Superior Technology: Foveon X3

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Gary, Apr 25, 2006.

  1. Gary

    Gary Guest

    Why X3 is Better

    To capture the color that other image sensors miss, Foveon X3® direct
    image sensors use three layers of pixels embedded in silicon. The
    layers are positioned to take advantage of the fact that silicon
    absorbs different wavelengths of light to different depths. The bottom
    layer records red, the middle layer records green, and the top layer
    records blue. Each stack of pixels directly records all of the light at
    each point in the image.

    Until now, all other image sensors have featured just one layer of
    pixels, capturing just one color per point the image. To capture color,
    the pixel sensors in CCD and CMOS image sensors are organized in a
    grid, or mosaic, resembling a three-color checkerboard. Each pixel is
    covered with a filter and records just one color-red, green, or blue.

    That approach has inherent drawbacks, no matter how many pixels a
    mosaic-based image sensor might contain. Since mosaic-based image
    sensors capture only one-third of the color, complex processing is
    required to interpolate the color they miss. Interpolation leads to
    color artifacts and a loss of image detail. Blur filters must then be
    used to reduce color artifacts. The use of blur filters adversely
    affects sharpness and resolution of the final image captured.

    With its revolutionary process for capturing light, Foveon X3
    technology never needs to compromise on quality, so you get sharper
    pictures, truer colors, and fewer artifacts. And cameras equipped with
    Foveon X3 technology do not have to rely on processing power to fill in
    missing colors, reducing hardware requirements, simplifying designs and
    minimizing lag time between one shot and the next.

    Dollar for dollar, pixel for pixel, nothing compares to Foveon X3
    technology.

    http://www.foveon.com/article.php?a=69
    Gary, Apr 25, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Gary

    Mark² Guest

    Gary wrote:
    > Why X3 is Better


    Snore...
    Mark², Apr 25, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. "Gary" <> wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    To capture the color that other image sensors miss, Foveon X3® direct
    image sensors use three layers of pixels embedded in silicon. The
    layers are positioned to take advantage of the fact that silicon
    absorbs different wavelengths of light to different depths. The bottom
    layer records red, the middle layer records green, and the top layer
    records blue. Each stack of pixels directly records all of the light at
    each point in the image.
    <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

    Nice theory. Except that it doesn't work that way in real life. The color
    separation is poor, and decoding color introduces noise. Foveon has to
    interpolate its color vertically, whereas Bayer has to interpolate it
    horizontally. Six of one, half a dozen of the other.

    Also, you have to store three separate charges at each pixel, so the well
    depth is that much smaller and the noise that much larger. Strike two.

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    That approach has inherent drawbacks, no matter how many pixels a
    mosaic-based image sensor might contain. Since mosaic-based image
    sensors capture only one-third of the color, complex processing is
    required to interpolate the color they miss. Interpolation leads to
    color artifacts and a loss of image detail. Blur filters must then be
    used to reduce color artifacts. The use of blur filters adversely
    affects sharpness and resolution of the final image captured.
    <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

    This is lying FUD. Foveon sensors also require antialiasing filters to avoid
    Moire and other aliasing artifacts just as Bayer sensors do. Look up the
    mathematics of discrete sampling and the Nyquist theorem.

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    With its revolutionary process for capturing light, Foveon X3
    technology never needs to compromise on quality, so you get sharper
    pictures, truer colors, and fewer artifacts.
    <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

    Snake oil. In real life you get bogus snap-to-grid detail, poor color
    reproduction, and more artifacts, since none of the Foveon cameras have the
    mathematically required low-pass filter.

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    And cameras equipped with
    Foveon X3 technology do not have to rely on processing power to fill in
    missing colors, reducing hardware requirements, simplifying designs and
    minimizing lag time between one shot and the next.
    <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

    Now this is simply a lie. Foveon cameras require three times the data
    storage and processing capacity of Bayer cameras (of the same pixel count),
    since they have to store three values for each pixel in the RAW format and
    have to perform complex processing to decode the color.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
    David J. Littleboy, Apr 25, 2006
    #3
  4. Gary

    zog Guest

    Gary wrote:
    > Why X3 is Better
    >


    yeah, must be why its doing so well

    piss off you dickhead!
    zog, Apr 25, 2006
    #4
  5. David J. Littleboy wrote:
    > "Gary" <> wrote:
    > To capture the color that other image sensors miss, Foveon X3® direct
    > image sensors use three layers of pixels embedded in silicon. The


    Er, ah, gents: this is the same kook who's been posting and cross
    posting here under a variety of names, some made up, and some spoofed.

    This was not from G. Burnore. Groups adjusted.

    Please help and do the same.

    --
    john mcwilliams
    John McWilliams, Apr 25, 2006
    #5
  6. zog wrote:
    > Gary wrote:
    >> Why X3 is Better
    >>

    >
    > yeah, must be why its doing so well
    >
    > piss off you dickhead!


    Ouch! That'll sure drive him away.

    --
    lsmft
    John McWilliams, Apr 25, 2006
    #6
  7. Gary

    Pete D Guest

    "John McWilliams" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > zog wrote:
    >> Gary wrote:
    >>> Why X3 is Better
    >>>

    >>
    >> yeah, must be why its doing so well
    >>
    >> piss off you dickhead!

    >
    > Ouch! That'll sure drive him away.
    >
    > --
    > lsmft


    Yes, a particularly vicious attack! ;-)
    Pete D, Apr 25, 2006
    #7
  8. zog wrote:
    > Gary wrote:
    >> Why X3 is Better


    > yeah, must be why its doing so well


    No, it is doing poorly due to a camera related marketing choice.

    Foveon licensed their sensor technology exclusively to Sigma. Sigma took
    a $1,000 sensor, wrapped a $300 camera around it tried to sell it for $1,500.

    A Foveon sensor will outperform a Bayer type sensor in the same application.
    That doesn't mean that a Bayer type sensor will not work well if properly
    constructed in a properly constructed camera with properly designed software.

    My late HP 2 megapixel digital camera produced high quality A4 (8x10's for
    those of you who think that way). It was difficult to use with a long delay
    between pressing the shutter and the exposure. But the picture quality
    was excelent. An autopsy revealed that parts of the camera were made by
    Konica.

    Modern digital cameras with Bayer sensors produce good results and so would
    a Foveon based camera if it had been properly designed, had really good
    lenses and decent software.

    Quite possibly a Foveon based Nikon or Canon full frame camera would
    have taken the market by storm and blown away the competition. Since
    they never had a chance to produce one, they used what they could get
    and have produced excelent cameras without them.

    When you have technology to sell, choosing your "strategic partner" is
    far more important than people think.

    Geoff.
    --
    Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel N3OWJ/4X1GM
    IL Voice: (07)-7424-1667 IL Fax: 972-2-648-1443 U.S. Voice: 1-215-821-1838
    Visit my 'blog at http://geoffstechno.livejournal.com/
    Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Apr 25, 2006
    #8
  9. "Geoffrey S. Mendelson" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > zog wrote:
    >> Gary wrote:
    >>> Why X3 is Better

    >
    >> yeah, must be why its doing so well

    >
    > No, it is doing poorly due to a camera related marketing choice.
    >
    > Foveon licensed their sensor technology exclusively to Sigma. Sigma took
    > a $1,000 sensor, wrapped a $300 camera around it tried to sell it for
    > $1,500.


    The Sigma cameras are far better than you're implying. Perhaps Foveon
    licensed their technology to Sigma because no other company was interested?

    > A Foveon sensor will outperform a Bayer type sensor in the same
    > application.
    > That doesn't mean that a Bayer type sensor will not work well if properly
    > constructed in a properly constructed camera with properly designed
    > software.
    >
    > My late HP 2 megapixel digital camera produced high quality A4 (8x10's for
    > those of you who think that way). It was difficult to use with a long
    > delay
    > between pressing the shutter and the exposure. But the picture quality
    > was excelent. An autopsy revealed that parts of the camera were made by
    > Konica.
    >
    > Modern digital cameras with Bayer sensors produce good results and so
    > would
    > a Foveon based camera if it had been properly designed, had really good
    > lenses and decent software.


    So "would" a Foveon based camera? So "does" a Foveon ased camera. Have you
    ever seen any images produced by the Sigma cameras? Doesn't sound like it
    to me. Sigma makes some very, very good lenses and the Photo Pro software
    is very good. Your implication that the lenses and software are not up to
    par is wrong.

    > Quite possibly a Foveon based Nikon or Canon full frame camera would
    > have taken the market by storm and blown away the competition. Since
    > they never had a chance to produce one, they used what they could get
    > and have produced excelent cameras without them.


    Canon has invested too much in their Bayer technology to start with
    Foveon's. Hasn't hurt their standing in the market. Why fix something that
    isn't broken?

    > When you have technology to sell, choosing your "strategic partner" is
    > far more important than people think.


    Again, perhaps there was no other choice. Foveon needed an entrance into
    the market and they took what they could get.
    Peter A. Stavrakoglou, Apr 25, 2006
    #9
  10. Gary

    POTD.com.au Guest

    "Peter A. Stavrakoglou" <> wrote in message
    news:2Km3g.115$...
    > "Geoffrey S. Mendelson" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> zog wrote:
    >>> Gary wrote:
    >>>> Why X3 is Better

    >>
    >>> yeah, must be why its doing so well

    >>
    >> No, it is doing poorly due to a camera related marketing choice.
    >>
    >> Foveon licensed their sensor technology exclusively to Sigma. Sigma took
    >> a $1,000 sensor, wrapped a $300 camera around it tried to sell it for
    >> $1,500.

    >
    > The Sigma cameras are far better than you're implying. Perhaps Foveon
    > licensed their technology to Sigma because no other company was
    > interested?
    >
    >> A Foveon sensor will outperform a Bayer type sensor in the same
    >> application.
    >> That doesn't mean that a Bayer type sensor will not work well if properly
    >> constructed in a properly constructed camera with properly designed
    >> software.
    >>
    >> My late HP 2 megapixel digital camera produced high quality A4 (8x10's
    >> for
    >> those of you who think that way). It was difficult to use with a long
    >> delay
    >> between pressing the shutter and the exposure. But the picture quality
    >> was excelent. An autopsy revealed that parts of the camera were made by
    >> Konica.
    >>
    >> Modern digital cameras with Bayer sensors produce good results and so
    >> would
    >> a Foveon based camera if it had been properly designed, had really good
    >> lenses and decent software.

    >
    > So "would" a Foveon based camera? So "does" a Foveon ased camera. Have
    > you ever seen any images produced by the Sigma cameras? Doesn't sound
    > like it to me. Sigma makes some very, very good lenses and the Photo Pro
    > software is very good. Your implication that the lenses and software are
    > not up to par is wrong.
    >
    >> Quite possibly a Foveon based Nikon or Canon full frame camera would
    >> have taken the market by storm and blown away the competition. Since
    >> they never had a chance to produce one, they used what they could get
    >> and have produced excelent cameras without them.

    >
    > Canon has invested too much in their Bayer technology to start with
    > Foveon's. Hasn't hurt their standing in the market. Why fix something
    > that isn't broken?


    Canon has had a patent on it's "foveon like" sensor for some time. It's
    single layer pixels can be sensitive to r, g or b at any given time. They
    then cycle this sensitivety at extreme high speed during the exposure.

    Sounds cool, but when or if we see it?????

    >
    >> When you have technology to sell, choosing your "strategic partner" is
    >> far more important than people think.

    >
    > Again, perhaps there was no other choice. Foveon needed an entrance into
    > the market and they took what they could get.
    >
    >
    POTD.com.au, Apr 25, 2006
    #10
  11. Gary

    Xiaoding Guest

    Based from what I've seen at the various posting sites, the Foveon
    works well. Better than the POS Bayer sensor does, anyways. For first
    generation, it does very well. They are having trouble scaling it up,
    I hear.

    Fuji has a new sensor coming out, (as in five years or so) based on
    organic sensors, that capture all the color information as well. Don't
    know if it will need anti-aliasing, etc, but at least it does not guess
    about the missing color, and then fill it in with crayon, as the Bayer
    does. :) Perhaps it will solve some other problems digital has as
    well, such as bit depth, and loss of fine detail. Yeah, those sky's
    sure are noise free, right? Just like the ones I paint with my
    watercolor set!

    Can't wait for good digital, but for now, slide film, scanned, is the
    way to go for me.
    Xiaoding, Apr 25, 2006
    #11
  12. Gary

    Lionel Guest

    [troll target groups removed from followups]
    >Path: be01!atl-c01.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
    >From: "Xiaoding" <>
    >Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.misc,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.arts.marching.drumcorps
    >Subject: Re: Superior Technology: Foveon X3
    >Date: 25 Apr 2006 09:37:24 -0700
    >Organization: http://groups.google.com
    >Lines: 17
    >Message-ID: <>
    >References: <>
    > <e2kaen$m25$>
    >NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.77.41.249


    **** off, Bowtie.


    >Mime-Version: 1.0
    >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
    >X-Trace: posting.google.com 1145983052 10314 127.0.0.1 (25 Apr 2006 16:37:32 GMT)
    >X-Complaints-To:
    >NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 16:37:32 +0000 (UTC)
    >In-Reply-To: <e2kaen$m25$>
    >User-Agent: G2/0.2
    >X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; Avant Browser; Avant Browser; .NET CLR 1.1.4322),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
    >Complaints-To:
    >Injection-Info: y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com; posting-host=216.77.41.249;
    > posting-account=CvYSww0AAACuK15aLd6UI9EA5UrUw2qq
    >Xref: usenetserver.com rec.photo.digital:1320422 rec.photo.misc:166167 rec.photo.equipment.35mm:886722 alt.comp.periphs.dcameras:173417 rec.arts.marching.drumcorps:762407
    >X-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 12:37:33 EDT (be01)
    >
    >Based from what I've seen at the various posting sites, the Foveon
    >works well. Better than the POS Bayer sensor does, anyways. For first
    >generation, it does very well. They are having trouble scaling it up,
    >I hear.
    >
    >Fuji has a new sensor coming out, (as in five years or so) based on
    >organic sensors, that capture all the color information as well. Don't
    >know if it will need anti-aliasing, etc, but at least it does not guess
    >about the missing color, and then fill it in with crayon, as the Bayer
    >does. :) Perhaps it will solve some other problems digital has as
    >well, such as bit depth, and loss of fine detail. Yeah, those sky's
    >sure are noise free, right? Just like the ones I paint with my
    >watercolor set!
    >
    >Can't wait for good digital, but for now, slide film, scanned, is the
    >way to go for me.

    --
    W
    . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
    \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
    ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
    Lionel, Apr 25, 2006
    #12
  13. POTD.com.au wrote:
    > "Peter A. Stavrakoglou" <> wrote in message
    > news:2Km3g.115$...
    >> "Geoffrey S. Mendelson" <> wrote in message.
    >>
    >>> Quite possibly a Foveon based Nikon or Canon full frame camera would
    >>> have taken the market by storm and blown away the competition. Since
    >>> they never had a chance to produce one, they used what they could get
    >>> and have produced excelent cameras without them.

    >> Canon has invested too much in their Bayer technology to start with
    >> Foveon's. Hasn't hurt their standing in the market. Why fix something
    >> that isn't broken?

    >
    > Canon has had a patent on it's "foveon like" sensor for some time. It's
    > single layer pixels can be sensitive to r, g or b at any given time. They
    > then cycle this sensitivety at extreme high speed during the exposure.
    >
    > Sounds cool, but when or if we see it?????


    May we live in interesting times! As far as photography goes, we are.

    --
    John McWilliams
    John McWilliams, Apr 25, 2006
    #13
  14. Gary

    Marvin Guest

    David J. Littleboy wrote:

    > With its revolutionary process for capturing light, Foveon X3
    > technology never needs to compromise on quality, so you get sharper
    > pictures, truer colors, and fewer artifacts.
    >

    Actually, it is an analog of how color film works. Color
    film also has three layers, each of which responds to one
    color. And there was a B/W film with a very wide dynamic
    range. It was made up of three layers with widely different
    ASA ratings.
    Marvin, Apr 25, 2006
    #14
  15. Gary

    no_name Guest

    Gary wrote:

    NOTHING ...

    Gary Burnore posts from databasix; not from gmail. This is some netkook
    just trying to start trouble.
    no_name, Apr 25, 2006
    #15
  16. writes:

    >A Foveon sensor will outperform a Bayer type sensor in the same application.
    >That doesn't mean that a Bayer type sensor will not work well if properly
    >constructed in a properly constructed camera with properly designed software.


    The Foveon sensor had problems with poor colour (not really
    that much difference in colour response between layers, so getting
    enough saturation requires large negative values in the colour matrix),
    inaccurate colour (a special filter is needed to get human-eye-like
    colour matching), and non-uniformity of response across the sensor.
    If all these were somehow fixed, *then* a Foveon sensor might have a
    chance of outperforming a Bayer sensor at the same pixel count.

    But Foveon sensors have remained at 3.4 Mpixels max, while Bayer sensors
    of 6, 8, or more Mpixels are now the standard in DSLRs. So Foveon
    cannot come close to the existing Bayers in resolution. That would also
    have to be addressed to make a Foveon sensor competitive. Because of
    the extra complexity, the Foveon sensor must be more difficult to scale
    to higher density than a Bayer sensor is (either CCD or CMOS).

    Sigma added to the woes by omitting an antialiasing filter and providing
    a camera body that couldn't provide anything but RAW output. These
    could have been fixed by a more competent camera vendor, but the sensor
    problems would remain.

    >Modern digital cameras with Bayer sensors produce good results and so would
    >a Foveon based camera if it had been properly designed, had really good
    >lenses and decent software.


    And if all of the sensor problems above were somehow dealt with.

    Dave
    Dave Martindale, Apr 25, 2006
    #16
  17. Gary

    Helen Guest

    "Geoffrey S. Mendelson" <> wrote in message
    news:...

    > Modern digital cameras with Bayer sensors produce good results and so
    > would
    > a Foveon based camera if it had been properly designed, had really good
    > lenses and decent software.
    >


    So with sigma getting hold of it it was pretty well bloody doomed from the
    word Go then.
    Helen, Apr 25, 2006
    #17
  18. Gary

    Helen Guest

    "Dave Martindale" <> wrote in message
    news:e2lvvd$pg9$...
    > writes:
    >
    >
    > Sigma added to the woes by omitting an antialiasing filter and providing
    > a camera body that couldn't provide anything but RAW output. These


    I don't suppose that was the fault of the body - more the fault of software
    designers that were clueless.
    Helen, Apr 25, 2006
    #18
  19. Gary

    Guest

    In message <>,
    "Xiaoding" <> wrote:

    >Don't
    >know if it will need anti-aliasing, etc, but at least it does not guess
    >about the missing color, and then fill it in with crayon, as the Bayer
    >does. :)


    You have a very strange understanding of what a digital image is. A
    digital image is a discreet-point representation of a continuous analog
    focal plane. As such, the analog original is always undersampled,
    regardless of whether the system uses a bayer CFA, a foveon, or some
    imaginary sensor that that stores the wavelength of every photon that
    strikes each pixel. A 12 MP bayer sensor doesn't "fill in with a
    crayon" any more than any 3MP sensor of the same size does, regardless
    of the type. What it boils down to is resolution.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
    , Apr 25, 2006
    #19
  20. Gary

    Guest

    In message <>,
    Marvin <> wrote:

    >Actually, it is an analog of how color film works. Color
    >film also has three layers, each of which responds to one
    >color. And there was a B/W film with a very wide dynamic
    >range. It was made up of three layers with widely different
    >ASA ratings.


    Bayer has three layers, too. They're staggered.

    Film grain in the three layers are not aligned like the Foveon, and
    aren't subject to aliasing as in the Sigma implementation.

    High-DR can be done with digital and color filters, although the color
    response will be different in the different ranges.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
    , Apr 25, 2006
    #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. Silverstrand

    Sunbeam 20-in-1 Superior Panel Review at XYZ Computing

    Silverstrand, Jun 23, 2005, in forum: Front Page News
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,093
    unholy
    Jun 23, 2005
  2. Paul H.

    Foveon: the sensor technology chosen by God

    Paul H., Dec 9, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    346
    Views:
    4,513
    Lionel
    Jan 28, 2004
  3. John McGraw

    Foveon technology

    John McGraw, Aug 3, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    1,281
    John McGraw
    Aug 6, 2004
  4. °..Jan Plexy..°

    "L" lens technology or "DO" technology??

    °..Jan Plexy..°, Oct 2, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    426
    SamSez
    Oct 4, 2005
  5. Waylon Kenning
    Replies:
    31
    Views:
    1,004
Loading...

Share This Page