More blurry SD-9 shots

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by George Preddy, Oct 20, 2003.

  1. George Preddy, Oct 20, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. George Preddy

    Todd Walker Guest

    In article <>,
    says...
    > http://www.pbase.com/image/22491067/original


    Great detail, crappy skin tones.

    > http://www.pbase.com/image/22491066/original


    Poor girl, looks like she has some sort of liver ailment. Is her skin
    always yellow?

    > I can barely even see the contact lenses.


    Yes and as any portrait photographer can tell you, the most important
    thing is that you be able to see every slight minute detail in a
    person's fact -- every pimple, hair, pore, and contact lens. Color be
    damned! I wanna see blemishes!!! :)

    This is fun George. Keep 'em comin.

    --
    ________________________________
    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 20, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Jeff Zawrotny, Oct 20, 2003
    #3
  4. Roland Karlsson, Oct 20, 2003
    #4
  5. This is gonna sound smart-assy (sorry) but it's one of those "painfully
    true" posts...

    First, in portrait photography you WANT a softer focus, not razor sharp
    images. Second, blackhead removers are a model's best friend. Third, the
    woman needs to wax the hair from her face. Last, "Hookers R Us" went out of
    business... lose the gold eye makeup. :-O




    Greg



    "George Preddy" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > http://www.pbase.com/image/22491067/original
    > http://www.pbase.com/image/22491066/original
    >
    > I can barely even see the contact lenses.
    DigitalCameraBasics, Oct 21, 2003
    #5
  6. Todd Walker <> wrote in message news:<>...
    > In article <>,
    > says...
    > > http://www.pbase.com/image/22491067/original

    >
    > Great detail, crappy skin tones.


    One of the really nice things about the SD-9 is it never sets the WB.

    > > http://www.pbase.com/image/22491066/original

    >
    > Poor girl, looks like she has some sort of liver ailment. Is her skin
    > always yellow?


    Yes.

    > > I can barely even see the contact lenses.

    >
    > Yes and as any portrait photographer can tell you, the most important
    > thing is that you be able to see every slight minute detail in a
    > person's fact -- every pimple, hair, pore, and contact lens. Color be
    > damned! I wanna see blemishes!!! :)
    >
    > This is fun George. Keep 'em comin.


    It is fun, thanks. How much blurrier do you want it? Is it even
    possible to blur an image without taking a blurry image? Did you try
    interpolitively up-scaling it 3X to 1 ouput pixel per 1/3rd color
    sensor like a Bayer image would do by defaut? Maybe it'll look
    better?

    :)
    George Preddy, Oct 21, 2003
    #6
  7. George Preddy

    Mike Engles Guest

    George Preddy wrote:
    >
    > http://www.pbase.com/image/22491067/original
    > http://www.pbase.com/image/22491066/original
    >
    > I can barely even see the contact lenses.



    Hello

    These SD9 pictures are phenomenonally sharp, even though the colour
    balance might not always be correct.

    With the other type of images from Canon and Nikon, we are slowly being
    conditioned to accept inferior images. The processing is so obvious and
    the results are so soft and shallow. Proto detail, but no actual detail.

    I do not own a digital camera, but I do know a sharp image when I see
    one.

    The same kind of problem exists with digital TV. It really has nothing
    like the quality of state of the art analogue TV. To many
    bandwith/compression compromises with digital TV. Rubbish quality for
    the undescerning. A new emperor with no clothes.

    Mike Engles
    Mike Engles, Oct 22, 2003
    #7
  8. Mike Engles wrote:
    >
    > These SD9 pictures are phenomenonally sharp, even though the colour
    > balance might not always be correct.
    >
    > With the other type of images from Canon and Nikon, we are slowly being
    > conditioned to accept inferior images. The processing is so obvious and
    > the results are so soft and shallow. Proto detail, but no actual detail.
    >
    > I do not own a digital camera, but I do know a sharp image when I see
    > one.


    Yes, that's why the Sigma SD9 is currently the only true digital photo
    camera on the market. The other "digital cameras" produce rather
    computer-generated artifacts than true photo images -- The digital
    cameras from Canon and Nikon are just obsolete junk.

    Yes, when starting "digital photography" most people are conditioned
    to accept the inferior quality of Bayer-type images, because the
    fun-factor and ease of use overlay the quality sensation.

    After my experience it takes several years before the inferior Bayer
    images start to hurt your visual sensation. After 7 years of digital
    camera use I didn't accept the inferior Bayer quality anymore.
    So lets wait some years and hope that they vanish eventually...

    > The same kind of problem exists with digital TV. It really has nothing
    > like the quality of state of the art analogue TV. To many
    > bandwith/compression compromises with digital TV. Rubbish quality for
    > the undescerning. A new emperor with no clothes.


    Yes, it could be better...

    Regards
    Guido
    Guido Vollbeding, Oct 22, 2003
    #8
  9. Guido Vollbeding <> wrote in message news:<>...
    > Mike Engles wrote:
    > >
    > > These SD9 pictures are phenomenonally sharp, even though the colour
    > > balance might not always be correct.
    > >
    > > With the other type of images from Canon and Nikon, we are slowly being
    > > conditioned to accept inferior images. The processing is so obvious and
    > > the results are so soft and shallow. Proto detail, but no actual detail.
    > >
    > > I do not own a digital camera, but I do know a sharp image when I see
    > > one.

    >
    > Yes, that's why the Sigma SD9 is currently the only true digital photo
    > camera on the market. The other "digital cameras" produce rather
    > computer-generated artifacts than true photo images -- The digital
    > cameras from Canon and Nikon are just obsolete junk.


    I wouldn't call the Bayer DSLRs junk, but they certainly produce
    images akin to prosumer Bayers--same heavy artifacting and fuzz. The
    SD-9 is a quantum leap above the 6MP DSLRs, as well it should be with
    70% more sensors. Having owned a 3MP, 4MP, 2 x 5MP, and a 6MP Bayer
    for way too long, I look back at my huge library of images and wonder
    what in the world I was thinking? SD-9 images are in an entirely
    different class, they look and behave just like film and are
    incredibly sharp out of camera, a real joy every time.

    The other unexpected pleasure is much lower bandwidth. Not only are
    the images in a new class for digital, the file size isn't scaled up
    to 3X that which is supported by the RGB sensor count.

    > Yes, when starting "digital photography" most people are conditioned
    > to accept the inferior quality of Bayer-type images, because the
    > fun-factor and ease of use overlay the quality sensation.


    How true. Pick up any big money Photo mag and you can read all about
    the hair better than prosumer quality 300D/10D, but not a word on the
    only digital ever built that rivals medium format film.

    > After my experience it takes several years before the inferior Bayer
    > images start to hurt your visual sensation. After 7 years of digital
    > camera use I didn't accept the inferior Bayer quality anymore.
    > So lets wait some years and hope that they vanish eventually...
    >
    > > The same kind of problem exists with digital TV. It really has nothing
    > > like the quality of state of the art analogue TV. To many
    > > bandwith/compression compromises with digital TV. Rubbish quality for
    > > the undescerning. A new emperor with no clothes.

    >
    > Yes, it could be better...
    >
    > Regards
    > Guido
    George Preddy, Oct 22, 2003
    #9
  10. George Preddy wrote:
    >
    > I wouldn't call the Bayer DSLRs junk, but they certainly produce
    > images akin to prosumer Bayers--same heavy artifacting and fuzz. The
    > SD-9 is a quantum leap above the 6MP DSLRs, as well it should be with
    > 70% more sensors.


    Well, it's similar to the video camcorder domain: Take any single
    chip consumer camcorder and you will get junk images. The serios
    videographer must use a 3-CCD device to get decent image quality.

    > Having owned a 3MP, 4MP, 2 x 5MP, and a 6MP Bayer
    > for way too long, I look back at my huge library of images and wonder
    > what in the world I was thinking? SD-9 images are in an entirely
    > different class, they look and behave just like film and are
    > incredibly sharp out of camera, a real joy every time.


    Yes, the SD-9 (or say X3) images are in a different class and make
    the Bayer approach obsolete.

    > The other unexpected pleasure is much lower bandwidth. Not only are
    > the images in a new class for digital, the file size isn't scaled up
    > to 3X that which is supported by the RGB sensor count.


    As a JPEG adept I can only shake my head about the inferior Bayer
    cameras: First they throw away considerable information by sensor
    filtering, afterwards they add data by calculation (interpolation),
    and then they compress to JPEG. Braindamaged!

    > > Yes, when starting "digital photography" most people are conditioned
    > > to accept the inferior quality of Bayer-type images, because the
    > > fun-factor and ease of use overlay the quality sensation.

    >
    > How true. Pick up any big money Photo mag and you can read all about
    > the hair better than prosumer quality 300D/10D, but not a word on the
    > only digital ever built that rivals medium format film.


    They are conditioned and don't know the opportunities.

    Good luck & regards
    Guido
    Guido Vollbeding, Oct 22, 2003
    #10
  11. George Preddy

    Mike Engles Guest

    Guido Vollbeding wrote:
    >
    > George Preddy wrote:
    > >
    > > I wouldn't call the Bayer DSLRs junk, but they certainly produce
    > > images akin to prosumer Bayers--same heavy artifacting and fuzz. The
    > > SD-9 is a quantum leap above the 6MP DSLRs, as well it should be with
    > > 70% more sensors.

    >
    > Well, it's similar to the video camcorder domain: Take any single
    > chip consumer camcorder and you will get junk images. The serios
    > videographer must use a 3-CCD device to get decent image quality.
    >
    > > Having owned a 3MP, 4MP, 2 x 5MP, and a 6MP Bayer
    > > for way too long, I look back at my huge library of images and wonder
    > > what in the world I was thinking? SD-9 images are in an entirely
    > > different class, they look and behave just like film and are
    > > incredibly sharp out of camera, a real joy every time.

    >
    > Yes, the SD-9 (or say X3) images are in a different class and make
    > the Bayer approach obsolete.
    >
    > > The other unexpected pleasure is much lower bandwidth. Not only are
    > > the images in a new class for digital, the file size isn't scaled up
    > > to 3X that which is supported by the RGB sensor count.

    >
    > As a JPEG adept I can only shake my head about the inferior Bayer
    > cameras: First they throw away considerable information by sensor
    > filtering, afterwards they add data by calculation (interpolation),
    > and then they compress to JPEG. Braindamaged!
    >
    > > > Yes, when starting "digital photography" most people are conditioned
    > > > to accept the inferior quality of Bayer-type images, because the
    > > > fun-factor and ease of use overlay the quality sensation.

    > >
    > > How true. Pick up any big money Photo mag and you can read all about
    > > the hair better than prosumer quality 300D/10D, but not a word on the
    > > only digital ever built that rivals medium format film.

    >
    > They are conditioned and don't know the opportunities.
    >
    > Good luck & regards
    > Guido



    Hello

    The real problem is that the Bayer system has had all the investment.
    The SD9 has no new utilisation. It will die unless it is supported and
    achieves a wider user base.

    Mike Engles
    Mike Engles, Oct 22, 2003
    #11
  12. Mike Engles <> wrote in message news:<>...
    > Guido Vollbeding wrote:
    > > > > Yes, when starting "digital photography" most people are conditioned
    > > > > to accept the inferior quality of Bayer-type images, because the
    > > > > fun-factor and ease of use overlay the quality sensation.
    > > >
    > > > How true. Pick up any big money Photo mag and you can read all about
    > > > the hair better than prosumer quality 300D/10D, but not a word on the
    > > > only digital ever built that rivals medium format film.

    > >
    > > They are conditioned and don't know the opportunities.
    > >
    > > Good luck & regards
    > > Guido

    >
    >
    > Hello
    >
    > The real problem is that the Bayer system has had all the investment.
    > The SD9 has no new utilisation. It will die unless it is supported and
    > achieves a wider user base.


    The truth is the SD-9 isn't about selling cameras, its about selling
    lenses. Sigma as the largest lens manufacturer in the world is in a
    unique position, for revery SD-9 they sell they make maybe $500-$3000
    in lens profits alone, over time. They could give away SD-9s and make
    money. It's a completely diffrent marketing position/strategy than
    the other manufacture, who would cut into their own prosumer
    investment if they go too low on price.

    Expect the SA/SD-9 to price-undercut all of its perceived competition
    to whatever degree is required to keep SA lens production at 100%
    capacity. Very interesting player, Sigma is.
    George Preddy, Oct 23, 2003
    #12
  13. George Preddy

    Kenny Guest

    Re: More blurry SD-9 shots - Clarification please

    Guido, between you and George who is the sock puppet?

    Surely SD9 owner's are akin to members of the flat earth society.
    Neither will admit to the truth that there is an error in their beliefs
    no matter how many times they are proven wrong. Their dead horse has
    been flogged so often even the bones are worn.

    Kenny
    Kenny, Oct 23, 2003
    #13
    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. George Preddy

    Canon D60 - Sigma SD9, more Moon shots

    George Preddy, Dec 4, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    92
    Views:
    1,825
    Gherry Bender
    Jan 15, 2004
  2. DVD Verdict
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    631
    DVD Verdict
    Apr 15, 2004
  3. Dawn

    D50 blurry action shots - need help!

    Dawn, Nov 20, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    608
    Tesco News
    Nov 21, 2005
  4. SMS
    Replies:
    29
    Views:
    1,172
    John Turco
    Jul 18, 2008
  5. ransley

    Re: Canon SX120-IS 10X - BLURRY on moving shots

    ransley, Sep 19, 2010, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    475
    dmaster
    Sep 20, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page