSLRs that can give it's image quality a run for its
    > $1000 price tag are the 14n and the 1Ds. The 1Ds is a fantastic all
    > around machine at an even more fantastic price, but in typical Canon
    > fashion the sensor is way too blurry and a bit too low res for its
    > specs.


    You're gonna have to explain that statement because it makes absolutely
    no sense -- "too low res for its specs?" What are you talking about? Is
    that out of the Sigma marketing handbook too?

    > The 14n is every bit a match for the SD-9's optical
    > resolution, since the SD-9 lack of a need for a blur filter and no
    > requirement for color interpolation about makes up for the 14n's
    > slightly higher sensor count, but it is an even less refined machine
    > than the first Sigma effort.


    The 14n is a pathetic piece of crap unless you shoot in a studio at ISO
    100.

    > The 6MP DSLRs are essentially prosumer
    > camera in terms of image quality, if not worse than some high end
    > prosumers, but with exceptional build quality, but none even approach
    > the image quality of the SD-9, 1Ds, or 14n.


    Wow, now you are really reaching. Please tell me about a high end
    prosumer point and shoot that has better image quality than a 10D, D100,
    or S2. And the fact that you put the image quality of the SD9 in the
    same class as the 1Ds just shows that either you work for Sigma (or
    Foveon) or you are just trying to justify your purchase.

    > As far as the price, things are quite interesting right now. Sigma's
    > marketing strategy is completely different than any other DSLR
    > manufacturer, since it only has 1 dog in the digital camera race and
    > Sigma makes their real money on lenses, not cameras.


    If this really is true, why do they need to come out with their own
    digital body when they make lenses for every popular mount from other
    manufacturers?

    > So they hardware
    > dump the SD-9 to sell lenses.


    They sell plenty of lenses to Canon and Nikon owners who don't want to
    shell out the money for manufacturers' lenses.

    > They could probably give the SD-9 away
    > and still make tons of money on the lens demand it creates, which is
    > why its a proprietary mount, btw.


    You make it sound like they are selling SD9s faster than they can make
    them, which doesn't seem to be the case.

    > They'll continue to drop the price
    > to keep production capacity at 100%, and they will happily cut into
    > the prosumer price structure to the tune of no bottom. The big camera
    > manufactures must hate them.


    I don't think the big manufacturers are too concerned about them.

    --
    ________________________________
    Todd Walker
    http://twalker.d2g.com
    Canon 10D:
    http://twalker.d2g.com/canon10d
    My Digital Photography Weblog:
    http://twalker.d2g.com/dpblog.htm
    _________________________________
     
    Todd Walker, Oct 18, 2003
    #11
  12. ThomasH

    John Bean Guest

    On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 12:52:12 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
    <> wrote:

    >They managed to fool a few people by leaving off the antialiasing filter, so
    >Sigma sold a few cameras to folks who flunked, or never took, an intro to
    >digital signal processing course.


    Cheap shot David, you disappoint me.


    --
    Regards

    John Bean
     
    John Bean, Oct 18, 2003
    #12
  13. "Bart van der Wolf" <> wrote in message news:<3f9117d6$0$58700$4all.nl>...
    > "George Preddy" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > SNIP
    > > It is sound, the SD-9 is an amazing digital camera. The Foveon sensor
    > > presents both unique opportunities and unique
    > > challenges--unfortunately the challenges just aren't worth Joe
    > > Schmoe's time, even with 10.3MP for the price of 5MP.

    >
    > Oh boy, here we go again.
    > The camera is only 2268x1512=3429216 pixels or 3.3MP.
    >
    > The rest of your comments sound like you're trying to justify your purchase,
    > so I'll leave them for what they are, ill-informed marketing blah-blah at
    > best.
    >
    > Sorry to disappoint you, but I suggest reading some of the earlier threads
    > in this group. You might learn enough to avoid basing you purchase decision
    > on a folder next time.


    The Foveon Pro 10M (in the Sigma SD-9) creates a 3.43MP
    non-interpolated image using 10.3M sensors, which is the simple
    equivalent of an interpolated Bayer camera with 10.3M sensors (and all
    Bayers create interpolated-color images, 3X the bandwidth for no value
    added). But the 10M has no blur filter and no extraneous pixels, so
    no USM is required. I've owned and shot lots of Bayers from 3 to
    11MP, none are an optical resolution match for the SD-9. The 14n is
    the only Bayer DSLR that can match the SD-9's full color optical
    resolution (the 1Ds is close, but loses out due to typical Canon
    blurriness--maybe it's their NR strategy).

    Foveon.com claims the Pro 10M enjoys parity with medium format film
    (56mm) when printed up to 40 inches on the long side. Personally, I
    think that is understated. I've seen 8 foot SD-9 prints that'll knock
    your socks off. The key is using a true 36-bit light jet or durst
    lambda to expose (not print) a true silver halide emulsion, that way
    the precise 68 billion color choices in the image are never
    interpolated from shot to finish. A feat no other DSLR can pull off
    (given you use a $140,000 printer).
     
    George Preddy, Oct 18, 2003
    #13
  14. ThomasH

    Mark Herring Guest


    >
    >The concept of Foveon appeared sound, what went wrong?
    >
    >
    >Thomas


    Ditto all the comments about how you dont really need the supposed
    advantage of the perfectly registered color. ie the Bayer pattern
    works just fine. When I first started with 640x480 images---yes--the
    firnging was terrible. Wtih my 2MP Canon it's simply not an issue.

    One thing that lawys bothered me was that---since the sensor uses
    silicon properties to get the spectral separation---it would be hard
    to control the indivdual bandpasses.? This would maybe make it more
    difficult to get the right color balance.

    I think spatial performance is the "long pole" in sensor design. To
    get the best true resolution you need lots of pixels with minimal
    cross talk and the highest possible fill factor (ie minimum dead
    space) The Foveon archtiecture does not appear to be consistent with
    these goals.

    -Mark
    digital photos, more and better computers,
    and never enough time to do the projects.
    Private e-mail: Just say no to No
     
    Mark Herring, Oct 18, 2003
    #14
  15. Matti Vuori <> wrote in message news:<Xns941883BB04114mvuorikotisoonfi@193.229.0.31>...
    > (George Preddy) wrote in
    > news::
    > > The only two DSLRs that can give it's image quality a run for its
    > > $1000 price tag are the 14n and the 1Ds. The 1Ds is a fantastic all
    > > around machine at an even more fantastic price, but in typical Canon
    > > fashion the sensor is way too blurry and a bit too low res for its
    > > specs.

    >
    > How can a _sensor_ be too low res for its specs? More likely the lenses
    > just can't cut it.


    Blur filters, overly aggressive NR techniques, poor sensor execution
    in general. Even cheap lenses will far exceed the sharpness potential
    of any Canon DSLR outside of the 1Ds, and whether the 1Ds can
    outresolve a decent lens is marginal--this is digital we are talking
    about. So spending anything more than about $100 for sharpness is
    just wasted money unless you are going for more sublime glass traits
    like richness/contrast/low light clarity. Just add 5 to the huge dose
    of required USM, and save a few thousand dollars.

    Here is a lens comparision of a Sigma 24-70 HF ($89) and a Sigma 24-70
    EX ($330). http://www.pbase.com/imageprocessing/exlenscompare

    Those are all zero-USM images straight out of an SD-9 with all RAW
    sharpness settings set to 0.0. As you can see, it's not a low
    performance lens that creates the need for USM, it's the low
    performance sensor.

    > > As far as the price, things are quite interesting right now. Sigma's
    > > marketing strategy is completely different than any other DSLR
    > > manufacturer, since it only has 1 dog in the digital camera race

    >
    > It is not necessarily a "strategy". Creatind a DSLR is a tremendous effort
    > and every manufacturer has to start with one model. Do a count: how many
    > removable lens DSLR's does Olympus have now? And estimate how many they
    > will have in five years?


    The difference is that Sigma (1) has no stake in the prosumer market
    so they can cut right through its price structure and already are, and
    (2) they are primarily a lens manufacturer, the biggest in the world,
    which is where their profit margins kick in. You can't buy an SD-9
    and not buy a few EX lenses, the out of camera sharpness is too
    addictive.

    BTW, Sigma also virtually gives away their film SLRs when purchased
    with a 2 lens package, making them very appealing near-free bonus
    backup cameras for the SD-9 buyer. They are great film SLRs, wider
    angle too.
     
    George Preddy, Oct 18, 2003
    #15
  16. ThomasH

    Tony Spadaro Guest

    In my experience - no one has seen any improvement in quality who is not
    directly involved in selling Sigma or Foveon.

    --
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
    home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
    The Improved Links Pages are at
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
    A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html
    "David J. Littleboy" <> wrote in message
    news:bmqr3v$p9d$...
    >
    > "Tony Spadaro" <> wrote:
    >
    > > Basically the pictures are not impressing anyone, and without impressive
    > > pictures it's real hard to convince anyone to buy a whole new camera
    > > system - especially Sigma.

    >
    > Actually, the pictures _are_ impressing people. Most people don't notice

    the
    > gross aliasing on near horizontal and near vertical lines, so the images
    > appear very sharp out of the camera. Looking at the images, my guess is

    that
    > the sensel area is quite small relative to the size of the pixel (the

    pixel
    > spacing), and combined with the lack of an antialiasing filter, that gives
    > extremely sharp extremely high contrast images, that, per pixel, look a

    lot
    > sharper than the mainstream dSLR images. If you don't mind all your detail
    > being in the wrong place by up to 1/2 the pixel spacing, it's quite

    amazing.
    >
    > David J. Littleboy
    > Tokyo, Japan
    >
    >
     
    Tony Spadaro, Oct 18, 2003
    #16
  17. ThomasH

    Tony Spadaro Guest

    It' is a 3 megapixel camera -- this business of multiplying pixels based
    on colour information alone is nothing more than an advertising lie.
    --
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
    home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
    The Improved Links Pages are at
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
    A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html
    "George Preddy" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > ThomasH <> wrote in message

    news:<>...
    > > The time passes and seemingly with the exception of Sigma,
    > > nobody is really eager to replace the color pattern sensors
    > > with the Foveon chip.
    > >
    > > Sony has even clearly indicated its decision to stick with
    > > the color pattern sensors by releasing its original 4-color
    > > chip with RGBE pattern (E=Emerald, similar to desaturated
    > > cyan) promising to cover a wider color gamut.
    > >
    > > Nikon's latest chip for the D2H is also a color pattern
    > > cheap, so is the chip in the latest Olympus 3/4 E1 DSLR.
    > >
    > >
    > > The concept of Foveon appeared sound, what went wrong?

    >
    > It is sound, the SD-9 is an amazing digital camera. The Foveon sensor
    > presents both unique opportunities and unique
    > challenges--unfortunately the challenges just aren't worth Joe
    > Schmoe's time, even with 10.3MP for the price of 5MP. But if you want
    > the best digital image quality money can buy, the SD-9 stands head and
    > shoulders above the rest.
    >
    > The only two DSLRs that can give it's image quality a run for its
    > $1000 price tag are the 14n and the 1Ds. The 1Ds is a fantastic all
    > around machine at an even more fantastic price, but in typical Canon
    > fashion the sensor is way too blurry and a bit too low res for its
    > specs. The 14n is every bit a match for the SD-9's optical
    > resolution, since the SD-9 lack of a need for a blur filter and no
    > requirement for color interpolation about makes up for the 14n's
    > slightly higher sensor count, but it is an even less refined machine
    > than the first Sigma effort. The 6MP DSLRs are essentially prosumer
    > camera in terms of image quality, if not worse than some high end
    > prosumers, but with exceptional build quality, but none even approach
    > the image quality of the SD-9, 1Ds, or 14n.
    >
    > As far as the price, things are quite interesting right now. Sigma's
    > marketing strategy is completely different than any other DSLR
    > manufacturer, since it only has 1 dog in the digital camera race and
    > Sigma makes their real money on lenses, not cameras. So they hardware
    > dump the SD-9 to sell lenses. They could probably give the SD-9 away
    > and still make tons of money on the lens demand it creates, which is
    > why its a proprietary mount, btw. They'll continue to drop the price
    > to keep production capacity at 100%, and they will happily cut into
    > the prosumer price structure to the tune of no bottom. The big camera
    > manufactures must hate them.
     
    Tony Spadaro, Oct 18, 2003
    #17
  18. (George Preddy) wrote in
    news::

    > The Foveon Pro 10M (in the Sigma SD-9) creates a 3.43MP
    > non-interpolated image using 10.3M sensors, which is the simple
    > equivalent of an interpolated Bayer camera with 10.3M sensors (and all
    > Bayers create interpolated-color images, 3X the bandwidth for no value
    > added).


    The Foveon sensor in SD9 is a 3.4 Mpixel sensor! It has
    3.4 M color sítes. So - it *is* a 3.4 Mpixel sensor. Everything
    else is just pure nonsens.

    A Bayer with 3.4 M "one color" sites is more difficult to rate.
    But - the optimal number of pixels for this camera is 3.4 M.
    If you use less you lose information and if you use more you
    are just upsampling. It is therefore reasonable to call this
    sensor also a 3.4 M sensor. Although I agree that it is not
    fair to a true RGB sensor.

    But - to be absolutely fair - the Foveon is not a true RGB
    sensor. It detects three rather broad spectrums and calculates
    the RGB values. This causes noise and also some errors in
    color rendition.

    > Foveon.com claims the Pro 10M enjoys parity with medium format film
    > (56mm) when printed up to 40 inches on the long side. Personally, I
    > think that is understated. I've seen 8 foot SD-9 prints that'll knock
    > your socks off.


    Uh? What are you on? It is Foveon that is pulling your socks off.


    Roland
     
    Roland Karlsson, Oct 18, 2003
    #18
  19. ThomasH

    Chris Brown Guest

    In article <>,
    George Preddy <> wrote:

    >Blur filters,


    A somewhat emotive use of language, which betrays your prejudices.
    Antialiasing is not "bluring". The lack of an antialias filter is, perhaps,
    one of the SD9's bhiggest deficiencies, even though it does lead to images
    which look superficially sharp. Other SLR manufacturers, most notably Canon,
    produce images which are not oversharpened out of the camera, and are
    therefore able to withstand a lot of image processing. Such cameras are
    probably not suitable for those who wish to avoid processing their images.
    On the other hand, it does provide for significantly greater latitude in
    what can be achieved with some competence in Photoshop.

    >overly aggressive NR techniques, poor sensor execution
    >in general. Even cheap lenses will far exceed the sharpness potential
    >of any Canon DSLR outside of the 1Ds,


    That is a bizzare statement to make, given that the the 10D and D60 have
    higher resolution sensors that the 1Ds (i.e. the photosites are more densely
    packed).

    >and whether the 1Ds can
    >outresolve a decent lens is marginal--this is digital we are talking
    >about. So spending anything more than about $100 for sharpness is
    >just wasted money unless you are going for more sublime glass traits
    >like richness/contrast/low light clarity.


    Your comments here are bizarre - they simply fail to match the observed
    results that people are getting from the 1Ds, which quite probably provides
    the best image quality that can be obtained from any 35mm lens system. You
    do the credibility of your point of view no good by making such patently
    absurd statements.

    >Those are all zero-USM images straight out of an SD-9 with all RAW
    >sharpness settings set to 0.0. As you can see, it's not a low
    >performance lens that creates the need for USM, it's the low
    >performance sensor.


    Most DSLRs produce images that need sharpening simply because sharpening is
    the last thing you should do when processing an image. The artificially
    sharp/aliased images that the SD9 produces are not an advantage, given that
    it's targeted at the same sort of market that the likes of the D100 and 10D
    are targeted at.

    Futhermore, given the well known improvement in the perceived sharpness of
    Canon DSLR images which can be gained from the application of a little unsharp
    masking, relying on unprocessed Canon images as the basis for any claims
    of superior image quality from the SD9 is not remotely convincing - it just
    demonstrates poor experimental method, and raises the question of just how
    confident you really are in your own claims.
     
    Chris Brown, Oct 18, 2003
    #19
  20. ThomasH

    Chris Brown Guest

    In article <>,
    George Preddy <> wrote:

    >The Foveon Pro 10M (in the Sigma SD-9) creates a 3.43MP
    >non-interpolated image using 10.3M sensors,


    If you seriously think that the SD9 images are not the result of
    interpolation of the colour values returned by the sensor, then may I
    suggest you download a copy of Dave Coffin's dcraw utility, which is capable
    of outputting raw, uninterpolated images from any of the cameras it
    supports. If you genuinely believe that the values you are getting in your
    final images are the raw, uninterpolated "RGB" values from the sensor, then
    I suspect you're in for quite a shock when you see what an uninterpolated
    SD9 image really looks like.

    >Foveon.com claims the Pro 10M enjoys parity with medium format film


    That's nice for them. Phil Askey's independent image testing, on the other
    hand, reveals that they compare favourably with *unprocessed* images from a
    Canon D60. A good showing for a 3 megapixel camera, albeit at the expense of
    aliasing, but far, far short of the exaggerated claimes you are making here.
     
    Chris Brown, Oct 18, 2003
    #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. jriegle

    Re: Sigma Foveon

    jriegle, Aug 31, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    378
    jriegle
    Sep 1, 2003
  2. OlEnSh

    Foveon X3 chip

    OlEnSh, Sep 4, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    27
    Views:
    922
    W Bauske
    Sep 10, 2003
  3. George Preddy

    Foveon has the newsgroups buzzing!

    George Preddy, Jan 15, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    372
    Paul Heslop
    Jan 19, 2004
  4. brian
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    393
    dooey
    Jan 24, 2004
  5. Mohammad
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    332
    Mohammad
    May 12, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page