Sigma SD10 Web Site Update

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Steven M. Scharf, Jul 9, 2004.

  1. The Sigma SD10 Information Site has been updated. http://sigmasd10.com is
    the authoritative site for unbiased information about the pros and cons of
    the Sigma SD10 digital SLR.

    This was a minor update.

    1. A little more information was added on the cause of the color rendition
    issues with the Foveon sensor.

    2. Changed the 27 links of the definition of a pixel into numbered links,
    rather than the entire URL.

    3. Even though the R-CRV3 Li-Ion option isn't on Sigma's web site yet, I
    went ahead and changed "No Poor Rechargeable Li-Ion Battery Option," to
    "Poor Rechargeable Li-Ion Battery Option."

    4. Added links to other reviews of the Sigma SD10.

    If you find any errors or omissions on this site, please let me know. I have
    made several changes as a result of feedback from rec.photo.digital
    contributors.

    Disclaimers
    ------------
    This is a non-commercial, informational site. The opinions stated on this
    site are the opinions of the author, and of other contributors.

    Nothing is sold on this site. No advertising is accepted.

    This site is not affiliated with Sigma Corporation or Foveon Corporation.
    Steven M. Scharf, Jul 9, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Steven M. Scharf

    Zebedee Guest

    "Steven M. Scharf" <> wrote in message
    news:DrzHc.10075$...

    <snip>

    I see nothing new there about the SD10. The photos I have seen, taken with
    it have all looked quite good. The only problems I'm aware of (which would
    stop me from buying this or any camera) are:

    1. The SD10 has a propensity toward accumulating dirt behind the dirt-shield
    on the sensor.
    2. The SD10 uses solely Sigma lenses.
    3. Sigma lenses seem (from the lens Jeff used in his review) to have unsharp
    patches (bit more grinding needed).
    4. The SD10 uses RAW format as opposed to JPEG and that could cause serious
    difficulties.

    I do like the Foveon sensor but that's the only thing I like about this
    camera.

    I dislike tremendously the tri-sensor arrays of the current digital cameras
    because of the way they can cause moire problems and because all images are
    interpolated and are therefore inherantly unsharp. What we get (crudely)
    when we buy a 3mp camera is a 1mp camera with interpolation.

    --
    Yours

    Zebedee

    (Claiming asylum in an attempt
    to escape paying his debts to
    Dougal and Florence)
    Zebedee, Jul 9, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Steven M. Scharf

    bagal Guest

    ah hah hahah ha heh heh heee

    lol

    nothing like a good flaming is there - quiet weekend?

    Nah then - I've looked for a couple of moments and first techie faus pas
    (IMHO) is sensor outputs an image Que? What? Run that by me again?

    so I can plug in the sensor without any supporting hardware or software and
    see an image?

    For any1 new to the forum - it's an ongoing metaphysical thang yo'all

    I think you may need to revisit what a pixel is

    nah then, even more important The Gimp

    watcha know?

    das B



    "Zebedee" <abuse@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
    news:40eee231$0$29050$...
    > "Steven M. Scharf" <> wrote in message
    > news:DrzHc.10075$...
    >
    > <snip>
    >
    > I see nothing new there about the SD10. The photos I have seen, taken with
    > it have all looked quite good. The only problems I'm aware of (which would
    > stop me from buying this or any camera) are:
    >
    > 1. The SD10 has a propensity toward accumulating dirt behind the

    dirt-shield
    > on the sensor.
    > 2. The SD10 uses solely Sigma lenses.
    > 3. Sigma lenses seem (from the lens Jeff used in his review) to have

    unsharp
    > patches (bit more grinding needed).
    > 4. The SD10 uses RAW format as opposed to JPEG and that could cause

    serious
    > difficulties.
    >
    > I do like the Foveon sensor but that's the only thing I like about this
    > camera.
    >
    > I dislike tremendously the tri-sensor arrays of the current digital

    cameras
    > because of the way they can cause moire problems and because all images

    are
    > interpolated and are therefore inherantly unsharp. What we get (crudely)
    > when we buy a 3mp camera is a 1mp camera with interpolation.
    >
    > --
    > Yours
    >
    > Zebedee
    >
    > (Claiming asylum in an attempt
    > to escape paying his debts to
    > Dougal and Florence)
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    bagal, Jul 9, 2004
    #3
  4. Steven M. Scharf

    bagal Guest

    i should be more serious - heh heh heh

    a sensor (IMHO) outputs data
    that data goes to an analogue to digital converter (usually acronymed to
    ADC)

    when an image of 3.4MP is displayed on an output device it may be in one to
    one correspondence with the data supplied by the sensor nothing more
    nothing less

    inbetween there is quite a lot of digital signal processing

    digital signal processing and a sensor (any sensor) have limitations and
    constraints inherent to the method of manufacture and some of the
    consequences are that the attempt to accurately capture images means that
    the data and data processing actually introduce corruptions that make the
    final output display (or print) subject just a little bit dodgy

    some of these corruptions may be tweaked however, as has always been the
    case in photography, attempts to improve one aspect of an image introduces
    corruption in the form of image artefacts or degradations elsewhere in the
    output image

    There is a great deal of sophistication in hardware, software and firmware
    used to optimise image quality

    i think i shall stop there

    das B

    ps - a sensor outputs an image? a hah hah hah haaah

    dB



    "Steven M. Scharf" <> wrote in message
    news:DrzHc.10075$...
    > The Sigma SD10 Information Site has been updated. http://sigmasd10.com is
    > the authoritative site for unbiased information about the pros and cons of
    > the Sigma SD10 digital SLR.
    >
    > This was a minor update.
    >
    > 1. A little more information was added on the cause of the color rendition
    > issues with the Foveon sensor.
    >
    > 2. Changed the 27 links of the definition of a pixel into numbered links,
    > rather than the entire URL.
    >
    > 3. Even though the R-CRV3 Li-Ion option isn't on Sigma's web site yet, I
    > went ahead and changed "No Poor Rechargeable Li-Ion Battery Option," to
    > "Poor Rechargeable Li-Ion Battery Option."
    >
    > 4. Added links to other reviews of the Sigma SD10.
    >
    > If you find any errors or omissions on this site, please let me know. I

    have
    > made several changes as a result of feedback from rec.photo.digital
    > contributors.
    >
    > Disclaimers
    > ------------
    > This is a non-commercial, informational site. The opinions stated on this
    > site are the opinions of the author, and of other contributors.
    >
    > Nothing is sold on this site. No advertising is accepted.
    >
    > This site is not affiliated with Sigma Corporation or Foveon Corporation.
    >
    >
    bagal, Jul 9, 2004
    #4
  5. "Steven M. Scharf" <> wrote in message
    news:DrzHc.10075$...
    > The Sigma SD10 Information Site has been updated.

    http://sigmasd10.com is
    > the authoritative site for unbiased information about the pros and

    cons of
    > the Sigma SD10 digital SLR.


    Unbiased? What are you trolling for this weekend?
    Peter A. Stavrakoglou, Jul 9, 2004
    #5
  6. Steven M. Scharf

    bagal Guest

    hmmmm - something is beginning to make sense

    first of all it was the one to one correspondence of JPEG images (image is
    optimised by displaying the image at the resolution chosen when the JPEG was
    created. That is what the JPEG spec is there for)

    Whatever the flaming criticism paranoia expressed in the NG the Foveon
    sensor does have something going for i.

    Why, for example, should a 3.4MP Foveon image be almost comparable to a 6MB
    or 8MP canon image?

    Doesn't it make sense to have similarity of output image for one-third to
    one-quarter of the umage output file?

    Of course it does!

    I think (thios is all IMHO) the thing going for Foveon sensors and
    technology is that it maintains a one to one ratio between sensor f=data and
    output image (c) just in case marketing bods are reading this - you may
    follow the topic introduced here but accreditation to & permission from das
    B first if you please :)

    No, the reason Foveon is creating shock waves is because maintaining a one
    to one correspondence seems to minimise artefacting and degradation.

    Before the flaming starts (a flamed bagal anyone? lol) similarity of image
    quality at gross diversity of sensor imaging elements? Hasn't the penny
    dropped yet?

    das B

    "bagal" <> wrote in message
    news:SMDHc.26$...
    > i should be more serious - heh heh heh
    >
    > a sensor (IMHO) outputs data
    > that data goes to an analogue to digital converter (usually acronymed to
    > ADC)
    >
    > when an image of 3.4MP is displayed on an output device it may be in one

    to
    > one correspondence with the data supplied by the sensor nothing more
    > nothing less
    >
    > inbetween there is quite a lot of digital signal processing
    >
    > digital signal processing and a sensor (any sensor) have limitations and
    > constraints inherent to the method of manufacture and some of the
    > consequences are that the attempt to accurately capture images means that
    > the data and data processing actually introduce corruptions that make the
    > final output display (or print) subject just a little bit dodgy
    >
    > some of these corruptions may be tweaked however, as has always been the
    > case in photography, attempts to improve one aspect of an image introduces
    > corruption in the form of image artefacts or degradations elsewhere in the
    > output image
    >
    > There is a great deal of sophistication in hardware, software and firmware
    > used to optimise image quality
    >
    > i think i shall stop there
    >
    > das B
    >
    > ps - a sensor outputs an image? a hah hah hah haaah
    >
    > dB
    >
    >
    >
    > "Steven M. Scharf" <> wrote in message
    > news:DrzHc.10075$...
    > > The Sigma SD10 Information Site has been updated. http://sigmasd10.com

    is
    > > the authoritative site for unbiased information about the pros and cons

    of
    > > the Sigma SD10 digital SLR.
    > >
    > > This was a minor update.
    > >
    > > 1. A little more information was added on the cause of the color

    rendition
    > > issues with the Foveon sensor.
    > >
    > > 2. Changed the 27 links of the definition of a pixel into numbered

    links,
    > > rather than the entire URL.
    > >
    > > 3. Even though the R-CRV3 Li-Ion option isn't on Sigma's web site yet, I
    > > went ahead and changed "No Poor Rechargeable Li-Ion Battery Option," to
    > > "Poor Rechargeable Li-Ion Battery Option."
    > >
    > > 4. Added links to other reviews of the Sigma SD10.
    > >
    > > If you find any errors or omissions on this site, please let me know. I

    > have
    > > made several changes as a result of feedback from rec.photo.digital
    > > contributors.
    > >
    > > Disclaimers
    > > ------------
    > > This is a non-commercial, informational site. The opinions stated on

    this
    > > site are the opinions of the author, and of other contributors.
    > >
    > > Nothing is sold on this site. No advertising is accepted.
    > >
    > > This site is not affiliated with Sigma Corporation or Foveon

    Corporation.
    > >
    > >

    >
    >
    bagal, Jul 9, 2004
    #6
  7. "Peter A. Stavrakoglou" <> wrote in message news:<slEHc.3508$>...
    > "Steven M. Scharf" <> wrote in message
    > news:DrzHc.10075$...
    > > The Sigma SD10 Information Site has been updated.

    > http://sigmasd10.com is
    > > the authoritative site for unbiased information about the pros and

    > cons of
    > > the Sigma SD10 digital SLR.

    >
    > Unbiased? What are you trolling for this weekend?



    He seems to have forgot to post this controlled comparison, wher the
    SD9 shows more than double the color resolution of the 10D, the SD9 is
    slight higher resolution than the 10D with the Sigma shooting in
    medium resolution...
    http://www.pbase.com/canon10d_sigmasd9
    Georgette Preddy, Jul 10, 2004
    #7
  8. Steven M. Scharf

    PTRAVEL Guest

    "Steven M. Scharf" <> wrote in message
    news:DrzHc.10075$...

    Steven, good website, but you've got an error. In the section on 3-CCD
    video cameras, you state that they do not have as good low-light performance
    as Bayer 1-CCD video cameras because of light loss from the prism. This
    isn't correct. A simple thought-picture shows why:

    Assume a lens of perfect efficiency, as well as Bayer photodetector filters
    and dichroic prisms of perfect efficiency. Assume the 1-CCD camera has a
    single 1/2" sensor, and the 3-CCD camera has three 1/2" sensors. Assume,
    also, that, unlike true Bayer, the 1-CCD camera has an equal number of R,G
    and B photodetectors.

    The 1-CCD camera sensor will receive 1/3 of the total light falling on it at
    each photodetector, and will discard 2/3 of the total -- a red photodetector
    receives 1/3 of the white light and discards the 2/3s that comprise blue and
    green, a green photodetector receives 1/3 of the white light light and
    discards the 2/3s that comprise red and blue, etc.. .

    The 3-CCD camera doesn't depend on filtration, but on splitting white light
    up into its component parts. Accordingly, no colors are discarded -- all of
    the red light is directed to the red sensor, all of the green light to the
    green sensor, etc. Accordingly, assuming perfect efficiency, a 3-CCD
    camcorder's sensors receive 3 times more light than a 1-CCD camcorder.

    In practice, this is borne out. It is true that current 1-CCD consumer
    camcorders tend to have smaller sensors than 3-CCD machines, and smaller
    sensors mean poorer low-light performance. However, 3-CCD camcorders, such
    as Sony's VX2100 or Canon's XL1 perform far, far better under low-light
    conditions than the older single CCD camcorders which had sensors the same
    size, or even larger.


    > The Sigma SD10 Information Site has been updated. http://sigmasd10.com is
    > the authoritative site for unbiased information about the pros and cons of
    > the Sigma SD10 digital SLR.
    >
    > This was a minor update.
    >
    > 1. A little more information was added on the cause of the color rendition
    > issues with the Foveon sensor.
    >
    > 2. Changed the 27 links of the definition of a pixel into numbered links,
    > rather than the entire URL.
    >
    > 3. Even though the R-CRV3 Li-Ion option isn't on Sigma's web site yet, I
    > went ahead and changed "No Poor Rechargeable Li-Ion Battery Option," to
    > "Poor Rechargeable Li-Ion Battery Option."
    >
    > 4. Added links to other reviews of the Sigma SD10.
    >
    > If you find any errors or omissions on this site, please let me know. I

    have
    > made several changes as a result of feedback from rec.photo.digital
    > contributors.
    >
    > Disclaimers
    > ------------
    > This is a non-commercial, informational site. The opinions stated on this
    > site are the opinions of the author, and of other contributors.
    >
    > Nothing is sold on this site. No advertising is accepted.
    >
    > This site is not affiliated with Sigma Corporation or Foveon Corporation.
    >
    >
    PTRAVEL, Jul 10, 2004
    #8
  9. Steven M. Scharf

    Guest

    On 9 Jul 2004 19:33:56 -0700, (Georgette
    Preddy) wrote:


    >
    >He seems to have forgot to post this controlled comparison, wher the
    >SD9 shows more than double the color resolution of the 10D, the SD9 is
    >slight higher resolution than the 10D with the Sigma shooting in
    >medium resolution...
    >http://www.pbase.com/canon10d_sigmasd9


    Did you steal those pics to Steve
    , Jul 10, 2004
    #9
  10. In article <F9FHc.206$>, bagal
    <> wrote:

    > No, the reason Foveon is creating shock waves is because maintaining a one
    > to one correspondence seems to minimise artefacting and degradation.


    The only shock waves they're causing is by the poor souls who were
    duped into buying them and then seeing the crappy skin tones and
    colors.
    Randall Ainsworth, Jul 10, 2004
    #10
  11. "Zebedee" <abuse@127.0.0.1> wrote in message news:<40eee231$0$29050
    >I do like the Foveon sensor but that's the only thing I like about this
    >camera.


    The theory behind the Foveon sensor is fine. Having three sensors per pixel
    is an excellent way to improve color resolution, and such a system was used
    successfully on the initial Foveon camera, and is used on some mid-range to
    higher end camcorders (three sensors, and a prism). But the camcorders do a
    smart thing, they shift pixels to increase the spatial resolution.

    The problem with the Foveon sensor is that silicon color separation is a
    very inexact science. This necessitates the extensive post-processing from
    RAW data, but even this is not sufficient, which is why there are all the
    complaints about the color problems.

    The Bayer type of sensor uses a much better method of color separation.

    >I dislike tremendously the tri-sensor arrays of the current digital
    >cameras because of the way they can cause moire problems and because
    >all images are interpolated and are therefore inherantly unsharp. What
    >we get (crudely) when we buy a 3mp camera is a 1mp camera with
    >interpolation.


    Fortunately, the human eye does just fine with interpolated color, it's the
    spatial information that is most important. And of course the color of each
    pixel from a Foveon sensor is also calculated and corrected.

    Technically you are incorrect. With a 3 megapixel camera, you get a 3
    megapixel camera, with the color of each pixel determined by the eight
    surrounding pixels (as well as the color of the pixel itself). You actually
    have 0.75M red, 0.75 blue, and 1.5M green pixels. With a Foveon 3.43
    megapixel sensor, you have 3.43 megapixels, each comprised of there
    photodetectors.

    Read the press release, Foveon press release
    (http://foveon.com/press_sigma.html): "The Foveon X3 image sensor in the
    Sigma SD9 contains over 10.2 million color photodetectors, which are
    organized in 3 layers within the sensor to form 3.54 million full-color
    pixels."
    Steven M. Scharf, Jul 10, 2004
    #11
  12. "PTRAVEL" <> wrote in message
    news:dqJHc.8500$...
    >
    > "Steven M. Scharf" <> wrote in message
    > news:DrzHc.10075$...
    >
    > Steven, good website, but you've got an error. In the section on 3-CCD
    > video cameras, you state that they do not have as good low-light

    performance
    > as Bayer 1-CCD video cameras because of light loss from the prism. This
    > isn't correct. A simple thought-picture shows why:


    <snip>

    I've just been shopping for camcorders, and I was surprised to read that the
    3-CCD models had poorer low-light performance than the single CCD models--it
    seems counter-intuitive until you realize that the absorbtion losses through
    the prism are non-trivial. Foveon had the same issue in their original
    camera, but it was a studio camera that was not used with poor lighting, so
    it wasn't a big issue.

    I was comparing 1-CCD with 3-CCD within the same price range. When you get
    to the higher end 3-CCD models, with the larger sensors, it is indeed true
    that their low-light performance is better.

    I was looking at models in the $600 price range. The reviews of the
    Panasonic GS70/GS120, strongly criticized the low light performance, while
    the reviews of the Canon Optura Xi, stated that the low light performance
    was good (not great). Plus, the Optura Xi has optical image stabilization,
    which is far better than digital image stabilization. I wasn't looking at
    the level of the Canon XL1, or the other prosumer models. There are two new
    3-CCD consumer models coming from Sony and Pansonic, with larger sensors,
    that probably will have as good low light performance as something like the
    Optura Xi, but they will be much more expensive.
    Steven M. Scharf, Jul 10, 2004
    #12
  13. Steven M. Scharf

    PTRAVEL Guest

    "Steven M. Scharf" <> wrote in message news:<pjKHc.10690$>...
    > "PTRAVEL" <> wrote in message
    > news:dqJHc.8500$...
    > >
    > > "Steven M. Scharf" <> wrote in message
    > > news:DrzHc.10075$...
    > >
    > > Steven, good website, but you've got an error. In the section on 3-CCD
    > > video cameras, you state that they do not have as good low-light

    > performance
    > > as Bayer 1-CCD video cameras because of light loss from the prism. This
    > > isn't correct. A simple thought-picture shows why:

    >
    > <snip>
    >
    > I've just been shopping for camcorders, and I was surprised to read that the
    > 3-CCD models had poorer low-light performance than the single CCD models--it
    > seems counter-intuitive until you realize that the absorbtion losses through
    > the prism are non-trivial. Foveon had the same issue in their original
    > camera, but it was a studio camera that was not used with poor lighting, so
    > it wasn't a big issue.
    >
    > I was comparing 1-CCD with 3-CCD within the same price range. When you get
    > to the higher end 3-CCD models, with the larger sensors, it is indeed true
    > that their low-light performance is better.


    The only 3-CCD camcorders in the same price range as 1-CCD machines
    are a few machines made by Panasonic. They are, simply, garbage.
    Absorbtion losses through prisms may be non-trivial, but they are far,
    far less than filter losses.

    The cheap 3-CCD Pannys have high sensor densities so that they can
    (try to) take still pictures as well as image video. The higher
    sensor densities adversely effect low-light performance, as do the
    reduced size of the Panny sensors. There are 1-CCD camcorders that
    have better video quality than these machines.

    Excluding the "marketed-for-hype-value" Panasonic machines, leaves
    Sony's VX2100 and Canon's GL2 as the least expensive 3-CCD camcorders.
    The GL2's low-light performance is better than any 1-CCD machine.
    However, the VX2100 has low-light performance that is simply stunning
    -- it can shoot by candlelight with virtually no noise.

    Go to my website www.ruyitang.com and click on "Venice at Night" and
    "Florence at Night" if you want to see what a VX2000 can do in
    lowlight. There is simply no comparison between a "real" 3-CCD
    camcorder (not the Panasonic toy junk) and even the best 1-CCD
    consumer machine.


    >
    > I was looking at models in the $600 price range. The reviews of the
    > Panasonic GS70/GS120, strongly criticized the low light performance, while
    > the reviews of the Canon Optura Xi, stated that the low light performance
    > was good (not great).


    The GS70/120 is criticized for all it's performance. Google "VX2000,"
    "VX2100," "PD150," or "PD170," all of which are Sony machines. Then
    Google Canon's "GL2," and "XL1." These are true 3-CCD camcorders, and
    not weird video/digital-still jacks-of-all-trades-masters-of-none.


    > Plus, the Optura Xi has optical image stabilization,
    > which is far better than digital image stabilization.


    Sure, but neither OIS nor EIS has any effect on low-light performance
    and neither have anything to do with a discussion of Foveon vs. Bayer.

    >I wasn't looking at
    > the level of the Canon XL1, or the other prosumer models. There are two new
    > 3-CCD consumer models coming from Sony and Pansonic, with larger sensors,
    > that probably will have as good low light performance as something like the
    > Optura Xi, but they will be much more expensive.


    As I said, the reason for the lousy low-light performance of the
    Pannys is because of (1) small CCD size and (2) high sensor density
    (and (3) they're just crappy cameras). It's not because the 3-CCD
    video camera imaging model is less efficient than 1-CCD imaging model.
    PTRAVEL, Jul 10, 2004
    #13
  14. Steven M. Scharf

    E. Magnuson Guest

    On 2004-07-09, Steven M. Scharf <> wrote:
    > If you find any errors or omissions on this site, please let me know.


    A few quibbles with the table Spatial Resolution of Various Digital SLRs:

    1. The column heading "Pixel Size" is misleading. The number you are
    reporting here is the *pixel pitch*, i.e. the distance between the
    centers of the pixels. The actual pixel size is always smaller; the
    relationship between the two is known as fill factor. Microlenses can
    increase the effective fill factor.

    2. Since for all of the other sensors pixel pitch is reported to 2
    digits of precision, the correct value for the SD10 would be 9.1.

    3. The Fuji S3 Pro will use a SuperCCD SR sensor which has 6 million
    pixel locations and 2 photodiodes per pixel location. (I.e., update the
    "Photodetectors per pixel" or use the S2 here.)

    4. The *istD reportedly uses the same Sony sensor as the D100, so you
    can fill in it's pixel pitch value. The D70 also uses a version of
    this sensor and has the same pixel pitch.

    --
    Erik
    E. Magnuson, Jul 10, 2004
    #14
  15. "PTRAVEL" <> wrote in message
    news:...

    > Sure, but neither OIS nor EIS has any effect on low-light performance
    > and neither have anything to do with a discussion of Foveon vs. Bayer.


    I can't remember where I read it, but one camcorder information site
    explicitly stated that the EIS did degrade the low light performance.

    Bottom line, in the consumer class of camcorders, other than the very high
    end (> $1000), a single CCD is better than 3-CCD. Comparing a $600 single
    CCD against a $1200-1500 3-CCD, isn't relevant for a lot of people.
    Steven M. Scharf, Jul 10, 2004
    #15
  16. Steven M. Scharf

    PTRAVEL Guest

    "Steven M. Scharf" <> wrote in message news:<NyTHc.10871$>...
    > "PTRAVEL" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >
    > > Sure, but neither OIS nor EIS has any effect on low-light performance
    > > and neither have anything to do with a discussion of Foveon vs. Bayer.

    >
    > I can't remember where I read it, but one camcorder information site
    > explicitly stated that the EIS did degrade the low light performance.


    If they said it, it's incorrect.

    >
    > Bottom line, in the consumer class of camcorders, other than the very high
    > end (> $1000), a single CCD is better than 3-CCD. Comparing a $600 single
    > CCD against a $1200-1500 3-CCD, isn't relevant for a lot of people.


    Sure, but comparing a $1000 three CCD to a $1500 single CCD sin't
    relevant either. Your website is a good source of information on the
    SD10 and Foveon chip. It really shouldn't discuss camcorders, which
    aren't relevant to the discussion and, particularly, your discussion
    about low-light capabilities of 3-CCD camcorders isn't correct.
    PTRAVEL, Jul 11, 2004
    #16
  17. "E. Magnuson" <> wrote in message news:<1eTHc.41096$>...
    > On 2004-07-09, Steven M. Scharf <> wrote:
    > > If you find any errors or omissions on this site, please let me know.

    >
    > A few quibbles with the table Spatial Resolution of Various Digital SLRs:
    >
    > 1. The column heading "Pixel Size" is misleading. The number you are
    > reporting here is the *pixel pitch*, i.e. the distance between the
    > centers of the pixels. The actual pixel size is always smaller; the
    > relationship between the two is known as fill factor. Microlenses can
    > increase the effective fill factor.
    >
    > 2. Since for all of the other sensors pixel pitch is reported to 2
    > digits of precision, the correct value for the SD10 would be 9.1.


    Which is truly amazing for a 10.3M sensor camera. One of the greatest
    benefits of Foveon's 3 layer CMOS is HUGE sensor pitch which directly
    realtes to low noise... http://www.pbase.com/image/31155134/original
    Georgette Preddy, Jul 11, 2004
    #17
  18. wrote in message news:<>...
    > On 9 Jul 2004 19:33:56 -0700, (Georgette
    > Preddy) wrote:
    >
    >
    > >
    > >He seems to have forgot to post this controlled comparison, wher the
    > >SD9 shows more than double the color resolution of the 10D, the SD9 is
    > >slight higher resolution than the 10D with the Sigma shooting in
    > >medium resolution...
    > >http://www.pbase.com/canon10d_sigmasd9

    >
    > Did you steal those pics to Steve


    Did stolen shoot to pics everywhere?
    Georgette Preddy, Jul 11, 2004
    #18
  19. Randall Ainsworth <> wrote in message news:<090720042113585571%>...
    > In article <F9FHc.206$>, bagal
    > <> wrote:
    >
    > > No, the reason Foveon is creating shock waves is because maintaining a one
    > > to one correspondence seems to minimise artefacting and degradation.

    >
    > The only shock waves they're causing is by the poor souls who were
    > duped into buying them and then seeing the crappy skin tones and
    > colors.


    Foveon is essentially all that's talked about in this newgroup. Shock
    waves is the unerstatement of the year, basically, nothing else
    interesting is happening.
    Georgette Preddy, Jul 11, 2004
    #19
  20. In article <>, Georgette
    Preddy <> wrote:

    > Foveon is essentially all that's talked about in this newgroup. Shock
    > waves is the unerstatement of the year, basically, nothing else
    > interesting is happening.


    Foveon is talked about because you're always lying about it.

    Everybody else is out there creating images instead of babbling about
    some loser technology (Sigma).
    Randall Ainsworth, Jul 11, 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. Steven M. Scharf

    Sigma SD10 Information Page--Web Site Move

    Steven M. Scharf, May 13, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    18
    Views:
    528
    Bart van der Wolf
    May 16, 2004
  2. Steven M. Scharf

    Sigma SD10 Web Site Update

    Steven M. Scharf, May 24, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    380
    Steven M. Scharf
    May 24, 2004
  3. Steven M. Scharf

    Sigma SD10 Web Site Upgrade

    Steven M. Scharf, May 29, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    21
    Views:
    621
    John McWilliams
    Jun 2, 2004
  4. bagal

    Sigma SD10 Web Site Update

    bagal, Jul 11, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    335
    bagal
    Jul 12, 2004
  5. Steven M. Scharf

    Pros and Cons of the Sigma SD10 Web Site Update --1 August 2004

    Steven M. Scharf, Aug 1, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    335
    lmatson
    Dec 11, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page