Q:300D or 10D

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by [email protected], Nov 17, 2003.

  1. Iv@n

    Junque Guest

    It has 2268 columns x 1512 rows, not 6804 columns x 4536 rows; so "X3"
    is wrong, wrong, wrong! There "wrong" three times.
    No, a three sensor video camera has three sensors and a one sensor video
    camera has one; however we are discussing still cameras, none of which
    have three sensors.

    A camera which detects light in 3429216 locations in the image plain as
    the SD9 does (as stated at
    http://www.sigma-photo.com/Html/news/news_sd9_fs.htm) can not detect
    light in 10287648 locations in the image plain. Since the extra
    detectors in an SD9 sensor are behind each other they provide no more
    luminance resolution in the image plain than a single layer of
    detectors.
     
    Junque, Dec 13, 2003
    1. Advertisements

  2. Not by default, but yes, the SD9/10 can interpolate too, if you want to
    output pixels at 4X the sensor-supported resolution (that's 14MP for Foveon,
    using the exact same interpolation standard that all Bayers always use).
     
    George Preddy, Dec 14, 2003
    1. Advertisements

  3. Iv@n

    JPS Guest

    In message <brhgo6$7e1$>,
    There is nothing about this that is "exactly the same". Exactly the
    same would mean that everything is the same, and it's not the same,
    because on one hand (13.7MP SD9) you totally fabricate the existence of
    75% of the pixels, and on the other (6.3MP Bayer), you measure light
    intensity through a filter for all output pixels. Only a total moron
    would call this "exactly the same".
    --
     
    JPS, Dec 14, 2003
  4. Iv@n

    Junque Guest

    The 10D detects luminance at 10.3 million locations unlike the SD9 which
    can only manage 3.43 million which is a scant improvement on the 3.15
    million of the Minolta Xt point and shoot toy. Remember, interpolation
    is only a guess, it can not cause an SD9 to provide information that the
    10D can detect with its higher pixel count.
     
    Junque, Dec 14, 2003
  5. Iv@n

    JPS Guest

    In message <9Ny8XpFr7H3$>,
    You mean 6.3 million, I think.
    --
     
    JPS, Dec 14, 2003
  6. You mean 33% at 6.3 million.
     
    George Preddy, Dec 15, 2003
  7.  
    George Preddy, Dec 15, 2003
  8.  
    George Preddy, Dec 15, 2003
  9. Iv@n

    Junque Guest

     
    Junque, Dec 15, 2003
  10. Iv@n

    Junque Guest

     
    Junque, Dec 15, 2003
  11. Iv@n

    Junque Guest

    No we both meant 100% 6.3 million pixels of luminance, unlike the SD9
    which must guess if it is to be induced to provide more than 3.42
    million pixels of luminance resolution.
     
    Junque, Dec 15, 2003
  12.  
    George Preddy, Dec 16, 2003
  13.  
    George Preddy, Dec 16, 2003
  14. Iv@n

    Junque Guest

    Maybe, but a three chip video camera does not produce three times as
    many lines as a one chip.
    Knowing that a quanta is the smallest step possible I would agree that
    it is not much, in fact it's doubtful as to the direction of this small
    change.
     
    Junque, Dec 16, 2003
  15. Iv@n

    Junque Guest

     
    Junque, Dec 16, 2003
  16. Iv@n

    JPS Guest

    In message <brmue4$12a$>,
     
    JPS, Dec 16, 2003
  17. It is indeed George, and I can't see why people don't see it. I mean the
    images speak for themselves....... look at the Quantum leap forward.
     
    Manfred von Richthofen, Dec 17, 2003
  18. Although looking at the Sd9 pictures you would think it was more like 1700 %
    advanatge. The pictures are just awesome they are so crisp and clean.
     
    Manfred von Richthofen, Dec 17, 2003
  19. Iv@n

    JPS Guest

    In message <brpab4$m8o$>,
    A quantum leap into quantized green in low-saturation gradients (skin).

    A quantum leap into false texture and inconsistent sampling.

    A quantum leap of edge detail that snaps to horizontal and vertical
    pixel boundaries, so that your eye can no longer interpolate the exact
    location.
    --
     
    JPS, Dec 17, 2003
  20. Iv@n

    JPS Guest

    In message <brpad4$maf$>,
    You spelled "awfull" wrong.

    The pictures are horrible, if taken with a sharp lens in sharp focus.
    They are full of artifacts of poor sampling technique, and totally
    lacking in reproduction of the actual scene. The SD9 images look like
    they were taken with a much higher resolution camera, and only a
    fraction of them, like 1 out of every 9-, 16-, or 25-pixel grid recorded
    in the file. A fractured, fractional image. They only avoid this when
    the lens is soft or out-of-focus.
    --
     
    JPS, Dec 17, 2003
    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.