Foveon and Bayer - quality is the photog

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by mark_digital, Apr 6, 2004.

  1. mark_digital

    mark_digital Guest

    I spent the good part of the morning looking at images
    from both types of cameras. the Foveon owners seem
    to have a better understanding of their cameras. They
    also seem to use filters quite often. The range of colors
    seems to be greater, or maybe they know how to
    selectively enhance later with software. the images I
    looked at were on both photosig and pbase.

    Of course not all the Foveon pics were jawdropping
    but the really good ones had a very nice three dimensional
    look to them. I'm impressed.

    mark_
     
    mark_digital, Apr 6, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. mark_digital

    gsum Guest

    So, if I dump my D100 and get an SD9, I'll suddenly be able to
    understand my camera better, will know how to use filters
    and will know how to enhance later with s/w.
    How does that work? Please explain.

    Graham
     
    gsum, Apr 6, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. mark_digital

    mark_digital Guest

    :So, if I dump my D100 and get an SD9, I'll suddenly be able to
    :understand my camera better, will know how to use filters
    :and will know how to enhance later with s/w.
    :How does that work? Please explain.

    :Graham
     
    mark_digital, Apr 6, 2004
    #3
  4. If you dare mention a Foveon camera and speak positively, some people
    get all up in arms.
     
    Peter A. Stavrakoglou, Apr 6, 2004
    #4
  5. mark_digital

    gsum Guest

    No offence taken.

    If you've been reading this NG over the past few months you will
    have seen the passions ignited by the Foveon/Bayer debate which
    has been done to death. I thought you might have been stiring that
    one up again hence the slightly over-sharp reply.

    Graham
     
    gsum, Apr 6, 2004
    #5
  6. mark_digital

    John Navas Guest

    [POSTED TO rec.photo.digital - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

    In <Zcwcc.25478$> on Tue, 06 Apr 2004
    The problem isn't Foveon per se, it's sweeping generalizations (like the
    "Foveon owners seem to have a better understanding of their cameras" in this
    thread) that seem more inflammatory than informative.
     
    John Navas, Apr 6, 2004
    #6
  7. mark_digital

    mark_digital Guest

    "John Navas" <>
    wrote in message [POSTED TO rec.photo.digital - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

    :The problem isn't Foveon per se, it's sweeping generalizations (like the
    :"Foveon owners seem to have a better understanding of their cameras"
    :in this thread) that seem more inflammatory than informative.

    --
    :Best regards,
    :John Navas
    --------
    Sweeping generalizations would be if I said they have instead of seems.
    Overall there are more Bayer pics than Foveon pics and it's quite possible
    the Bayer pics that are very good in quality and composition are lost in
    the crowd so to speak. Foveon pics have both quality and the type of
    composition that draw me to take serious time. The pics I'm talking about
    don't_just_happen. Call it talent. Call it mind's eye. From what I've seen
    they are classy images. They seem to have a deeper 3 dimensional sense
    to them. They seem to have better tonal quality. So I'm freakin
    impressed by them. I certainly can't be the only one that feels this way.
    mark_
     
    mark_digital, Apr 6, 2004
    #7
  8. mark_digital

    eawckyegcy Guest

    I spent the good part of the last 8 months reading this newsfroup,
    particularly postings from both the foveon and bayer side of the, um,
    "debate". The foveon "supporters" seem to have a basic
    misunderstanding of logic, evidence and (remarkably) even honesty.
    The simple act of using their own brains for rational intent appears
    to be beyond their ken.

    Am I permitted in taking this observation -- many citations are
    available upon request -- and generalizing?

    If I am not, then what is it that permits you, from whole cloth, to
    synthesize an argument as equally, if not more, void of cogent
    content?
     
    eawckyegcy, Apr 6, 2004
    #8
  9. mark_digital

    mark_digital Guest

    :I spent the good part of the last 8 months reading this newsfroup,
    :particularly postings from both the foveon and bayer side of the,
    :um, "debate". The foveon "supporters" seem to have a basic
    :misunderstanding of logic, evidence and (remarkably) even honesty.
    :The simple act of using their own brains for rational intent appears
    :to be beyond their ken.
    :Am I permitted in taking this observation -- many citations are
    :available upon request -- and generalizing?
     
    mark_digital, Apr 7, 2004
    #9
  10. mark_digital

    John Navas Guest

    [POSTED TO rec.photo.digital - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

    In <> on Tue, 6 Apr 2004 15:18:48 -0400,
    I'd say it's an SG either way.
    Thus Foveon owners are a cut above Bayer owners? What about all the pros that
    shoot Bayer, and the notable lack of pros that shoot Foveon? ;-)
    Indeed -- in addition to you, there's George, Guido, and David, versus all the
    pros shooting Bayer.

    As I wrote, this seems more inflammatory than informative.
     
    John Navas, Apr 7, 2004
    #10
  11. The sweeping generalizations come from both sides and can be
    inflammatory at times. I've not a read a post of yours that I could
    ever say was inflammatory, disrespectful, uncivil, etc. There are a
    FEW others whose posts are uncivil and inflammatory. It's fine to
    disagree in a civil fashion and never let it be said that you have
    done otherwise.
     
    Peter A. Stavrakoglou, Apr 7, 2004
    #11
  12. mark_digital

    mark_digital Guest

    [POSTED TO rec.photo.digital - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
    :>snip<
    :Indeed -- in addition to you, there's George, Guido, and David, versus all
    :the pros shooting Bayer.

    :As I wrote, this seems more inflammatory than informative.

    --
    :Best regards,
    :John Navas
    --------
    Putting me into a camp of fanatics is passive aggressive on your part.
    I happen to think the Foveon samples are more artistic. Maybe you
    do not think so. Maybe you're closed minded. Maybe you don't see
    as well as I do. I only use specifications as a guide, not as a bible.

    If the samples are so good from mediocre people can you image
    how breathtaking they would be if done by a pro?

    mark_
     
    mark_digital, Apr 7, 2004
    #12
  13. Do you think people who own their own professional grade woodworking
    equipment generally know more about woodworking than people who own
    nothing more than a flat head screwdriver?
     
    George Preddy, Apr 7, 2004
    #13
  14. mark_digital

    John Navas Guest

    [POSTED TO rec.photo.digital - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

    In <> on Tue, 6 Apr 2004 20:38:21 -0400,
    I had nothing to do with that. I was simply counting noses, and I suspect
    David might object to being called a fanatic in any event. ;-)
    How can a machine be artistic?
    I don't.
    Maybe, but I don't think so -- I'd actually like to see Foveon succeed.
    Possible, but my vision is pretty good, and my monitor is spot on.
    I use them for what they are worth, no more and no less.
    I find many (but not all) of the samples to be mediocre from a technical
    standpoint and/or an artistic standpoint.
    Image? ;-)
    I've seen pro samples from Sigma-Foveon (e.g., Digital Outback), and they are
    indeed better than amateur work, but no better than comparable samples from
    Bayer cameras.
     
    John Navas, Apr 7, 2004
    #14
  15. That is a common impression, but lately when looking at Foveon
    images I felt that I still missed something, and that was kind
    of a *real* 3D view.
    The perception of 3D on a conventional flat display or paper
    is limited or simulated by few effects. It is missing one of
    the most important properties of the human visual system to
    perceive real 3D depth: the "binocular disparity": Our brain
    constructs depth of view by the two slightly skewed images of
    our two eyes.
    This important effect can be achieved with stereoscopic
    imaging. I think this will be the next major revolution in
    digital imaging, now that real "autostereo" 3D displays are
    starting to appear on the market (look for the unique Sharp
    Actius RD3D notebook introduced some months ago,
    http://www.sharp3d.com/).
    (I remebered some old "autostereo" 3D postcards which were
    popular many years ago.)
    Sigma and other camera manufacturers should start to design
    stereo adapters for their cameras to capture true 3D stereoscopic
    images. Such accessories were popular some decades ago in
    conventional photography and provide a convenient way to
    extend usual mono cameras to stereo capture capabilities:

    http://www.stereoskopie.com/Stereovorsatze/body_stereovorsatze.html

    Regards
    Guido
     
    Guido Vollbeding, Apr 7, 2004
    #15
  16. I think this will be the next major revolution in

    Now wait for what people say about the Nimslo Foveon chip four-lens
    lenticular stereo camera :)

    If Foveon is 50 per cent snake oil, remember Nimslo. Yet in the very
    first days of Nimslo, before the hype, I was engaged to shoot the
    British test shots in the studio - we used a nine-position optical bench
    and a 35mm SLR, shooting in sequence. Further experiments included
    managing to get a motordrive to track with the camera and shoot such
    things as a live welding image with sparks; and finally, using a
    motordrive while hanging out of a light aircraft over a North Sea oil
    rig, and building a stereo shot from the sequence (also used the huge
    nine-lens original Nimslo pro 35mm - a monster which I hope is now in a
    museum somewhere).

    Nimslo set up a lab, and working with them, we made Cibachrome
    transparency 3Ds which were exhibited at photokina. They set up a
    factory line using the Timex works at Dundee, and I shot a reportage
    article on the manufacturing. It employed dozens of staff who were
    threatened with redundancy as far east competition decimated the
    Scottish precision manufacturing sector.

    Yet Nims and Lo got treated almost as if they had conned the world with
    the Nimslo 3D camera.

    David
     
    David Kilpatrick, Apr 7, 2004
    #16
  17. :) Thanks for the hint.
    I think the key to the success of real 3D photography is convenience.
    No annoying glasses, please, so "autostereo" is the more promising
    solution. Without digital, it is difficult to develop the corresponding
    lenticular or parallax-barrier arrangements. With digital capture,
    display, and processing, it should be more convenient. With the
    mentioned stereo adapters you can use conventional sensors and camera
    systems and can optionally shoot 2D or 3D. You just get 2 stereo half
    frames side-by-side in a conventional frame (image is 3:4 portrait size
    then within the typical 3:2 landscape frame, see also
    http://www.stereophotoworld.com/lenscap.asp).
    It is then the task of the software to arrange that appropriately for
    the autostereo 3D display (parallax-barrier type in case of the Sharp,
    horizontal resolution reduced to half in 3D mode).

    I think the Nimslo and others failed because of difficult and expensive
    development (you had to send the negatives to special labs) and no
    option to shoot conventional 2D (resolution in 3D reduced).

    Regards
    Guido
     
    Guido Vollbeding, Apr 7, 2004
    #17
  18. mark_digital

    John Navas Guest

    [POSTED TO rec.photo.digital - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

    That analogy actually cuts against you, since the vast majority of
    professionals working in digital photography use Bayer sensors, not FOveon X3
    sensors. You should really think these things through before you post them.

    --
    Best regards,
    John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/>

    "A little learning is a dangerous thing." [Alexander Pope]
    "It is better to sit in silence and appear ignorant,
    than to open your mouth and remove all doubt." [Mark Twain]
     
    John Navas, Apr 7, 2004
    #18
  19. I think part of this was the advertising hype overselling the camera.
    If I remember correctly, the camera was a basic plastic-bodied
    fixed-focus design comparable to a low-end Instamatic, which happened to
    produce lenticular 3D images after special processing. It was neat for
    what it was, but that's all.

    Dave
     
    Dave Martindale, Apr 7, 2004
    #19
  20. mark_digital

    eawckyegcy Guest

    Red-herring. The instant issue is not whether you participated
    _then_, but why you are acting like the people in "those threads"
    _now_.

    "If it walks like a duck, ..." Sorry, more generalizations! Damn
    that Bayes guy anyways!
    Snort. You loaded it yourself. That you don't like looking down the
    barrel of such questions is your problem. Can you solve it?
     
    eawckyegcy, Apr 7, 2004
    #20
    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.