Sigma Photo, Seven Rules for Legal Advertising, FTC Consumer Complaint Link, and Suggested Text for

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Steven M. Scharf, Jun 9, 2004.

  1. []
    Thanks, John, but other news postings may include that. I do appreciate
    your efforts, though.

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Jun 10, 2004
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. Steven M. Scharf

    JPS Guest

    In message <>,
    This doesn't say that a Bayer image downsized to 50% has all the
    resolution of the same Bayer at 100%, clown. It says to get unique
    information for each color channel at each output pixel you need to do
    this, but he is oversimplifying things.
    --
     
    JPS, Jun 11, 2004
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. I haven't ever seen any manufacturer, other than Foveon, claim that its
    pixels are "full color."

    They just say megapixels. Anyone that understands how a camera sensor or a
    television works, understands that there are red, green, and blue pixels (or
    photodetectors).

    If Foveon believes that they have a marketing advantage because they layer
    three photodetectors at each pixel location, then they should agressively
    market this feature.

    What has stymied Foveon, is that the silicon filtering of light has proven
    problematic, resulting in the X3 sensor producing less accurate color than a
    Bayer mosaic. They have introduced a great deal more complexity, for results
    that are not as good.
     
    Steven M. Scharf, Jun 11, 2004
    #23
  4. The idea was that not only would my posts that have only to do with
    containing the contamination, as it were, but response to *those* posts
    would be from flamers, indignant kill-filers, or other such that you'd
    want to pass over anyway.

    --

    John

    "Andre, a simple peasant, had only one thing on his mind as he crept
    along the East wall: 'Andre creep ... Andre creep ... Andre creep'."
     
    John McWilliams, Jun 11, 2004
    #24
  5. Obviously you don't, or you would've said "red, green, or blue"
    instead of your incorrect statement "red, green, and blue."

    Unless you mean Sigma/Foveon, which does have optically discrete "red
    and green and blue" info for every pixel, it is the only DSLR that
    does.
     
    George Preddy, Jun 11, 2004
    #25
  6. Obviously you don't, or you would've said "red, green, or blue"
    instead of your incorrect statement "red, green, and blue."

    Unless you mean Sigma/Foveon, which does have optically discrete "red
    and green and blue" info for every pixel, it is the only DSLR that
    does.
     
    George Preddy, Jun 11, 2004
    #26
  7. http://www.pbase.com/image/30019277
    http://www.pbase.com/image/30019309
     
    George Preddy, Jun 11, 2004
    #27
  8. Steven M. Scharf

    tekfull Guest

    Lets see your pics gp

     
    tekfull, Jun 11, 2004
    #28
  9. Steven M. Scharf

    tekfull Guest

    tekfull, Jun 11, 2004
    #29
  10. Steven M. Scharf

    JPS Guest

    In message <>,
    Sharp, cool flash exposure mixed with long, camera-motion-blurred warm
    ambient hand-held exposure, on a tiny-sensor P&S at high ISO (or
    underexposure). Perhaps unfocused as well.
    Tripod, or shorter shutter time, or high-speed flash sync.
    --
     
    JPS, Jun 11, 2004
    #30
  11. The notes tell the story. Are you suggsting you like the Bayer image better?
     
    George Preddy, Jun 12, 2004
    #31
  12. Steven M. Scharf

    tekfull Guest

    Lets see your pics gp

     
    tekfull, Jun 12, 2004
    #32
  13. Steven M. Scharf

    JPS Guest

    In message <>,
    I have not at any point in time suggested that I like all images taken
    with a Bayer camera better than all images taken with X3 Sigmas. You
    are fabricating that implication for effect. Horrible pictures can be
    taken with any camera, and this particular bayer image is horrible. Not
    because it is Bayer, but because of direct flash two inches away from
    the lens, blurring of the hand-held ambient exposure due to a long
    shutter speed an/or camera shake ( and a very different color
    temperature than the flash), very high noise due to too high an ISO or
    too little exposure for the tiny sensor, and possible lack of focus as
    well.
    --
     
    JPS, Jun 12, 2004
    #33
  14. Steven M. Scharf

    JPS Guest

    In message <>,
    This shot could not have been taken in total darkness unless there was
    some non-optical glass between the camera and the prints. The angle
    (about 30 degrees clockwise of the vertical) of the blur, which causes a
    color shift, is not something that can be accounted for by the sensor or
    by a radially symmetric lens. Either there are two exposures from two
    different light sources (ambient and flash), or a piece of non-optical
    glass shifted the colors.
    --
     
    JPS, Jun 12, 2004
    #34
  15. It doesn't say total darkness, obviously the flash fired so you have
    to be wrong. The Bayer image absolutely stinks, it's a joke only the
    owner could love.
     
    George Preddy, Jun 12, 2004
    #35
  16. George Preddy wrote:
    More of the same

    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 12, 2004
    #36
  17. No they don't, but you do. Reading comprehension is not your forte.

    Bart
     
    Bart van der Wolf, Jun 12, 2004
    #37
  18. Steven M. Scharf

    JPS Guest

    In message <>,
    Then it was an ambient-light ghost, which has nothing to do with Bayer
    vs. Foveon. You are comparing a tiny-sensor Sony to a medium-sensor
    Foveon DSLR, with the Sony obviously over-exposed or at too high an ISO
    for its size.
    The Bayer image has the same subject. You took them both, or a guest at
    your house or someone at your office took the Sony image.
    --
     
    JPS, Jun 13, 2004
    #38
    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.