New Polaroid/Foveon Digicam

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by R2D2, Feb 9, 2004.

  1. Ian Robert Walker, Feb 12, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  2. Ian Robert Walker, Feb 12, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  3. Indeed not a 6MP Bayer sensor can only see information at 6 million
    locations just as an SD9 sensor can only see information at the
    intersections of its SD9 has 2268 columns x 1512 rows (as stated at
    http://www.sigma-photo.com/Html/news/news_sd9_fs.htm) in the image plain
    of its sensor and therefore provided 3.4 million pixels; I am gratified
    that you concede this point.
     
    Ian Robert Walker, Feb 12, 2004
  4. The eye MUST be used to view the image, although with the SD9 it is
    better not to use the eye.
     
    Ian Robert Walker, Feb 12, 2004
  5. Still comparing an anti-aliasing filtered image, with a different
    field-of-view, to an un-filtered version? Your repetitive clueless remarks
    only illustrate that you're incapable of understanding reality.

    Bart
     
    Bart van der Wolf, Feb 12, 2004
  6. SNIP
    That would take a serious amount of CF storage. How many images do you store
    on a CF card?

    Bart
     
    Bart van der Wolf, Feb 12, 2004
  7. Ah, you don't look at images.

    Bart
     
    Bart van der Wolf, Feb 12, 2004
  8. An SD9 has 2268 columns x 1512 rows (as stated at
    http://www.sigma-photo.com/Html/news/news_sd9_fs.htm) resolution,
    10.3MP, not 14MP; you lie again.
     
    Ian Robert Walker, Feb 12, 2004
  9. Still comparing an anti-aliasing filtered image, with a different
    field-of-view, to an un-filtered version? Your repetitive clueless remarks
    only illustrate that you're incapable of understanding reality.

    Bart
     
    Bart van der Wolf, Feb 12, 2004
  10. There can be any number of pixels in a digital image. What is important
    is how many separate sensing positions there are in the sensor. The SD9
    and SD10 cameras have 3.4 million sensing positions, and thus anything
    over 3.4 MP in the output file is pointless.
    That's an outright lie. A casual glance at the resolution test images
    provided by dpreview show the actual, measured, resolving power of
    these cameras to be higher than what is possible for a 1.5 or 3.4 MP
    camera respectively. In fact, the resolution of the 6 MP Bayer cameras
    is comparable to that of a 6 MP B&W sensor, and clearly better than the
    resolution of the 3.4 MP SD9, as you'd expect.
    Not at all. The SD9 has 3.4 million light sensing positions, so it is a
    3.4 MP camera. Calling it 14 MP is stupid. The 6 MP Bayer cameras do
    have 6 million light sensing positions, deliver resolution typical of a
    6 MP camera (not a 1.5 MP camera) and so calling them 6 MP makes perfect
    sense.

    Dave
     
    Dave Martindale, Feb 12, 2004
  11. SNIP
    SNIP

    It may also be interesting to note, that the ISO standards apparently never
    mention pixels unless they describe OUTPUT (e.g. Luminance pixels as a
    weighted combination of R, G and B), so after digitization of color or
    Luminance. When they describe sensor characteristics, they mention arrays of
    photosensors, photoelements and photosites, especially when related to
    resolution, color and noise measurements.

    The ISO standard 12231 (Photography - Electronic still-picture
    imaging -Terminology) e.g. mentiones (in a draft version I have in front of
    me):
    <QUOTE>
    addressable photoelements
    < ReflScanRes, Resolution, FilmScanRes > number of active photoelements on
    an image sensor. This is equal to the number of active lines of
    photoelements times the number of active photoelements per line.

    NOTE The term resolution should not be used when referring to the number of
    addressable photoelements on an image sensor. It is possible that the number
    of addressable photoelements may be different for the different colour
    records of an image. When the signal values of the photoelements are
    digitized, the digitized code values may be referred to as picture elements,
    or pixels.
    <UNQUOTE>

    Bart
     
    Bart van der Wolf, Feb 12, 2004
  12. R2D2

    Azzz1588 Guest



    Sure when theya re rigged to show one piece of equipment
    better than another, the results are extremely biased.

    People here have already told you how the test should have been
    run, yet you stay with the obiviously rigged test that you love so
    dearly...................



















    "Only a Gentleman can insult me, and a true Gentleman never will..."
     
    Azzz1588, Feb 12, 2004
  13. The pictures themselves are not discredited. What has been discredited
    multiple times is the use of those pictures as in any way comparing the
    actual resolution of the cameras involved. The people who shot the test
    describe how they did it, so at least they are honest. But you don't
    seem to realize that the test does not show what you claim it does.

    The fact is that field of view was not equalized between the cameras, so
    the test is discarding most of the pixels of the 10D and particularly
    the 1Ds in the comparison. That's not a case of "extra FOV", it's a
    blatantly incorrect test.

    Dave
     
    Dave Martindale, Feb 12, 2004
  14. Only if you're an obsessed kook, George. I've seen buyer's remorse before,
    but you've got it bad. Just think; if you'd bought a 10D instead of an
    SD9, this newsgroup would have been spared all of your foolishness.

    Of course, your therapist would be taking much cheaper vacations.
     
    Albert Nurick, Feb 12, 2004
  15. R2D2

    John Navas Guest

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

    In <c0d9mg$j5d$> on Wed, 11 Feb 2004 22:57:56 +0900, "George
    What's even more funny is the lame way you snipped the Canon financials from
    my post.
     
    John Navas, Feb 12, 2004
  16. R2D2

    John Navas Guest

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

    In <c0c7jh$rdn$> on Wed, 11 Feb 2004 13:16:02 +0900, "George
    No, color.
     
    John Navas, Feb 12, 2004
  17. R2D2

    John Navas Guest

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

    In <c0da4e$jd6$> on Wed, 11 Feb 2004 23:05:22 +0900, "George
    Dream on, George.
     
    John Navas, Feb 12, 2004
  18. R2D2

    John Navas Guest

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

    In <c0e7g9$clq$> on Thu, 12 Feb 2004 07:26:39 +0900, "George
    Dead wrong, George, and you know it. The HI Sigma RAW image has a
    *resolution* (pixels) of 2268x1512. See:
    <http://www.steves-digicams.com/2002_reviews/sd9_pg6.html>
    and in particular the images:
    <http://www.steves-digicams.com/2002_reviews/sd9/photo_pro_info.gif>
    <http://www.steves-digicams.com/2002_reviews/sd9/photo_pro_save2.gif>
    <http://www.steves-digicams.com/2002_reviews/sd9/photo_pro_save.gif>

    According to Sigma <http://www.sigmaphoto.com/Html/news/sd9press.htm>:

    3. Image Recording with Three Resolution Settings

    Depending on the intention of the photographer, the SIGMA SD9 allows
    photographers to select the resolutions of RAW data images in one of
    three resolution modes.

    HI mode delivers highest resolution image performance with (2263x1512
    pixels) x 3. MED mode (1134x756 pixels) x 3 has high definition and
    recording capacity. LOW mode (756x504 pixels) x3 allows consecutive
    shooting of more images.

    HINT: "2263x1512 pixels" is 3.4 MP, *not* your "10.3MP" -- or do you think
    Sigma doesn't even know it's own product? :)
     
    John Navas, Feb 13, 2004
  19. R2D2

    John Navas Guest

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

    In <> on Wed, 11 Feb 2004 09:59:42 +0100, Guido
    It's actually quite good in the vast majority of real-world situations.
    Also false. Based on comparative real world performance of the SD9/SD10, the
    Foveon Polaroid thingy will at best fall short of a good 3 MP Bayer digicam.
    How much short will depend on its quality, which remains an unknown factor.
     
    John Navas, Feb 13, 2004
  20. R2D2

    Ray Fischer Guest

    If the chips keep getting smaller with every generation then
    soon enough we won't have to be bothered with your lunacy anymore.
     
    Ray Fischer, Feb 14, 2004
    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.