2 questions regarding Bayer sensors

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Georgette Preddy, Jun 2, 2004.

  1. Georgette Preddy

    JohnJ Guest

    JohnJ, Jun 3, 2004
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. It will be easier with a Foven camera because you don't normally show
    pictures taken with that camera to other people, you just talk about it.
    Makes photography much easier.
     
    Philip Homburg, Jun 3, 2004
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. right, and he appears to be a master at disseminating misinformation... the
    images that he posted without explanation are related to this article from
    the same site: http://www.outbackphoto.com/artofraw/raw_05/essay.html in
    short, the article concludes that the foveon is better at capturing red-blue
    transitions however experiences higher noise in the blue channel. pick your
    evil. what is unclear is how the camera raw files were converted.
     
    Christopher Muto, Jun 3, 2004
    #23
  4. Georgette Preddy

    DJ Guest

    rotfl
     
    DJ, Jun 3, 2004
    #24
  5. Sigma has an exclusive deal with Foveon to sell the Pro 10M sensor.
    The 5M is now under contract with Polaroid. Foveon themselves
    manufactured and sold their phenomenal 6-figure studio camera.
    Hasselblad contracted the 36MP (48MP by Bayer standards) Foveon
    sensoor (which Hasselblad named the only digital technology worthy of
    their consideration) for their dfinity line, and several were produced
    and reviewed, but the deal fell through when Hasselblad decided such
    extreme quality digital would threaten or end their film sales.
    Hasselblad never entered the digital business.
     
    Georgette Preddy, Jun 3, 2004
    #25
  6. Correct, the picture in both cases with be pure gray.
    Whatever you say.
    ....of random color (either red, green or blue, depending on the 1
    sensor it falls on).
    It will be depicted as a crisp 1-pixel spot of perfectly accurate,
    not-guessed color.
     
    Georgette Preddy, Jun 3, 2004
    #26
  7. Nothing is resolved.
    3.43M dots of perfectly accurate color.
     
    Georgette Preddy, Jun 3, 2004
    #27
  8. Georgette Preddy

    Don Stauffer Guest

    At least in old TV engineering world, Luminance is NOT color
    information. Signal was split into two parts, luminance and
    chrominance, the former containing monochrome info, the later only color
    info, three color channels with monochrome variations stripped out.

    Now, indeed the luminance information comes from photons of various
    wavelengths, but MATHEMATICALLY the signal is processed to be luminannce
    (R+B+G) and chrominance, R/(R+B+G), B/(R+B+G), and G/(R+B+G), which is
    then phase modulated on subcarrier.
     
    Don Stauffer, Jun 3, 2004
    #28
  9. hmmm, maybe nobody else wants it?
     
    Darrell Larose, Jun 3, 2004
    #29
  10. In addition, the tests were shot using the same lens at the same
    distance from the target. This filled the SD9's field of view, but used
    only about 1/3 of the pixels on the 1Ds sensor. The standard way of
    shooting resolution tests is to match field of view between cameras so
    you are comparing two cameras capturing the same image, and if the test
    had been done that way the 1Ds would have scored about 1.7 times better.

    And of course the test was designed to show a Bayer sensor at its
    weakest. With ordinary photographic subjects instead of
    specially-produced colour test targets, the 1Ds is *another* factor of 2
    better.

    Dave
     
    Dave Martindale, Jun 3, 2004
    #30
  11. Georgette Preddy

    bagal Guest

    Alternatively, because it is newer technology it is commercially preferable
    to drown it in noise?

    das bagal
     
    bagal, Jun 3, 2004
    #31
  12. Or maybe it's crappy technology that doesn't work and nobody wants to
    waste their money on it?
     
    Randall Ainsworth, Jun 3, 2004
    #32
  13. Georgette Preddy

    bagal Guest

    Yeh - I dunno either way.

    What I am willing to do over this esteemed newsgroup is to offer a totally
    unique opportunity to both exponents. Whether it be the Bayer preference or
    the Foveon preference this once in a lifetime offer I will make is rather
    special.

    I am pleased to offer, at no cost to either party, an unbiased and
    independent use of any of the pro equipment and will do so over a full year
    in various indoor and outdoor settings. All they need to do is put their
    money where their mouth is and pop a working version (complete with lenses,
    flash, filters, ...) of respected cameras to me.

    I will, of course, keep the newsgroup fully informed :)

    Now lets see how much flaming or rationality this post generates :)

    das bagal
     
    bagal, Jun 3, 2004
    #33
  14. I doubt that as Hasselblad didn't sell film. The Dfinity didn't sell because
    it was bulky, had to be tethered to a workstation and was expensive, far
    more than the Scitex, Phase and Leaf backs. It was a 3 Chip 2056x2056x3
    Sensor size: 4096 (H) x 4096 (V) pixels 22mm x 22mm sensor die wow A
    Hasselblad with a smaller capture area than a Kodak 126 format camera with a
    prism. It took Canon or Hasselblad lenses

    Foveon was, in fact, the last manufacturer to try, using a completely
    different approach. At Photokina 2000, the company unveiled a prototype
    camera that used a beam-splitter and three chips, each recording one of the
    primary colours. It was intended to be marketed as the Hasselblad DFinity. I
    t worked, but was fraught with practical problems. It was clumsy, due to the
    bulky beam-splitter, and expensive, because three chips were required
    instead of one. Splitting the beam also reduced the light going to each
    sensor, making for a slow ISO rating. But the worst problem lay in the fact
    that different wavelengths of light refract differently, a problem that led
    to major difficulties in getting the three images to register accurately.
    The project was quietly abandoned some time during 2001-02, when it was
    repackaged as the Foveon II Studio Camera
     
    Darrell Larose, Jun 3, 2004
    #34
  15. I don't care who makes the sensor. But I've been doing photography long
    enough to know what Sigma is about. It's a company that's all about
    making cheap, crappy stuff that's marketed to amateurs.
     
    Randall Ainsworth, Jun 3, 2004
    #35
  16. What a bombastic statement, there is absolutely no such thing as perfectly
    accurate colour. The human eye, film Foveon, CCD, CMOS all perceive colour
    in different ways. I see colour differently than George, or Kodachrome sees
    colour differently than Fuji Astia.

    The only absolute most can agree on is Preddy is a moron, although some will
    argue imbecile, or idiot is more accurate.
     
    Darrell Larose, Jun 3, 2004
    #36
  17. Georgette Preddy

    bagal Guest

    What's wrong with amateur photographt and amateur photographers?

    B
     
    bagal, Jun 3, 2004
    #37
  18. Out of context, no corroboration, plumped up "test" to try to show a
    minute advantage.

    For those who may be new to the Preddy persona:

    The person posting under the name of George or Georgette Preddy (and
    other pseudonyms) has an ungrounded but zealous faith that current
    implementation of the Foveon chip is superior to all other chip
    technologies. He will cite portions of reviews to ostensibly support his
    claims, and will repeat, ad naseum, complete lines of out-of-context
    material.

    His claims may well be ignored, or at the very least verified since most
    of them are extreme distortions and some are out and out fabrications."

    Moreover, "Mr." "Preddy" has claimed to be a photographer (pro!), but
    cannot bring himself to post a single picture with EXIF info that he
    shot himself, in spite of repeated requests and challenges to do so.

    Apparently he loathes anything related to Canon and loves everything
    about Sigma cameras and lenses. His "claims" may be ignored, and he is
    doing Sigma, and anyone related to the Foveon chip, no good at all by
    arousing ire, increasing the N/S ratio, and generally spamming this
    newsgroup.
     
    John McWilliams, Jun 3, 2004
    #38
  19. Er, let's see a final product, and independent corroboration?

    Also, links to your photographs.

    John McWilliams
     
    John McWilliams, Jun 3, 2004
    #39
  20. All righty, then. Show your photos with full EXIF info.

    ****** ********
    The person posting under the name of George or Georgette Preddy (and
    other pseudonyms) has an ungrounded but zealous faith that current
    implementation of the Foveon chip is superior to all other chip
    technologies. He will cite portions of reviews to ostensibly support his
    claims, and will repeat, ad naseum, complete lines of out-of-context
    material.

    His claims may well be ignored, or at the very least verified since most
    of them are extreme distortions and some are out and out fabrications."

    Moreover, "Mr." "Preddy" has claimed to be a photographer (pro!), but
    cannot bring himself to post a single picture with EXIF info that he
    shot himself, in spite of repeated requests and challenges to do so.

    Apparently he loathes anything related to Canon and loves everything
    about Sigma cameras and lenses. His "claims" may be ignored, and he is
    doing Sigma, and anyone related to the Foveon chip, no good at all by
    arousing ire, increasing the N/S ratio, and generally spamming this
    newsgroup.
     
    John McWilliams, Jun 3, 2004
    #40
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.