The chances Bayer gets 1 pixel color right

Unfortunately, Sigma doesn't run a review site. They have gotten smarter
about paying sites like dpreview their due protection money. But
unfortunately they are wasting their time and cash, there is no way any of
these "pro" review sites is going to publish an accurate full color
resolution test like this one...

http://www.outbackphoto.com/artofraw/raw_05/essay.html

....since all of their sponsors (except Sigma) would instantly go packing.
Unfortunately, these review sites are about selling and pushing merchandise,
not reviewing, as they are funded by the very same products they "review."

Consumer Reports is non-profit, and interestingly they rate Canon DSLRs very
poor relative values. The 300D being the worst Canon value,
interestingly...

http://www.pbase.com/image/25842929/original

Consumer Reports also says if their preset testing rules would've allowed
RAW adjustments, the SD9 would've won overall...

http://www.pbase.com/image/25967061/original

 

What mathematical ability.

 

Wrong!

1. Color negative film displays the complement of the color it senses.

2. B&W film displays shades of grey (but that's not what I originally
referred to.)

3. An individual dye cloud can only display cyan, magenta or yellow.
SO it has the same 3 color limitation as the Bayer system

4. No film is completely accurate at even recording color over a large
area. It's a matter of preference. Just compare Velvia to Astia.

I'm responding to you from Google because you're in the killfile of my
regular newsreader.

Tim

 

By combining quotes from two different articles and different reviews,
you're creating a lie. CU doesn't say anything of the sort.

The quote you imaged is from the November 2003 issue and is a
technology comment. That issue did not review the Sigma SD9. None of
the 34 cameras reviewed in that issue was a DSLR.

In the technology preview, CU says the pictures would have looked
better if they had made adjustments to the raw files. But the same
statement can be made about any camera capable of recording raw data.

The Ratings you imaged are from the March 2004 issue. That issue
reviews seven DSLRs in an extremely short half-page review, something
CU calls a "Quick Rating." There is no discussion in that article
about Foveon technology. In fact, the article says "[all DSLRs
reviewed] have 5- or 6-megabpixel resolution or the equivalent...."

Foveon technology is interesting. Deliberate falsehoods just turn
people against it.

Guy

 

Clearly CU rated the SD9 higher than the Canon DSLRs, and as you said, that
scan proves it won overall if RAW mode is allowed to be adjusted and not
left on Auto.

 

Wrong.

 

They rate the Sigma SD9 as a 3.43 Megapixel camera, and the two Canons as
6.3 Megapixel cameras.

 

You are lying all the time, Ignatz.

--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html

 

Consumer Reports is non-profit, and interestingly they rate Canon DSLRs very

Consumer Reports is and has always been a farce. They review
out-of-date stuff using bizarre criteria.

 

That scan proves *nothing* about what would have happened if *all*
DSLRs had been reviewed as using RAW mode and optimized later. And
that is the comparison that could have been valid.

As others have noted, CU reviews of technical subjects (cameras, cars,
stereos, ...) are rarely held in high regard by people experienced with
those subjects.

Guy

 

And while the chance of that is close to zero it is not as close to
zero as the chance of our plumbing the depth of George Preddy's
ignorance.

Tim

 

Wrong.

 

*PLONK*
Get your head out of your arsehole. It's nice outside.

 

George:

Do you actually think before you make these pronouncements? If what you
say is true, then only ~530 pixels in a 6MP image would be correct. Don't
you think it would be just a tad noticable that effectively all the pixels are the
wrong color?

Or have you ever considered that since a great many people find the output
of their digital cameras, whether DSLR or not, to be pretty good, that just
perhaps, it is your theory that is incorrect?


--
Dan (Woj...) dmaster (at) lucent (dot) com

"Darkness, darkness, be my pillow / Take my hand and let me sleep
In the coolness of your shadow / In the silence of your deep
Darkness, darkness, long and lonesome / Is the day that brings me here
I have felt the edge of silence / I have known the depths of fear"

 

....

....

I've asked you before, and you did not answer.

I'll ask again... Would you please name your prior cameras? I'm personally interested
to see what you've been able to compare to your SD-9. I'd also love to see a few of
the photos from your earlier cameras that so convinced you that no camera without a
Foveon sensor could possibly take a decent picture.


--
Dan (Woj...) dmaster (at) lucent (dot) com

"Darkness, darkness, be my pillow / Take my hand and let me sleep
In the coolness of your shadow / In the silence of your deep
Darkness, darkness, long and lonesome / Is the day that brings me here
I have felt the edge of silence / I have known the depths of fear"

 

Quoting from that article: "the 3.4 megapixel Sigma yielded images that
were like those from a 5 megapixel camera".

Or translated to Preddy logic: "the 10.2 megapixel Sigma yielded images
that were like those from a 1.25 megapixel blurred Bayer camera".

 

Hmm, let's use maths to disprove the above

If we assume that there is only one correct colour
Then if we take two different films (you pick)
If they display differnt colours the the argument is mute.


Offcourse I could be wrong if the statement is saying the film senses
colour. Well so does the crust in my rice pudding if I leave it out long
enough.


Giorgis

 

Dan:
Do you really not know the answer to this? (Hint; GP is a complete
fool. Further, he appears to be an attention seeker who thrives on
tweaking us to get a reaction.)

Never try to teach a pig to sing--it wastes your time and annoys the
pig.
**************************
Mark Herring, Pasadena, Calif.
Private e-mail: Just say no to "No".

 

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

In <c0at1s$que$> on Wed, 11 Feb 2004 01:09:50 +0900, "George

Where the heck do you get such nonsense?

 

John;
You have not followed the GP saga---above statement is nothing
compared to other absurdities uttered (typed)
**************************
Mark Herring, Pasadena, Calif.
Private e-mail: Just say no to "No".