sigma buys foveon
nospam
i suppose sigma would lose more if foveon actually shut down...
*
"nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:101120081828405505%nos...@nospam.invalid...
> <http://www.sigma-photo.co.jp/english/news/info_081111.htm>
>
> i suppose sigma would lose more if foveon actually shut down...
Absolutely condemning Sigma to dSLR Hell!!
RichA
communication between companies and product development isn't possible
without one being aquired by the other. What rubbish. In some cases, it
works against the aquiring company as inter-company product use can actually
end up being more costly.
"The acquisition of Foveon will not only enhance the development of new
types of image sensors for high quality digital cameras, but will also
create a synergistic effect with Sigma's camera and lens business by
improving the integration between the camera and sensor. This will result in
camera products which will uniquely meet the widely ranging functional and
image quality needs of demanding photographers."
Robert Coe
: <http://www.sigma-photo.co.jp/english/news/info_081111.htm>
:
: i suppose sigma would lose more if foveon actually shut down...
Doesn't Sigma sell a lot of lenses but very few cameras? If they're buying a
company just to stay in a highly competitive business in which they're not
doing very well, what's the point?
Bob
Don Stauffer
remain in the business world that long, and would soon sell the company
and go on to newer things. Did Mead go with Foveon or did he stay at
Cal Tech?
Alfred Molon
> <http://www.sigma-photo.co.jp/english/news/info_081111.htm>
>
> i suppose sigma would lose more if foveon actually shut down...
Hopefully we'll finally see a Foveon sensor with more pixel count. 12 or
15MP would be fine.
--
Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0 and E3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
Trent Helmswell
> I always felt the guys who started Foveon really didn't want to
>remain in the business world that long, and would soon sell the company
>and go on to newer things. Did Mead go with Foveon or did he stay at
>Cal Tech?
While on yet another extended photo-trek expedition in the Everglades I,
surprisingly, ran into one of the very people that invented and developed the
Foveon sensor concept. He too was very disappointed at the way they implemented
it and marketed it. The Foveon technology could do so much better according to
him. From what he explained to me it became obvious what they were doing wrong.
Don't ask me to repeat it now, nor even remember his name, but I could name the
campgrounds where I ran into him, this was over 3 years ago. The main thing that
I do recall being highly impressed with what the Foveon sensor could do in the
right camera and firmware. It made for some extremely interesting campfire +
beer discussions for a couple nights.
On the plus-side, he did buy the pop-up camper that I was leaving behind, no
longer needing it as a base-camp housing, but was perfect for his photo needs as
it was already set-up for that and he was just getting started on his Everglades
romp. Interesting guy, anyone would have found a chat with him fascinating.
This Foveon marketing is reminiscent of the Amiga computer that could multi-task
up to 1000 programs running simultaneously without showing one bit of slow-down.
But due to marketing and idiot pencil-pushers the PC platform won out over the
mis-marketed Amiga architecture. The benefits lost to humanity forever due to
some know-nothing bean counters and marketing departments. Alas, the same might
happen to the advanced technology of the Foveon concept. For all our sakes I
hope it does not. Knowing what I do about the stupidity of humanity, it will.
SMS
"Buying" may be the wrong word here, I'm sure that Sigma is just
acquiring the remains of Foveon, probably at no cost at all.
Too bad. Foveon exhibited their studio camera (three sensors with a
prism) in the booth of the company I worked for at Comdex many years
ago. It was a good concept to use three sensors, but impractical. They
sold a bunch of their studio cameras (Canon lens mount) but the silicon
color separation never worked out as well as they had hoped for consumer
cameras.
John Navas
<alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote in
<MPG.2383be55a...@news.supernews.com>:
>In article <101120081828405505%nos...@nospam.invalid>, nospam says...
>> <http://www.sigma-photo.co.jp/english/news/info_081111.htm>
>>
>> i suppose sigma would lose more if foveon actually shut down...
>
>Hopefully we'll finally see a Foveon sensor with more pixel count. 12 or
>15MP would be fine.
Would take some serious technical breakthroughs; i.e., don't hold your
breath.
--
Best regards,
John Navas
[PLEASE NOTE: Ads belong *only* in rec.photo.marketplace.digital, as per
<http://bobatkins.photo.net/info/charter.htm> <http://rpdfaq.50megs.com/>]
nospam
<b...@1776.COM> wrote:
> Doesn't Sigma sell a lot of lenses but very few cameras? If they're buying a
> company just to stay in a highly competitive business in which they're not
> doing very well, what's the point?
the point is that the alternative is worse for sigma. if foveon shuts
down, sigma no longer has *any* sensors with which to make cameras.
this way, they can at least sell a few more cameras and maybe make back
what they paid (which i doubt was a whole lot).
nospam
Molon <alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hopefully we'll finally see a Foveon sensor with more pixel count. 12 or
> 15MP would be fine.
but the current foveon sensor is already 14 megapixels. it says so
right in the advertisement...
:)
Alan Browne
> Look at their reasoning in this. It's almost as if they imply that
> communication between companies and product development isn't possible
> without one being aquired by the other. What rubbish. In some cases, it
> works against the aquiring company as inter-company product use can actually
> end up being more costly.
1. The Foveon initial investors (founders?) had an exit plan. $
2. Assets are cheaply priced these days.
3. Foveon may be deep in the red and need cash to carry on.
4. Sigma need Foveon and can't let it go under.
5. Capital is dearly priced these days.
6. Financiers are reluctant lenders these days.
7. Foveon sales are probably not very seductive - refer to 6 above.
8. Sigma probably have ample cash from operations
- can afford it even if there is debt to assume
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.
Alan Browne
You would need access to their business plan to see why. Japanese
companies often are very patient for returns.
It would be interesting to know how many Foveon based cameras have
actually been sold.
Sigma truly and completely blew it in the beginning with the Foveon.
While Canon and Nikon were quick out of the gate, Pentax, Olympus and
esp. Minolta were very slow. If Sigma had made their cameras available
in those lens mounts, they would have sold hundreds of thousands of
cameras; esp. to hapless Minolta users. That would have given them the
cashflow to improve the sensor further and build up some loyalty.
(There may be a licensing issue, OTOH, they have reverse engineered some
lens mounts).
Having said that, I know that the film-Sigma cameras were never very
well regarded. So the digital cameras began with that anchor as well as
the mediocre Foveon performance.
dj_nme
> On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 16:08:23 +0100, Alfred Molon
> <alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> <MPG.2383be55a...@news.supernews.com>:
>
>> In article <101120081828405505%nos...@nospam.invalid>, nospam says...
>>> <http://www.sigma-photo.co.jp/english/news/info_081111.htm>
>>>
>>> i suppose sigma would lose more if foveon actually shut down...
>> Hopefully we'll finally see a Foveon sensor with more pixel count. 12 or
>> 15MP would be fine.
>
> Would take some serious technical breakthroughs; i.e., don't hold your
> breath.
Or a larger sensor, possibly 35mm full-frame (24x36mm) sized.
At the same pixel density as the SD14 sensor, this would yield a 13.5Mp
sensor.
nospam
<alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
> It would be interesting to know how many Foveon based cameras have
> actually been sold.
not many. estimates are about 50k total, for the sd9, sd10 and sd14
*combined*, or about 10k/year or so.
> Sigma truly and completely blew it in the beginning with the Foveon.
> While Canon and Nikon were quick out of the gate, Pentax, Olympus and
> esp. Minolta were very slow. If Sigma had made their cameras available
> in those lens mounts, they would have sold hundreds of thousands of
> cameras; esp. to hapless Minolta users. That would have given them the
> cashflow to improve the sensor further and build up some loyalty.
> (There may be a licensing issue, OTOH, they have reverse engineered some
> lens mounts).
they should make a 4/3rds camera with a foveon sensor. the current
sensor is a little bigger than 4/3rds and trimming it down is a *lot*
easier than making it bigger. plus, they're already part of the 4/3rds
consortium, so there shouldn't be any licensing issues. they'd sell a
lot more cameras than they do now.
> Having said that, I know that the film-Sigma cameras were never very
> well regarded. So the digital cameras began with that anchor as well as
> the mediocre Foveon performance.
neither are most of their lenses.
John Navas
in <491a1fb2$0$7527$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>:
Yields might well be too low to make that practical.
nospam
<491a1fb2$0$7527$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>, dj_nme
<dj_...@iinet.net.au> wrote:
> >>> i suppose sigma would lose more if foveon actually shut down...
> >> Hopefully we'll finally see a Foveon sensor with more pixel count. 12 or
> >> 15MP would be fine.
> >
> > Would take some serious technical breakthroughs; i.e., don't hold your
> > breath.
>
> Or a larger sensor, possibly 35mm full-frame (24x36mm) sized.
> At the same pixel density as the SD14 sensor, this would yield a 13.5Mp
> sensor.
not likely to happen for several reasons. one is the difficulty in
manufacturing the chip at that size and the other is the vast amounts
of data that would have to be processed. it would give new meaning to
the word 'slow.'
SMS
> Or a larger sensor, possibly 35mm full-frame (24x36mm) sized.
> At the same pixel density as the SD14 sensor, this would yield a 13.5Mp
> sensor.
The real problem is that they never got silicon color separation to work
well enough. It was a cool concept, but it was very difficult to fabricate.
Foveon was planning to go after other markets with their sensors,
markets where image quality and color accuracy were not so critical. The
good thing about their sensors is that they didn't need the most modern
fab to make them.
Alan Browne
No more data than the upper end Hasselblad MF's.
nospam
<alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
> >> Or a larger sensor, possibly 35mm full-frame (24x36mm) sized.
> >> At the same pixel density as the SD14 sensor, this would yield a 13.5Mp
> >> sensor.
> >
> > not likely to happen for several reasons. one is the difficulty in
> > manufacturing the chip at that size and the other is the vast amounts
> > of data that would have to be processed. it would give new meaning to
> > the word 'slow.'
>
> No more data than the upper end Hasselblad MF's.
and those are not only very expensive, but they're about 1-2 fps. that
speed may be acceptable in the studio (where such a camera is likely to
be used), but it's not going to compete that well in a 35mm dslr.
the sd14 and dp1 are among the slowest cameras in their class currently
made; tripling the pixel count would require a 3x increase in back-end
speed just to *remain* the slowest.
Alfred Molon
> not likely to happen for several reasons. one is the difficulty in
> manufacturing the chip at that size and the other is the vast amounts
> of data that would have to be processed. it would give new meaning to
> the word 'slow.'
Can't comment on manufacturing issues, but full-colour RGB sensors are
clearly the future. Since pixels can't get smaller, they have to get
better and collect more information. Having the full RGB information at
each pixel is a huge advantage. It boosts the effective resolution by
about 50%.
nospam
Molon <alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > not likely to happen for several reasons. one is the difficulty in
> > manufacturing the chip at that size and the other is the vast amounts
> > of data that would have to be processed. it would give new meaning to
> > the word 'slow.'
>
> Can't comment on manufacturing issues, but full-colour RGB sensors are
> clearly the future.
maybe. there are a number of hurdles to overcome. split the pixel in
three and noise goes up. nikon has a patent with dichroic mirrors that
doesn't look like it would be cost effective to manufacture.
> Since pixels can't get smaller, they have to get
> better and collect more information. Having the full RGB information at
> each pixel is a huge advantage. It boosts the effective resolution by
> about 50%.
it's an advantage but not as much as you suggest, and the lack of
demosaicing is actually fairly minor.
Mitchell Graston
>In article <MPG.23849ef23...@news.supernews.com>, Alfred
>Molon <alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> > not likely to happen for several reasons. one is the difficulty in
>> > manufacturing the chip at that size and the other is the vast amounts
>> > of data that would have to be processed. it would give new meaning to
>> > the word 'slow.'
>>
>> Can't comment on manufacturing issues, but full-colour RGB sensors are
>> clearly the future.
>
>maybe. there are a number of hurdles to overcome. split the pixel in
>three and noise goes up.
Where on earth do you get this nonsense?
If the photons coming in are cleanly being divided up into their respective
energy levels, there is no more base noise than if they were being filtered out
by Bayer filters. The only difference is that you get 4x's the chromatic
resolution per sensor area in the Foveon paradigm.
Must have been something you read in the past from one of the usual (and highly
moronic) resident-trolls. It sounded good to you so you now mindlessly aped (no
offense to apes intended, I find that apes are often more intelligent than
humans) what the trolls originally stated without having enough frontal-lobe
material of your own to think it through clearly.
Perhaps you should go climb back up into your tree and think some more about
what you are typing.
J. Clarke
> In article <111120081632486951%nos...@nospam.invalid>, nospam
> says...
>
>> not likely to happen for several reasons. one is the difficulty in
>> manufacturing the chip at that size and the other is the vast
>> amounts
>> of data that would have to be processed. it would give new meaning
>> to the word 'slow.'
>
> Can't comment on manufacturing issues, but full-colour RGB sensors
> are
> clearly the future. Since pixels can't get smaller, they have to get
> better and collect more information. Having the full RGB information
> at each pixel is a huge advantage. It boosts the effective
> resolution
> by about 50%.
Uh huh. So why are Foveon sensors so lousy in tests?
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Alfred Molon
> maybe. there are a number of hurdles to overcome. split the pixel in
> three and noise goes up. nikon has a patent with dichroic mirrors that
> doesn't look like it would be cost effective to manufacture.
Obviously splitting pixels is nonsense. You have to find a way to
capture all incoming photons. With the current Bayer sensors you are
throwing away 2/3 of all incoming photons. What a waste.
> > Since pixels can't get smaller, they have to get
> > better and collect more information. Having the full RGB information at
> > each pixel is a huge advantage. It boosts the effective resolution by
> > about 50%.
>
> it's an advantage but not as much as you suggest, and the lack of
> demosaicing is actually fairly minor.
It makes indeed a big difference. But please let's not start again this
equivalent resolution debate, because this has been discussed to death
already.
Alfred Molon
> Uh huh. So why are Foveon sensors so lousy in tests?
particularly good one. An Asian manufacturer (Samsung?) is researching
on a different approach: three semi-transparent stacked layers of photo-
sensitive material. They are not using silicon as far as I know.
J. Clarke
> In article <gfe7m...@news6.newsguy.com>, J. Clarke says...
>
>> Uh huh. So why are Foveon sensors so lousy in tests?
>
> The Foveon one is just one possible implementation and in fact not a
> particularly good one. An Asian manufacturer (Samsung?) is
> researching
> on a different approach: three semi-transparent stacked layers of
> photo- sensitive material. They are not using silicon as far as I
> know.
And maybe one day they'll make it work.
SMS
> Alfred Molon wrote:
>> In article <gfe7m...@news6.newsguy.com>, J. Clarke says...
>>
>>> Uh huh. So why are Foveon sensors so lousy in tests?
>> The Foveon one is just one possible implementation and in fact not a
>> particularly good one. An Asian manufacturer (Samsung?) is
>> researching
>> on a different approach: three semi-transparent stacked layers of
>> photo- sensitive material. They are not using silicon as far as I
>> know.
>
> And maybe one day they'll make it work.
At this juncture it's an answer to a question that nobody asked.
I suppose that if they could make it cheap enough then the P&S
manufacturers could use them to increase perceived resolution slightly
without decreasing the pixel size even more. The P&S camera megapixel
race seems to have leveled off at 10 to 12 megapixels because they've
reached the point where users aren't going to accept further degradation
in terms of noise or low-light performance with even smaller pixels. For
D-SLRs, we're not at the resolutions where noise is a problem on the
full frame CMOS sensors, so there's no need for a three layer sensor.
The world is moving to full frame D-SLRs for amateurs to professionals,
and to cheap P&S cameras for convenience. The area in between isn't
selling well, the wide-range zoom P&S and the high end P&S because
D-SLRs have become so inexpensive, and the results are so much better.
samuel johnson
>J. Clarke wrote:
>> Alfred Molon wrote:
>>> In article <gfe7m...@news6.newsguy.com>, J. Clarke says...
>>>
>>>> Uh huh. So why are Foveon sensors so lousy in tests?
>>> The Foveon one is just one possible implementation and in fact not a
>>> particularly good one. An Asian manufacturer (Samsung?) is
>>> researching
>>> on a different approach: three semi-transparent stacked layers of
>>> photo- sensitive material. They are not using silicon as far as I
>>> know.
>>
>> And maybe one day they'll make it work.
>
>At this juncture it's an answer to a question that nobody asked.
>
>I suppose that if they could make it cheap enough then the P&S
>manufacturers could use them to increase perceived resolution slightly
>without decreasing the pixel size even more. The P&S camera megapixel
>race seems to have leveled off at 10 to 12 megapixels because they've
>reached the point where users aren't going to accept further degradation
>in terms of noise or low-light performance with even smaller pixels. For
>D-SLRs, we're not at the resolutions where noise is a problem on the
>full frame CMOS sensors, so there's no need for a three layer sensor.
So what you are saying is that, again, the P&S camera is going to lead the way
and then all the people that want to live with last-century's archaic and
crippling focal-plane shutter design and low-light crippled OVFs will eventually
adopt or try to adopt all the ground-breaking technology that is being put into
P&S cameras today. I see.
>
>The world is moving to full frame D-SLRs for amateurs to professionals,
>and to cheap P&S cameras for convenience. The area in between isn't
>selling well, the wide-range zoom P&S and the high end P&S because
>D-SLRs have become so inexpensive, and the results are so much better.
Many points outlined below completely disprove your usual resident-troll
bullshit. You can either read it and educate yourself, or don't read it and
continue to prove to everyone that you are nothing but a virtual-photographer
newsgroup-troll and a fool.
1. P&S cameras can have more seamless zoom range than any DSLR glass in
existence. (E.g. 9mm f2.7 - 1248mm f/3.5.) There are now some excellent
wide-angle and telephoto (tel-extender) add-on lenses for many makes and models
of P&S cameras. Add either or both of these small additions to your photography
gear and, with some of the new super-zoom P&S cameras, you can far surpass any
range of focal-lengths and apertures that are available or will ever be made for
larger format cameras.
2. P&S cameras can have much wider apertures at longer focal lengths than any
DSLR glass in existence. (E.g. 549mm f/2.4 and 1248mm f/3.5) when used with
high-quality tel-extenders, which by the way, do not reduce the lens' original
aperture one bit. Only DSLRs suffer from that problem due to the manner in which
their tele-converters work. They can also have higher quality full-frame
180-degree circular fisheye and intermediate super-wide-angle views than any
DSLR and its glass in existence. Some excellent fish-eye adapters can be added
to your P&S camera which do not impart any chromatic-aberration nor
edge-softness. When used with a super-zoom P&S camera this allows you to
seamlessly go from as wide as a 9mm (or even wider) 35mm equivalent focal-length
up to the wide-angle setting of the camera's own lens.
3. P&S smaller sensor cameras can and do have wider dynamic range than larger
sensor cameras E.g. a 1/2.5" sized sensor can have a 10.3EV Dynamic Range vs. an
APS-C's typical 7.0-8.0EV Dynamic Range. One quick example:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3142/2861257547_9a7ceaf3a1_o.jpg
4. P&S cameras are cost efficient. Due to the smaller (but excellent) sensors
used in many of them today, the lenses for these cameras are much smaller.
Smaller lenses are easier to manufacture to exacting curvatures and are more
easily corrected for aberrations than larger glass used for DSLRs. This also
allows them to perform better at all apertures rather than DSLR glass which is
only good for one aperture setting per lens. Side by side tests prove that P&S
glass can out-resolve even the best DSLR glass ever made. After all is said and
done, you will spend 1/4th to 1/50th the price that you would have to in order
to get comparable performance in a DSLR camera. When you buy a DSLR you are
investing in a body that will require expensive lenses, hand-grips, external
flash units, heavy tripods, more expensive larger filters, etc. etc. The
outrageous costs of owning a DSLR add up fast after that initial DSLR body
purchase. Camera companies count on this, all the way to their banks.
5. P&S cameras are lightweight and convenient. With just one P&S camera plus one
small wide-angle adapter and one small telephoto adapter weighing just a couple
pounds, you have the same amount of zoom range as would require over 10 to 20
pounds of DSLR body and lenses. You can carry the whole P&S kit in one roomy
pocket of a wind-breaker or jacket. The DSLR kit would require a sturdy
backpack. You also don't require a massive tripod. Large tripods are required to
stabilize the heavy and unbalanced mass of the larger DSLR and its massive
lenses. A P&S camera, being so light, can be used on some of the most
inexpensive, compact, and lightweight tripods with excellent results.
6. P&S cameras are silent. For the more common snap-shooter/photographer, you
will not be barred from using your camera at public events, stage-performances,
and ceremonies. Or when trying to capture candid shots, you won't so easily
alert all those within a block around, from the obnoxious noise that your DSLR
is making, that you are capturing anyone's images. For the more dedicated
wildlife photographer a P&S camera will not endanger your life when
photographing potentially dangerous animals by alerting them to your presence.
7. Some P&S cameras can run the revolutionary CHDK software on them, which
allows for lightning-fast motion detection (literally, lightning fast 45ms
response time, able to capture lightning strikes automatically) so that you may
capture more elusive and shy animals (in still-frame and video) where any
evidence of your presence at all might prevent their appearance. Without the
need of carrying a tethered laptop along or any other hardware into remote
areas--which only limits your range, distance, and time allotted for bringing
back that one-of-a-kind image. It also allows for unattended time-lapse
photography for days and weeks at a time, so that you may capture those unusual
or intriguing subject-studies in nature. E.g. a rare slime-mold's propagation,
that you happened to find in a mountain-ravine, 10-days hike from the nearest
laptop or other time-lapse hardware. (The wealth of astounding new features that
CHDK brings to the creative-table of photography are too extensive to begin to
list them all here. See http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK )
8. P&S cameras can have shutter speeds up to 1/40,000th of a second. See:
http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CameraFeatures Allowing you to capture fast subject
motion in nature (e.g. insect and hummingbird wings) WITHOUT the need of
artificial and image destroying flash, using available light alone. Nor will
their wing shapes be unnaturally distorted from the focal-plane shutter
distortions imparted in any fast moving objects, as when photographed with all
DSLRs. (See focal-plane-shutter-distortions example-image link in #10.)
9. P&S cameras can have full-frame flash-sync up to and including shutter-speeds
of 1/40,000th of a second. E.g.
http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/Samples:_High-Speed_Shutter_%26_Flash-Sync without
the use of any expensive and specialized focal-plane shutter flash-units that
must strobe for the full duration of the shutter's curtain to pass over the
frame. The other downside to those kinds of flash units, is that the
light-output is greatly reduced the faster the shutter speed. Any shutter speed
used that is faster than your camera's X-Sync speed is cutting off some of the
flash output. Not so when using a leaf-shutter. The full intensity of the flash
is recorded no matter the shutter speed used. Unless, as in the case of CHDK
capable cameras where the camera's shutter speed can even be faster than the
lightning-fast single burst from a flash unit. E.g. If the flash's duration is
1/10,000 of a second, and your CHDK camera's shutter is set to 1/20,000 of a
second, then it will only record half of that flash output. P&S cameras also
don't require any expensive and dedicated external flash unit. Any of them may
be used with any flash unit made by using an inexpensive slave-trigger that can
compensate for any automated pre-flash conditions. Example:
http://www.adorama.com/SZ23504.html
10. P&S cameras do not suffer from focal-plane shutter drawbacks and
limitations. Causing camera shake, moving-subject image distortions
(focal-plane-shutter distortions, e.g.
http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/chdk/images//4/46/Focalplane_shutter_distortions.jpg
do note the distorted tail-rotor too and its shadow on the ground, 90-degrees
from one another), last-century-slow flash-sync, obnoxiously loud slapping
mirrors and shutter curtains, shorter mechanical life, easily damaged, expensive
repair costs, etc.
11. When doing wildlife photography in remote and rugged areas and harsh
environments, or even when the amateur snap-shooter is trying to take their
vacation photos on a beach or dusty intersection on some city street, you're not
worrying about trying to change lenses in time to get that shot (fewer missed
shots), dropping one in the mud, lake, surf, or on concrete while you do, and
not worrying about ruining all the rest of your photos that day from having
gotten dust & crud on the sensor. For the adventurous photographer you're no
longer weighed down by many many extra pounds of unneeded glass, allowing you to
carry more of the important supplies, like food and water, allowing you to trek
much further than you've ever been able to travel before with your old D/SLR
bricks.
12. Smaller sensors and the larger apertures available allow for the deep DOF
required for excellent macro-photography, WITHOUT the need of any image
destroying, subject irritating, natural-look destroying flash. No DSLR on the
planet can compare in the quality of available-light macro photography that can
be accomplished with nearly any smaller-sensor P&S camera.
13. P&S cameras include video, and some even provide for CD-quality stereo audio
recordings, so that you might capture those rare events in nature where a
still-frame alone could never prove all those "scientists" wrong. E.g. recording
the paw-drumming communication patterns of eusocial-living field-mice. With your
P&S video-capable camera in your pocket you won't miss that once-in-a-lifetime
chance to record some unexpected event, like the passage of a bright meteor in
the sky in daytime, a mid-air explosion, or any other newsworthy event. Imagine
the gaping hole in our history of the Hindenberg if there were no film cameras
there at the time. The mystery of how it exploded would have never been solved.
Or the amateur 8mm film of the shooting of President Kennedy. Your video-ready
P&S camera being with you all the time might capture something that will be a
valuable part of human history one day.
14. P&S cameras have 100% viewfinder coverage that exactly matches your final
image. No important bits lost, and no chance of ruining your composition by
trying to "guess" what will show up in the final image. With the ability to
overlay live RGB-histograms, and under/over-exposure area alerts (and dozens of
other important shooting data) directly on your electronic viewfinder display
you are also not going to guess if your exposure might be right this time. Nor
do you have to remove your eye from the view of your subject to check some
external LCD histogram display, ruining your chances of getting that perfect
shot when it happens.
15. P&S cameras can and do focus in lower-light (which is common in natural
settings) than any DSLRs in existence, due to electronic viewfinders and sensors
that can be increased in gain for framing and focusing purposes as light-levels
drop. Some P&S cameras can even take images (AND videos) in total darkness by
using IR illumination alone. (See: Sony) No other multi-purpose cameras are
capable of taking still-frame and videos of nocturnal wildlife as easily nor as
well. Shooting videos and still-frames of nocturnal animals in the total-dark,
without disturbing their natural behavior by the use of flash, from 90 ft. away
with a 549mm f/2.4 lens is not only possible, it's been done, many times, by
myself. (An interesting and true story: one wildlife photographer was nearly
stomped to death by an irate moose that attacked where it saw his camera's flash
come from.)
16. Without the need to use flash in all situations, and a P&S's nearly 100%
silent operation, you are not disturbing your wildlife, neither scaring it away
nor changing their natural behavior with your existence. Nor, as previously
mentioned, drawing its defensive behavior in your direction. You are recording
nature as it is, and should be, not some artificial human-changed distortion of
reality and nature.
17. Nature photography requires that the image be captured with the greatest
degree of accuracy possible. NO focal-plane shutter in existence, with its
inherent focal-plane-shutter distortions imparted on any moving subject will
EVER capture any moving subject in nature 100% accurately. A leaf-shutter or
electronic shutter, as is found in ALL P&S cameras, will capture your moving
subject in nature with 100% accuracy. Your P&S photography will no longer lead a
biologist nor other scientist down another DSLR-distorted path of non-reality.
18. Some P&S cameras have shutter-lag times that are even shorter than all the
popular DSLRs, due to the fact that they don't have to move those agonizingly
slow and loud mirrors and shutter curtains in time before the shot is recorded.
In the hands of an experienced photographer that will always rely on prefocusing
their camera, there is no hit & miss auto-focusing that happens on all
auto-focus systems, DSLRs included. This allows you to take advantage of the
faster shutter response times of P&S cameras. Any pro worth his salt knows that
if you really want to get every shot, you don't depend on automatic anything in
any camera.
19. An electronic viewfinder, as exists in all P&S cameras, can accurately relay
the camera's shutter-speed in real-time. Giving you a 100% accurate preview of
what your final subject is going to look like when shot at 3 seconds or
1/20,000th of a second. Your soft waterfall effects, or the crisp sharp outlines
of your stopped-motion hummingbird wings will be 100% accurately depicted in
your viewfinder before you even record the shot. What you see in a P&S camera is
truly what you get. You won't have to guess in advance at what shutter speed to
use to obtain those artistic effects or those scientifically accurate nature
studies that you require or that your client requires. When testing CHDK P&S
cameras that could have shutter speeds as fast as 1/40,000th of a second, I was
amazed that I could half-depress the shutter and watch in the viewfinder as a
Dremel-Drill's 30,000 rpm rotating disk was stopped in crisp detail in real
time, without ever having taken an example shot yet. Similarly true when
lowering shutter speeds for milky-water effects when shooting rapids and falls,
instantly seeing the effect in your viewfinder. Poor DSLR-trolls will never
realize what they are missing with their anciently slow focal-plane shutters and
wholly inaccurate optical viewfinders.
20. P&S cameras can obtain the very same bokeh (out of focus foreground and
background) as any DSLR by just increasing your focal length, through use of its
own built-in super-zoom lens or attaching a high-quality telextender on the
front. Just back up from your subject more than you usually would with a DSLR.
Framing and the included background is relative to the subject at the time and
has nothing at all to do with the kind of camera and lens in use. Your f/ratio
(which determines your depth-of-field), is a computation of focal-length divided
by aperture diameter. Increase the focal-length and you make your DOF shallower.
No different than opening up the aperture to accomplish the same. The two
methods are identically related where DOF is concerned.
21. P&S cameras will have perfectly fine noise-free images at lower ISOs with
just as much resolution as any DSLR camera. Experienced Pros grew up on ISO25
and ISO64 film all their lives. They won't even care if their P&S camera can't
go above ISO400 without noise. An added bonus is that the P&S camera can have
larger apertures at longer focal-lengths than any DSLR in existence. The time
when you really need a fast lens to prevent camera-shake that gets amplified at
those focal-lengths. Even at low ISOs you can take perfectly fine hand-held
images at super-zoom settings. Whereas the DSLR, with its very small apertures
at long focal lengths require ISOs above 3200 to obtain the same results. They
need high ISOs, you don't. If you really require low-noise high ISOs, there are
some excellent models of Fuji P&S cameras that do have noise-free images up to
ISO1600 and more.
22. Don't for one minute think that the price of your camera will in any way
determine the quality of your photography. Any of the newer cameras of around
$100 or more are plenty good for nearly any talented photographer today. IF they
have talent to begin with. A REAL pro can take an award winning photograph with
a cardboard Brownie Box camera made a century ago. If you can't take excellent
photos on a P&S camera then you won't be able to get good photos on a DSLR
either. Never blame your inability to obtain a good photograph on the kind of
camera that you own. Those who claim they NEED a DSLR are only fooling
themselves and all others. These are the same people that buy a new camera every
year, each time thinking, "Oh, if I only had the right camera, a better camera,
better lenses, faster lenses, then I will be a great photographer!" Camera
company's love these people. They'll never be able to get a camera that will
make their photography better, because they never were a good photographer to
begin with. The irony is that by them thinking that they only need to throw
money at the problem, they'll never look in the mirror to see what the real
problem is. They'll NEVER become good photographers. Perhaps this is why these
self-proclaimed "pros" hate P&S cameras so much. P&S cameras instantly reveal to
them their piss-poor photography skills.
23. Have you ever had the fun of showing some of your exceptional P&S
photography to some self-proclaimed "Pro" who uses $30,000 worth of camera gear.
They are so impressed that they must know how you did it. You smile and tell
them, "Oh, I just use a $150 P&S camera." Don't you just love the look on their
face? A half-life of self-doubt, the realization of all that lost money, and a
sadness just courses through every fiber of their being. Wondering why they
can't get photographs as good after they spent all that time and money. Get good
on your P&S camera and you too can enjoy this fun experience.
24. Did we mention portability yet? I think we did, but it is worth mentioning
the importance of this a few times. A camera in your pocket that is instantly
ready to get any shot during any part of the day will get more award-winning
photographs than that DSLR gear that's sitting back at home, collecting dust,
and waiting to be loaded up into that expensive back-pack or camera bag, hoping
that you'll lug it around again some day.
25. A good P&S camera is a good theft deterrent. When traveling you are not
advertising to the world that you are carrying $20,000 around with you. That's
like having a sign on your back saying, "PLEASE MUG ME! I'M THIS STUPID AND I
DESERVE IT!" Keep a small P&S camera in your pocket and only take it out when
needed. You'll have a better chance of returning home with all your photos. And
should you accidentally lose your P&S camera you're not out $20,000. They are
inexpensive to replace.
There are many more reasons to add to this list but this should be more than
enough for even the most unaware person to realize that P&S cameras are just
better, all around. No doubt about it.
The phenomenon of everyone yelling "You NEED a DSLR!" can be summed up in just
one short phrase:
"If even 5 billion people are saying and doing a foolish thing, it remains a
foolish thing."
nospam
Molon <alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > maybe. there are a number of hurdles to overcome. split the pixel in
> > three and noise goes up. nikon has a patent with dichroic mirrors that
> > doesn't look like it would be cost effective to manufacture.
>
> Obviously splitting pixels is nonsense. You have to find a way to
> capture all incoming photons. With the current Bayer sensors you are
> throwing away 2/3 of all incoming photons. What a waste.
foveon splits a single pixel into three layers, and each layer has a
lower well depth than if the pixel was a single entity. also, the
conversion from sensor space to rgb adds noise (foveon doesn't actually
sense true rgb). there's no free lunch.
> > > Since pixels can't get smaller, they have to get
> > > better and collect more information. Having the full RGB information at
> > > each pixel is a huge advantage. It boosts the effective resolution by
> > > about 50%.
> >
> > it's an advantage but not as much as you suggest, and the lack of
> > demosaicing is actually fairly minor.
>
> It makes indeed a big difference. But please let's not start again this
> equivalent resolution debate, because this has been discussed to death
> already.
it actually makes very little difference. keep in mind that *other*
factors contribute to much of the difference seen, such as the heavy
sharpening applied in the sigma raw converter, even when set to 0.
Alfred Molon
> I suppose that if they could make it cheap enough then the P&S
> manufacturers could use them to increase perceived resolution slightly
> without decreasing the pixel size even more.
Not perceived resolution - it's the effective resolution which would be
increased, and not slightly but by a very significant amount. Bayer
sensors have huge colour aliasing problems, because the colour
resolution is only half of the luminance resolution. Set the AA filter
to match the colour resolution and you lose a lot of resolution, set it
to luminance resolution (which probably most manufacturers do) and you
end up having colour aliasing issues.
> The world is moving to full frame D-SLRs for amateurs to professionals,
Not really, because cameras with medium sized sensors are much smaller
(the body, but most of all the lenses) and perform very well. 24x36mm
sensors are only necessary if you need extreme high ISO performance or
very high resolutions.
> and to cheap P&S cameras for convenience. The area in between isn't
> selling well, the wide-range zoom P&S and the high end P&S because
> D-SLRs have become so inexpensive, and the results are so much better.
--
nospam
Molon <alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > I suppose that if they could make it cheap enough then the P&S
> > manufacturers could use them to increase perceived resolution slightly
> > without decreasing the pixel size even more.
>
> Not perceived resolution - it's the effective resolution which would be
> increased, and not slightly but by a very significant amount. Bayer
> sensors have huge colour aliasing problems, because the colour
> resolution is only half of the luminance resolution. Set the AA filter
> to match the colour resolution and you lose a lot of resolution, set it
> to luminance resolution (which probably most manufacturers do) and you
> end up having colour aliasing issues.
and sigma chose to skip the anti-alias filter entirely in their cameras
so there's a lot of luminance aliasing. it isn't as ugly as the colour
fringing in bayer, but it's still aliasing.
> > The world is moving to full frame D-SLRs for amateurs to professionals,
>
> Not really, because cameras with medium sized sensors are much smaller
> (the body, but most of all the lenses) and perform very well. 24x36mm
> sensors are only necessary if you need extreme high ISO performance or
> very high resolutions.
full frame bodies are not that much smaller. for example, compare the
nikon d300 and d700 -- the d700 is just 9 millimeters taller and 3
millimeters deeper than the d300 (147 x 114 x 74 mm versus 147 x 123 x
77 mm).
as for lenses, dx lenses may be smaller at the telephoto end, but at
the wide end, they're often bigger and heavier. for example, compare
nikon's new 50mm f/1.4 af-s lens on a full frame camera to sigma's 30mm
f/1.4 hsm lens on a dx camera. the nikon weighs 280g versus sigma at
430g. pick the older non-afs nikon 50mm and it weighs even less, at
just 230g, slightly more than half of the sigma. the nikon 12-24mm dx
is also larger and heavier than the equivalent full frame nikon
18-35mm.
Alfred Molon
> foveon splits a single pixel into three layers,
They are not splitting the pixel - it's a pixel with 3 layers.
> and each layer has a
> lower well depth than if the pixel was a single entity. also, the
> conversion from sensor space to rgb adds noise (foveon doesn't actually
> sense true rgb). there's no free lunch.
Nobody said it has to be a Foveon sensor.
> it actually makes very little difference.
50% additional effective resolution is a lot.
nospam
Molon <alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > foveon splits a single pixel into three layers,
>
> They are not splitting the pixel - it's a pixel with 3 layers.
and to get the three layers, the pixel must be split.
> > and each layer has a
> > lower well depth than if the pixel was a single entity. also, the
> > conversion from sensor space to rgb adds noise (foveon doesn't actually
> > sense true rgb). there's no free lunch.
>
> Nobody said it has to be a Foveon sensor.
true, but the other sensors haven't solved the problems either.
> > it actually makes very little difference.
>
> 50% additional effective resolution is a lot.
it's not 50%.
SMS
> 50% additional effective resolution is a lot.
Where did you get the idea that three level sensors would increase
resolution by an effective 50%? Is that what Foveon claimed?
Norm R.
>In article <121120081035085754%nos...@nospam.invalid>, nospam says...
>
>> foveon splits a single pixel into three layers,
>
>They are not splitting the pixel - it's a pixel with 3 layers.
>
>> and each layer has a
>> lower well depth than if the pixel was a single entity. also, the
>> conversion from sensor space to rgb adds noise (foveon doesn't actually
>> sense true rgb). there's no free lunch.
>
>Nobody said it has to be a Foveon sensor.
>
>> it actually makes very little difference.
>
>50% additional effective resolution is a lot.
That would be like going from a 10 mega-pixel camera to a 22.5 mega-pixel
camera. All within the same sensor area and using the same photo-site size. For
those who are befuddled: resolution is a function of area, not linear measure.
nospam
<norm...@replyatdeleted.com> wrote:
> For those who are befuddled: resolution is a function of area, not linear measure.
resolution is a linear measurement, e.g., lines per millimeter or lines
per picture height.
Norm R.
Yes, but that cannot be measured in every possible direction on a sensor unless
you take into account 2 dimensions, not just 1.
You're quite the linear thinker, aren't you. (that is not a compliment for
anyone)
If you want to double (increase by 100%) the resolution of a 10 mega-pixel
camera you'll need a 40 mega-pixel camera.
Here's a square (think 10 mega-pixels in that square, for example):
_
|_|
If you want to double the resolution in all directions then you need this:
_ _
|_|_|
|_|_|
Now how many mega-pixels are required? Each square representing 10 mega-pixels.
(Don't scroll to the bottom looking for the answer printed upside-down. You'll
have to do this difficult math on your own.)
I recall things like this being taught in 1st grade.
Before you can figure resolution increases/decreases on a 2-dimensional surface
when using pixel counts, you must take the square-root of any pixel count, and
then apply the math accordingly. Get your final mega-pixels needed by squaring
the result after the calculations are done (on the square-root of the pixel
count).
People are quite surprised when they find out that their 12 to 16 mega-pixel
leap in going to their shiny new camera is only a 13.4% increase in resolution.
Hardly worth the bother for most any decent photographer. That much can be made
up in more careful composition and framing, easily.
Alfred Molon
> In article <MPG.23856a3b1...@news.supernews.com>, Alfred
> Molon <alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > foveon splits a single pixel into three layers,
> >
> > They are not splitting the pixel - it's a pixel with 3 layers.
>
> and to get the three layers, the pixel must be split.
It is not split. The pixel still has the same area.
> > 50% additional effective resolution is a lot.
>
> it's not 50%.
It is around this figure.
Alfred Molon
It is a guesstimate based on the fact that in a Bayer sensor 2/3 of the
colour information is missing and is simply being interpolated.
But it is something you can try yourself out. Generate a random colour
image, sample it with a RGGB pattern down to one colour component per
pixel, regenerate to full colour with Bayer interpolation. Compare it to
the original image - this will open your eyes.
Alfred Molon
SMS
> But it is something you can try yourself out. Generate a random colour
> image,
Ah, now I see where you're confused. A digital photograph isn't a random
color image. Yes, I'm sure you could create a test image where you'd see
a 50% increase in perceived resolution.
nospam
Molon <alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > foveon splits a single pixel into three layers,
> > >
> > > They are not splitting the pixel - it's a pixel with 3 layers.
> >
> > and to get the three layers, the pixel must be split.
>
> It is not split. The pixel still has the same area.
it has the same area, but it's sliced into three layers, each of which
has a lower well capacity.
nospam
Molon <alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Where did you get the idea that three level sensors would increase
> > resolution by an effective 50%? Is that what Foveon claimed?
>
> It is a guesstimate
ok, so no actual tests.
> based on the fact that in a Bayer sensor 2/3 of the
> colour information is missing and is simply being interpolated.
the colour information is interpolated but the spatial detail is not.
the human eye is not as sensitive to colour detail, so the system works
well.
> But it is something you can try yourself out. Generate a random colour
> image, sample it with a RGGB pattern down to one colour component per
> pixel, regenerate to full colour with Bayer interpolation. Compare it to
> the original image - this will open your eyes.
what type of 'random colour image' ?? is it a generated pattern or an
actual photograph? sampled how? what bayer algorithm? have you
actually done this or are you speculating?
Alfred Molon
> Ah, now I see where you're confused. A digital photograph isn't a random
> color image. Yes, I'm sure you could create a test image where you'd see
> a 50% increase in perceived resolution.
There is no confusion at all here. It is very obvious that if you sample
an image with a sensor which is limited to one colour component per
pixel and then you reconstruct the image by interpolating it, the
resulting image will significantly less resolution than the nominal
pixel count. I don't think there is anything to debate about this.
Alfred Molon
> the colour information is interpolated but the spatial detail is not.
> the human eye is not as sensitive to colour detail, so the system works
> well.
And that is 100% irrelevant. We are discussing what resolution you are
able to capture with a Bayer sensor, not whether the human eye can see
that resolution or not.
> what type of 'random colour image' ?? is it a generated pattern or an
> actual photograph? sampled how? what bayer algorithm? have you
> actually done this or are you speculating?
Try it our yourself with a computer generated random colour image. If
your sampling sensor was full RGB per pixel it would be able to
correctly reconstruct the image.
What is true however is that real world scenes are not 100% random,
which is why Bayer sensors perform quite well and manage to deliver
images which have an effective resolution in the range of 60%-70% of the
nominal pixel count (my guesstimate, Foveon puts that figure down to
25%).
It is the same principle for which JPEG compression works quite well -
because the entropy in real world is limited. But if you compressed with
JPEG a random image the compression performance would be extremely poor.
Alfred Molon
Ah now it is sliced ;-)
Regarding the well capacity that is another discussion. I could imagine
that they find a way to increase substantially the well capacity with
some 3D pixel structure or that the well capacity becomes irrelevant if
you sample the same pixel multiple times. But this is of course just
speculation - I'm not that expert.
David J Taylor
> In article <IYQSk.303$jZ1...@flpi144.ffdc.sbc.com>, SMS says...
>
>> Ah, now I see where you're confused. A digital photograph isn't a
>> random color image. Yes, I'm sure you could create a test image
>> where you'd see a 50% increase in perceived resolution.
>
> There is no confusion at all here. It is very obvious that if you
> sample an image with a sensor which is limited to one colour
> component per pixel and then you reconstruct the image by
> interpolating it, the resulting image will significantly less
> resolution than the nominal pixel count. I don't think there is
> anything to debate about this.
But the eye doesn't /need/ that much colour resolution as it does
luminance resolution. So an image with greater colour resolution than
another may not actually appear that much better.
David
nospam
Molon <alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > It is not split. The pixel still has the same area.
> >
> > it has the same area, but it's sliced into three layers, each of which
> > has a lower well capacity.
>
> Ah now it is sliced ;-)
>
> Regarding the well capacity that is another discussion.
it's the same discussion. lower well capacity means more noise, and
it's a drawback to having a full colour sensor.
nospam
Molon <alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <121120082359366929%nos...@nospam.invalid>, nospam says...
>
> > the colour information is interpolated but the spatial detail is not.
> > the human eye is not as sensitive to colour detail, so the system works
> > well.
>
> And that is 100% irrelevant. We are discussing what resolution you are
> able to capture with a Bayer sensor, not whether the human eye can see
> that resolution or not.
it's completely relevant. if you can't see the difference, who cares?
why are you taking photos, if not to look at them?
> It is the same principle for which JPEG compression works quite well -
> because the entropy in real world is limited. But if you compressed with
> JPEG a random image the compression performance would be extremely poor.
bayer is designed to work on real world images for human viewing. if
you substitute a computer generated test pattern and then analyze it,
you will find problems. nothing is perfect. however, those problems
don't matter in actual real world photography of real world images.
Alfred Molon
Taylor says...
> But the eye doesn't /need/ that much colour resolution as it does
> luminance resolution. So an image with greater colour resolution than
> another may not actually appear that much better.
That all depends on how close you are to the image, if you make
enlargements etc. Also, colour aliasing hurts and that is an issue with
Bayer sensors because you can't choose a proper AA filter.
David J Taylor
> In article <IMXSk.87137$E41....@text.news.virginmedia.com>, David J
> Taylor says...
>
>> But the eye doesn't /need/ that much colour resolution as it does
>> luminance resolution. So an image with greater colour resolution
>> than another may not actually appear that much better.
>
> That all depends on how close you are to the image, if you make
> enlargements etc. Also, colour aliasing hurts and that is an issue
> with Bayer sensors because you can't choose a proper AA filter.
Yes, that's why I said "may" - it depends on viewing circumstances, image
size, room brightness etc. etc.
The general feeling seems to be that the compromises in the Foveon are
worse than the compromises in Bayer at the moment. Perhaps when those
problems are ironed out Bayer will become a distant memory....
Cheers,
David
John S. Payne
<david-...@blueyonder.neither-this-part.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote:
>The general feeling seems to be that the compromises in the Foveon are
>worse than the compromises in Bayer at the moment. Perhaps when those
>problems are ironed out Bayer will become a distant memory....
Please be so kind as to qualify that statement with "YOUR general feeling seems
to be that ..."
Never will a resident-troll ever make a statement that doesn't imply the
inclusion of the opinions of everyone on the planet to try to bolster their own
psychotic delusions.
John Navas
<jsp...@whatsamattau.edu> wrote in
<v6soh4955jqs0hkuf...@4ax.com>:
>Never will a resident-troll ever make a statement that doesn't imply the
>inclusion of the opinions of everyone on the planet to try to bolster their own
>psychotic delusions.
Insults are a sure sign of a bankrupt position. ;)
--
Best regards,
John Navas
[PLEASE NOTE: Ads belong *only* in rec.photo.marketplace.digital, as per
<http://bobatkins.photo.net/info/charter.htm> <http://rpdfaq.50megs.com/>]
nospam
Molon <alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > But the eye doesn't /need/ that much colour resolution as it does
> > luminance resolution. So an image with greater colour resolution than
> > another may not actually appear that much better.
>
> That all depends on how close you are to the image, if you make
> enlargements etc.
not really. human vision resolves colour *much* less than it does
luminance.
> Also, colour aliasing hurts and that is an issue with
> Bayer sensors because you can't choose a proper AA filter.
luminance aliasing is an issue with sigma's cameras because they omit
the anti-alias filter. however, it is not quite as ugly as the false
colour patterns in bayer.
Alfred Molon
Taylor says...
> The general feeling seems to be that the compromises in the Foveon are
> worse than the compromises in Bayer at the moment. Perhaps when those
> problems are ironed out Bayer will become a distant memory....
That is your personal opinion.
Alfred Molon
> not really. human vision resolves colour *much* less than it does
> luminance.
And if you are close enough to the image you can see the colour
differences.
> however, it is not quite as ugly as the false
> colour patterns in bayer.
Finally one point in which we are in agreement.
nospam
Molon <alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > The general feeling seems to be that the compromises in the Foveon are
> > worse than the compromises in Bayer at the moment. Perhaps when those
> > problems are ironed out Bayer will become a distant memory....
>
> That is your personal opinion.
it's also the opinion of just about the entire photographic industry.
nospam
Molon <alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > not really. human vision resolves colour *much* less than it does
> > luminance.
>
> And if you are close enough to the image you can see the colour
> differences.
which confirms that your eye can't resolve it that well. you can also
read the bottom line of an eye chart if you are close enough too.
J. Clarke
I find it telling that Sigma has chosen not to provide a DSLR to
dpreview for testing. One suspects that since it is on a Nikon body a
direct side by side comparison with a current Nikon using the same
lenses will show how badly it sucks.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Glen Cartwright
wrote:
>And neither will you... Thanks for admitting it publicly! One way you
>could make the voices stop is to wrap your lips around the barrel of the
>gun by the door, and pull the trigger... The last thing through your
>mind will be the bullet. Do have a nice day!
>
Dear Resident-Troll,
Your post is completely off-topic. Here are some topics that befit this
newsgroup. Please consider them for future discussions and posts:
1. P&S cameras can have more seamless zoom range than any DSLR glass in
existence. (E.g. 9mm f2.7 - 1248mm f/3.5.) There are now some excellent
wide-angle and telephoto (tel-extender) add-on lenses for many makes and models
of P&S cameras. Add either or both of these small additions to your photography
gear and, with some of the new super-zoom P&S cameras, you can far surpass any
range of focal-lengths and apertures that are available or will ever be made for
larger format cameras.
2. P&S cameras can have much wider apertures at longer focal lengths than any
DSLR glass in existence. (E.g. 549mm f/2.4 and 1248mm f/3.5) when used with
high-quality tel-extenders, which by the way, do not reduce the lens' original
aperture one bit. Only DSLRs suffer from that problem due to the manner in which
their tele-converters work. They can also have higher quality full-frame
180-degree circular fisheye and intermediate super-wide-angle views than any
DSLR and its glass in existence. Some excellent fish-eye adapters can be added
to your P&S camera which do not impart any chromatic-aberration nor
edge-softness. When used with a super-zoom P&S camera this allows you to
seamlessly go from as wide as a 9mm (or even wider) 35mm equivalent focal-length
up to the wide-angle setting of the camera's own lens.
3. P&S smaller sensor cameras can and do have wider dynamic range than larger
sensor cameras E.g. a 1/2.5" sized sensor can have a 10.3EV Dynamic Range vs. an
APS-C's typical 7.0-8.0EV Dynamic Range. One quick example:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3142/2861257547_9a7ceaf3a1_o.jpg
4. P&S cameras are cost efficient. Due to the smaller (but excellent) sensors
used in many of them today, the lenses for these cameras are much smaller.
Smaller lenses are easier to manufacture to exacting curvatures and are more
easily corrected for aberrations than larger glass used for DSLRs. This also
allows them to perform better at all apertures rather than DSLR glass which is
only good for one aperture setting per lens. Side by side tests prove that P&S
glass can out-resolve even the best DSLR glass ever made. After all is said and
done, you will spend 1/4th to 1/50th the price that you would have to in order
to get comparable performance in a DSLR camera. When you buy a DSLR you are
investing in a body that will require expensive lenses, hand-grips, external
flash units, heavy tripods, more expensive larger filters, etc. etc. The
outrageous costs of owning a DSLR add up fast after that initial DSLR body
purchase. Camera companies count on this, all the way to their banks.
5. P&S cameras are lightweight and convenient. With just one P&S camera plus one
small wide-angle adapter and one small telephoto adapter weighing just a couple
pounds, you have the same amount of zoom range as would require over 10 to 20
pounds of DSLR body and lenses. You can carry the whole P&S kit in one roomy
pocket of a wind-breaker or jacket. The DSLR kit would require a sturdy
backpack. You also don't require a massive tripod. Large tripods are required to
stabilize the heavy and unbalanced mass of the larger DSLR and its massive
lenses. A P&S camera, being so light, can be used on some of the most
inexpensive, compact, and lightweight tripods with excellent results.
6. P&S cameras are silent. For the more common snap-shooter/photographer, you
will not be barred from using your camera at public events, stage-performances,
and ceremonies. Or when trying to capture candid shots, you won't so easily
alert all those within a block around, from the obnoxious noise that your DSLR
is making, that you are capturing anyone's images. For the more dedicated
wildlife photographer a P&S camera will not endanger your life when
photographing potentially dangerous animals by alerting them to your presence.
7. Some P&S cameras can run the revolutionary CHDK software on them, which
allows for lightning-fast motion detection (literally, lightning fast 45ms
response time, able to capture lightning strikes automatically) so that you may
capture more elusive and shy animals (in still-frame and video) where any
evidence of your presence at all might prevent their appearance. Without the
need of carrying a tethered laptop along or any other hardware into remote
areas--which only limits your range, distance, and time allotted for bringing
back that one-of-a-kind image. It also allows for unattended time-lapse
photography for days and weeks at a time, so that you may capture those unusual
or intriguing subject-studies in nature. E.g. a rare slime-mold's propagation,
that you happened to find in a mountain-ravine, 10-days hike from the nearest
laptop or other time-lapse hardware. (The wealth of astounding new features that
CHDK brings to the creative-table of photography are too extensive to begin to
list them all here. See http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK )
8. P&S cameras can have shutter speeds up to 1/40,000th of a second. See:
http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CameraFeatures Allowing you to capture fast subject
motion in nature (e.g. insect and hummingbird wings) WITHOUT the need of
artificial and image destroying flash, using available light alone. Nor will
their wing shapes be unnaturally distorted from the focal-plane shutter
distortions imparted in any fast moving objects, as when photographed with all
DSLRs. (See focal-plane-shutter-distortions example-image link in #10.)
9. P&S cameras can have full-frame flash-sync up to and including shutter-speeds
of 1/40,000th of a second. E.g.
http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/Samples:_High-Speed_Shutter_%26_Flash-Sync without
the use of any expensive and specialized focal-plane shutter flash-units that
must strobe for the full duration of the shutter's curtain to pass over the
frame. The other downside to those kinds of flash units, is that the
light-output is greatly reduced the faster the shutter speed. Any shutter speed
used that is faster than your camera's X-Sync speed is cutting off some of the
flash output. Not so when using a leaf-shutter. The full intensity of the flash
is recorded no matter the shutter speed used. Unless, as in the case of CHDK
capable cameras where the camera's shutter speed can even be faster than the
lightning-fast single burst from a flash unit. E.g. If the flash's duration is
1/10,000 of a second, and your CHDK camera's shutter is set to 1/20,000 of a
second, then it will only record half of that flash output. P&S cameras also
don't require any expensive and dedicated external flash unit. Any of them may
be used with any flash unit made by using an inexpensive slave-trigger that can
compensate for any automated pre-flash conditions. Example:
http://www.adorama.com/SZ23504.html
10. P&S cameras do not suffer from focal-plane shutter drawbacks and
limitations. Causing camera shake, moving-subject image distortions
(focal-plane-shutter distortions, e.g.
http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/chdk/images//4/46/Focalplane_shutter_distortions.jpg
do note the distorted tail-rotor too and its shadow on the ground, 90-degrees
from one another), last-century-slow flash-sync, obnoxiously loud slapping
mirrors and shutter curtains, shorter mechanical life, easily damaged, expensive
repair costs, etc.
11. When doing wildlife photography in remote and rugged areas and harsh
environments, or even when the amateur snap-shooter is trying to take their
vacation photos on a beach or dusty intersection on some city street, you're not
worrying about trying to change lenses in time to get that shot (fewer missed
shots), dropping one in the mud, lake, surf, or on concrete while you do, and
not worrying about ruining all the rest of your photos that day from having
gotten dust & crud on the sensor. For the adventurous photographer you're no
longer weighed down by many many extra pounds of unneeded glass, allowing you to
carry more of the important supplies, like food and water, allowing you to trek
much further than you've ever been able to travel before with your old D/SLR
bricks.
12. Smaller sensors and the larger apertures available allow for the deep DOF
required for excellent macro-photography, WITHOUT the need of any image
destroying, subject irritating, natural-look destroying flash. No DSLR on the
planet can compare in the quality of available-light macro photography that can
be accomplished with nearly any smaller-sensor P&S camera.
13. P&S cameras include video, and some even provide for CD-quality stereo audio
recordings, so that you might capture those rare events in nature where a
still-frame alone could never prove all those "scientists" wrong. E.g. recording
the paw-drumming communication patterns of eusocial-living field-mice. With your
P&S video-capable camera in your pocket you won't miss that once-in-a-lifetime
chance to record some unexpected event, like the passage of a bright meteor in
the sky in daytime, a mid-air explosion, or any other newsworthy event. Imagine
the gaping hole in our history of the Hindenberg if there were no film cameras
there at the time. The mystery of how it exploded would have never been solved.
Or the amateur 8mm film of the shooting of President Kennedy. Your video-ready
P&S camera being with you all the time might capture something that will be a
valuable part of human history one day.
14. P&S cameras have 100% viewfinder coverage that exactly matches your final
image. No important bits lost, and no chance of ruining your composition by
trying to "guess" what will show up in the final image. With the ability to
overlay live RGB-histograms, and under/over-exposure area alerts (and dozens of
other important shooting data) directly on your electronic viewfinder display
you are also not going to guess if your exposure might be right this time. Nor
do you have to remove your eye from the view of your subject to check some
external LCD histogram display, ruining your chances of getting that perfect
shot when it happens.
15. P&S cameras can and do focus in lower-light (which is common in natural
settings) than any DSLRs in existence, due to electronic viewfinders and sensors
that can be increased in gain for framing and focusing purposes as light-levels
drop. Some P&S cameras can even take images (AND videos) in total darkness by
using IR illumination alone. (See: Sony) No other multi-purpose cameras are
capable of taking still-frame and videos of nocturnal wildlife as easily nor as
well. Shooting videos and still-frames of nocturnal animals in the total-dark,
without disturbing their natural behavior by the use of flash, from 90 ft. away
with a 549mm f/2.4 lens is not only possible, it's been done, many times, by
myself. (An interesting and true story: one wildlife photographer was nearly
stomped to death by an irate moose that attacked where it saw his camera's flash
come from.)
16. Without the need to use flash in all situations, and a P&S's nearly 100%
silent operation, you are not disturbing your wildlife, neither scaring it away
nor changing their natural behavior with your existence. Nor, as previously
mentioned, drawing its defensive behavior in your direction. You are recording
nature as it is, and should be, not some artificial human-changed distortion of
reality and nature.
17. Nature photography requires that the image be captured with the greatest
degree of accuracy possible. NO focal-plane shutter in existence, with its
inherent focal-plane-shutter distortions imparted on any moving subject will
EVER capture any moving subject in nature 100% accurately. A leaf-shutter or
electronic shutter, as is found in ALL P&S cameras, will capture your moving
subject in nature with 100% accuracy. Your P&S photography will no longer lead a
biologist nor other scientist down another DSLR-distorted path of non-reality.
18. Some P&S cameras have shutter-lag times that are even shorter than all the
popular DSLRs, due to the fact that they don't have to move those agonizingly
slow and loud mirrors and shutter curtains in time before the shot is recorded.
In the hands of an experienced photographer that will always rely on prefocusing
their camera, there is no hit & miss auto-focusing that happens on all
auto-focus systems, DSLRs included. This allows you to take advantage of the
faster shutter response times of P&S cameras. Any pro worth his salt knows that
if you really want to get every shot, you don't depend on automatic anything in
any camera.
19. An electronic viewfinder, as exists in all P&S cameras, can accurately relay
the camera's shutter-speed in real-time. Giving you a 100% accurate preview of
what your final subject is going to look like when shot at 3 seconds or
1/20,000th of a second. Your soft waterfall effects, or the crisp sharp outlines
of your stopped-motion hummingbird wings will be 100% accurately depicted in
your viewfinder before you even record the shot. What you see in a P&S camera is
truly what you get. You won't have to guess in advance at what shutter speed to
use to obtain those artistic effects or those scientifically accurate nature
studies that you require or that your client requires. When testing CHDK P&S
cameras that could have shutter speeds as fast as 1/40,000th of a second, I was
amazed that I could half-depress the shutter and watch in the viewfinder as a
Dremel-Drill's 30,000 rpm rotating disk was stopped in crisp detail in real
time, without ever having taken an example shot yet. Similarly true when
lowering shutter speeds for milky-water effects when shooting rapids and falls,
instantly seeing the effect in your viewfinder. Poor DSLR-trolls will never
realize what they are missing with their anciently slow focal-plane shutters and
wholly inaccurate optical viewfinders.
20. P&S cameras can obtain the very same bokeh (out of focus foreground and
background) as any DSLR by just increasing your focal length, through use of its
own built-in super-zoom lens or attaching a high-quality telextender on the
front. Just back up from your subject more than you usually would with a DSLR.
Framing and the included background is relative to the subject at the time and
has nothing at all to do with the kind of camera and lens in use. Your f/ratio
(which determines your depth-of-field), is a computation of focal-length divided
by aperture diameter. Increase the focal-length and you make your DOF shallower.
No different than opening up the aperture to accomplish the same. The two
methods are identically related where DOF is concerned.
21. P&S cameras will have perfectly fine noise-free images at lower ISOs with
just as much resolution as any DSLR camera. Experienced Pros grew up on ISO25
and ISO64 film all their lives. They won't even care if their P&S camera can't
go above ISO400 without noise. An added bonus is that the P&S camera can have
larger apertures at longer focal-lengths than any DSLR in existence. The time
when you really need a fast lens to prevent camera-shake that gets amplified at
those focal-lengths. Even at low ISOs you can take perfectly fine hand-held
images at super-zoom settings. Whereas the DSLR, with its very small apertures
at long focal lengths require ISOs above 3200 to obtain the same results. They
need high ISOs, you don't. If you really require low-noise high ISOs, there are
some excellent models of Fuji P&S cameras that do have noise-free images up to
ISO1600 and more.
22. Don't for one minute think that the price of your camera will in any way
determine the quality of your photography. Any of the newer cameras of around
$100 or more are plenty good for nearly any talented photographer today. IF they
have talent to begin with. A REAL pro can take an award winning photograph with
a cardboard Brownie Box camera made a century ago. If you can't take excellent
photos on a P&S camera then you won't be able to get good photos on a DSLR
either. Never blame your inability to obtain a good photograph on the kind of
camera that you own. Those who claim they NEED a DSLR are only fooling
themselves and all others. These are the same people that buy a new camera every
year, each time thinking, "Oh, if I only had the right camera, a better camera,
better lenses, faster lenses, then I will be a great photographer!" Camera
company's love these people. They'll never be able to get a camera that will
make their photography better, because they never were a good photographer to
begin with. The irony is that by them thinking that they only need to throw
money at the problem, they'll never look in the mirror to see what the real
problem is. They'll NEVER become good photographers. Perhaps this is why these
self-proclaimed "pros" hate P&S cameras so much. P&S cameras instantly reveal to
them their piss-poor photography skills.
23. Have you ever had the fun of showing some of your exceptional P&S
photography to some self-proclaimed "Pro" who uses $30,000 worth of camera gear.
They are so impressed that they must know how you did it. You smile and tell
them, "Oh, I just use a $150 P&S camera." Don't you just love the look on their
face? A half-life of self-doubt, the realization of all that lost money, and a
sadness just courses through every fiber of their being. Wondering why they
can't get photographs as good after they spent all that time and money. Get good
on your P&S camera and you too can enjoy this fun experience.
24. Did we mention portability yet? I think we did, but it is worth mentioning
the importance of this a few times. A camera in your pocket that is instantly
ready to get any shot during any part of the day will get more award-winning
photographs than that DSLR gear that's sitting back at home, collecting dust,
and waiting to be loaded up into that expensive back-pack or camera bag, hoping
that you'll lug it around again some day.
25. A good P&S camera is a good theft deterrent. When traveling you are not
advertising to the world that you are carrying $20,000 around with you. That's
like having a sign on your back saying, "PLEASE MUG ME! I'M THIS STUPID AND I
DESERVE IT!" Keep a small P&S camera in your pocket and only take it out when
needed. You'll have a better chance of returning home with all your photos. And
should you accidentally lose your P&S camera you're not out $20,000. They are
inexpensive to replace.
There are many more reasons to add to this list but this should be more than
enough for even the most unaware person to realize that P&S cameras are just
better, all around. No doubt about it.
The phenomenon of everyone yelling "You NEED a DSLR!" can be summed up in just
one short phrase:
"If even 5 billion people are saying and doing a foolish thing, it remains a
foolish thing."
Carl Avery
Please cite all occurrences of the "entire photographic industry" that support
this singular opinion of yours. Thanks.
It's already been proven that you don't even know how to determine resolution on
a sensor. Ergo: your own (trollish) opinion is highly suspect. I'd now give your
opinion on any matters about a .000001% degree of authenticity.
nospam
<jclarke...@cox.net> wrote:
> I find it telling that Sigma has chosen not to provide a DSLR to
> dpreview for testing.
they did provide one and dpreview started testing it last year. the
official reason why it was never completed is because the backlog was
huge (compounded by moving the studio) and there were more interesting
cameras to review (40d, d300, d3, m8, etc.). based on other reviews, i
suspect the sd14 would not have fared that well, and dpreview has
stated they don't waste their time on crappy cameras.
> One suspects that since it is on a Nikon body a
> direct side by side comparison with a current Nikon using the same
> lenses will show how badly it sucks.
the sd14 is not related to a nikon body at all.
perhaps you are thinking of the fuji s5 which is a nikon d200 chassis
with a fuji sensor and electronics. sigma should take that approach;
at least the camera side of things would be decent.
albert johansen
>nospam wrote:
>> In article <MPG.2386b8da5...@news.supernews.com>, Alfred
>> Molon <alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> The general feeling seems to be that the compromises in the Foveon
>>>> are worse than the compromises in Bayer at the moment. Perhaps
>>>> when those problems are ironed out Bayer will become a distant
>>>> memory....
>>>
>>> That is your personal opinion.
>>
>> it's also the opinion of just about the entire photographic
>> industry.
>
>I find it telling that Sigma has chosen not to provide a DSLR to
>dpreview for testing. One suspects that since it is on a Nikon body a
>direct side by side comparison with a current Nikon using the same
>lenses will show how badly it sucks.
>
>--
Actually, that can give Sigma more credibility. The testers at dpreview are
fairly well-known idiots, as proved by their extensive errors in all their
testing procedures. If I had made a new camera design the LAST place I would
ever want to have it reviewed was dpreview. They can't even hold a camera steady
to properly test IS capabilities on cameras. They also can't properly test any
shutter speeds, as proved time and time again. Another point is that Sigma
probably isn't willing to pay for the advertising to an unbiased failable
reviewer, as do all the other corporations.
Dpreview's test biases toward certain corporations is well-known history. It's
not difficult to suppose why that happens. You did not know any of this?!?
nospam
<carl...@hiddenfromspam.com> wrote:
> >> > The general feeling seems to be that the compromises in the Foveon are
> >> > worse than the compromises in Bayer at the moment. Perhaps when those
> >> > problems are ironed out Bayer will become a distant memory....
> >>
> >> That is your personal opinion.
> >
> >it's also the opinion of just about the entire photographic industry.
>
> Please cite all occurrences of the "entire photographic industry" that support
> this singular opinion of yours. Thanks.
sigma sold about 50,000 cameras in the last six years (compared to
millions for the rest), foveon only landed one major customer in that
time, and had sigma not bought them, they'd be out of business.
Mark Thomas
> On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 17:28:33 -0500, "J. Clarke" <jclarke...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> nospam wrote:
>>> In article <MPG.2386b8da5...@news.supernews.com>, Alfred
>>> Molon <alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> The general feeling seems to be that the compromises in the Foveon
>>>>> are worse than the compromises in Bayer at the moment. Perhaps
>>>>> when those problems are ironed out Bayer will become a distant
>>>>> memory....
>>>> That is your personal opinion.
>>> it's also the opinion of just about the entire photographic
>>> industry.
>> I find it telling that Sigma has chosen not to provide a DSLR to
>> dpreview for testing. One suspects that since it is on a Nikon body a
>> direct side by side comparison with a current Nikon using the same
>> lenses will show how badly it sucks.
>>
>> --
>
>
> Dpreview's test biases toward certain corporations is well-known history. It's
> not difficult to suppose why that happens. You did not know any of this?!?
You did not know it is NOT a Nikon body? That's 4 amateur errors in the
space of about 36 hours. You really do need to go out into the real
world - one day.
PhilAdler
wrote:
>Deer Name Changing TROLL,
>
>Go ahead eat the bullet... you know it's the right thing to do!
SMS
> I find it telling that Sigma has chosen not to provide a DSLR to
> dpreview for testing. One suspects that since it is on a Nikon body a
> direct side by side comparison with a current Nikon using the same
> lenses will show how badly it sucks.
Sigma is terrified of an impartial review. They got dinged in Consumer
Reports for the lowest quality of any D-SLR with the SD14. The SD15 has
the same 4.6 megapixel sensor.
Of course DPReview is free to buy an SD15, but why bother?
You've got to wonder why Sigma is so obsessed with building a D-SLR.
They have a nice profitable business selling lenses, and you'd think
they'd have got the message after the flops of the SD9, SD10, and SD14
that there's no market for a low-resolution D-SLR.
GrantWood
wrote:
>"The pendulum of the mind oscillates between sense and nonsense,
> not between right and wrong." - Carl Jung
Let us all know when your mind has swung back into the "sense" column.
trevor clemmens
wrote:
>Awww... Muffin did *I* ask topical questions YOU don't have answers for?
>
>
>Thanks for proving my point. Now perhaps you can answer this... which
>member of the "Wit" family are you?
>
>
>
>Half(wit), Dim(wit), or Nit(wit)?
>
>
> - JT
>thanks you for playing do have a nice day
Mr. Strat
<nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> <http://www.sigma-photo.co.jp/english/news/info_081111.htm>
>
> i suppose sigma would lose more if foveon actually shut down...
Just pissing away more money on a crappy product so that Sigma can
produce more crappy products.
Mr. Strat
Molon <alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <101120081828405505%nos...@nospam.invalid>, nospam says...
> > <http://www.sigma-photo.co.jp/english/news/info_081111.htm>
> >
> > i suppose sigma would lose more if foveon actually shut down...
>
> Hopefully we'll finally see a Foveon sensor with more pixel count. 12 or
> 15MP would be fine.
So more pixels would probably yield better Homer Simpson skin tones.
Mr. Strat
<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> The real problem is that they never got silicon color separation to work
> well enough. It was a cool concept, but it was very difficult to fabricate.
>
> Foveon was planning to go after other markets with their sensors,
> markets where image quality and color accuracy were not so critical. The
> good thing about their sensors is that they didn't need the most modern
> fab to make them.
The bad thing is that the images looked like shit.
Mr. Strat
> Please cite all occurrences of the "entire photographic industry" that support
> this singular opinion of yours. Thanks.
Their cameras are a piece of shit and everybody knows it. The Foveon
thing just doesn't work.
Paul Furman
> Alfred Molon wrote:
>> In article <IYQSk.303$jZ1...@flpi144.ffdc.sbc.com>, SMS says...
>>
>>> Ah, now I see where you're confused. A digital photograph isn't a
>>> random color image. Yes, I'm sure you could create a test image
>>> where you'd see a 50% increase in perceived resolution.
>>
>> There is no confusion at all here. It is very obvious that if you
>> sample an image with a sensor which is limited to one colour
>> component per pixel and then you reconstruct the image by
>> interpolating it, the resulting image will significantly less
>> resolution than the nominal pixel count. I don't think there is
>> anything to debate about this.
>
> But the eye doesn't /need/ that much colour resolution as it does
> luminance resolution. So an image with greater colour resolution than
> another may not actually appear that much better.
I've tested this by shrinking the colors only by a huge amount then
sizing up & applying that to an original B&W layer and it is indeed
amazing how little impact it has. They have a point but probably
exaggerated... ultimately the luminance detail is real important and the
foveon has a lot less of that.
--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com
all google groups messages filtered due to spam
RichA
"Mr. Strat" <r...@nospam.techline.com> wrote in message
news:151120082210268881%r...@nospam.techline.com...
Most people are still astonished they're releasing an update to the SD15
DSLR, a commercial failure of epic proportions.
Mark Thomas
Was this using RGB, Paul?
It's interesting (but I'm not sure how valid..) to do this in LAB mode.
On a quite detailed image (cityscape and fairly fine grass detail in the
foreground), I initially down-/up-sized the a&b channels by a factor of
3 - those channels looked quite blurred, but when I looked at the full
image, I would be kidding myself to say it was detectable at all!
I had to reduce them by a factor of 5 (five) before I could truly say it
was beginning to show problems.. Maybe it's just my low standards and
poor eyesight, but it makes me wonder if the RGGB sensor really makes
that much sense. Anyone know how to make LAB sensors? You wouldn't
need many A's or B's at all, so it would have great mono resolution.. (O:
Happy to post results if anyone wants to see - they were only fairly
small images, but big enough to show the effect (or lack)..
David J Taylor
> David J Taylor wrote:
>> But the eye doesn't /need/ that much colour resolution as it does
>> luminance resolution. So an image with greater colour resolution
>> than another may not actually appear that much better.
>
> I've tested this by shrinking the colors only by a huge amount then
> sizing up & applying that to an original B&W layer and it is indeed
> amazing how little impact it has. They have a point but probably
> exaggerated... ultimately the luminance detail is real important and
> the foveon has a lot less of that.
Thanks for testing, Paul. All this was eastablished 50 years ago when
colour TV was first introduced!
David
Alfred Molon
says...
> I've tested this by shrinking the colors only by a huge amount then
> sizing up & applying that to an original B&W layer and it is indeed
> amazing how little impact it has. They have a point but probably
> exaggerated... ultimately the luminance detail is real important and the
> foveon has a lot less of that.
At least the luminance information in a full colour sensor is correct,
while the luminance information in a Bayer sensor contains lots of
errors, caused by the missing colour information and the interpolazion
process. If you only capture one colour component per pixel you won't be
able to accurately reconstruct the luminance data, especially in image
areas where you have pixel level colour changes.
--
Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0 and E3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
David J Taylor
> In article <ZfPTk.6279$as4....@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com>, Paul Furman
> says...
>
>> I've tested this by shrinking the colors only by a huge amount then
>> sizing up & applying that to an original B&W layer and it is indeed
>> amazing how little impact it has. They have a point but probably
>> exaggerated... ultimately the luminance detail is real important and
>> the foveon has a lot less of that.
>
> At least the luminance information in a full colour sensor is correct,
> while the luminance information in a Bayer sensor contains lots of
> errors, caused by the missing colour information and the interpolazion
> process. If you only capture one colour component per pixel you won't
> be able to accurately reconstruct the luminance data, especially in
> image areas where you have pixel level colour changes.
The Foveon may have less accurate large-area luminance values because the
silicon colour filters are not as well defined as in a Bayer matrix.
So you have a choice - capturing RGB pixels poorly, or capturing three
times as many pixels in Bayer matrix. Neither is perfect. Which is
better for your needs? You decide, and buy your kit accordingly!
David
Paul Furman
> Paul Furman wrote:
>
>> I've tested this by shrinking the colors only by a huge amount then
>> sizing up & applying that to an original B&W layer and it is indeed
>> amazing how little impact it has. They have a point but probably
>> exaggerated... ultimately the luminance detail is real important and
>> the foveon has a lot less of that.
>>
>
> Was this using RGB, Paul?
Yep, this was probably a year ago or more so I don't recall other
specifics. There were certainly places where the color detail was messed
up but not noticeable unless I looked for it. This made me curious if
there was a way to use this for web compression, where the luminance was
say 400 pixels wide & RGB 100 pixels, then reassemble when viewing.
David J Taylor
> Mark Thomas wrote:
>> Paul Furman wrote:
>>
>>> I've tested this by shrinking the colors only by a huge amount then
>>> sizing up & applying that to an original B&W layer and it is indeed
>>> amazing how little impact it has. They have a point but probably
>>> exaggerated... ultimately the luminance detail is real important and
>>> the foveon has a lot less of that.
>>>
>>
>> Was this using RGB, Paul?
>
> Yep, this was probably a year ago or more so I don't recall other
> specifics. There were certainly places where the color detail was
> messed up but not noticeable unless I looked for it. This made me
> curious if there was a way to use this for web compression, where the
> luminance was say 400 pixels wide & RGB 100 pixels, then reassemble
> when viewing.
As you may know, in a JPEG, the colour difference channels are typically
sampled half as frequently as the luminance channel. You can set the
ratios in some software. So your typical 400-pixel wide JPEG has but 200
pixels of colour - a quarter of the area and half the linear resolution.
Cheers,
David
nospam
<markt@_don't_spam_marktphoto.com> wrote:
> It's interesting (but I'm not sure how valid..) to do this in LAB mode.
it's very valid. if you convert the image to lab, then blur the a/b
channels, you won't be able to see a difference unless the blur is huge
(like a 5-10 pixel radius). however, if you blur the luminance
channel, you'll see a difference with the slightest amount of blur.
nospam
Molon <alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> At least the luminance information in a full colour sensor is correct,
> while the luminance information in a Bayer sensor contains lots of
> errors, caused by the missing colour information and the interpolazion
> process.
'lots' ? ever measure it? it's not that much except in extreme edge
cases that don't occur in the real world. also, bayer sensors have a
*lot* more pixels, so even with a small error they're still ahead of
the game.
> If you only capture one colour component per pixel you won't be
> able to accurately reconstruct the luminance data, especially in image
> areas where you have pixel level colour changes.
you can't reproduce pixel level changes no matter what you do because
of aliasing.
Mr. Strat
<ob...@haslittletime.com> wrote:
> Most people are still astonished they're releasing an update to the SD15
> DSLR, a commercial failure of epic proportions.
Maybe they need the tax write-off.
Alfred Molon
Taylor says...
> The Foveon may have less accurate large-area luminance values because the
> silicon colour filters are not as well defined as in a Bayer matrix.
I was talking about a full-colour sensor, not about the Foveon. You
could for instance have a camera with a scanning back, where the
scanning back captures the full RGB information for each pixel.
> So you have a choice - capturing RGB pixels poorly, or capturing three
> times as many pixels in Bayer matrix. Neither is perfect. Which is
> better for your needs? You decide, and buy your kit accordingly!
It't not the same thing. It's big difference whether you capture just
one colour component per pixel all the full colour information.
Since pixels can't get much smaller, they will have to get better. And
that means finally capturing the full colour information per pixel and
stop throwing away 2/3 of all incoming photons.
Alfred Molon
> 'lots' ? ever measure it? it's not that much except in extreme edge
> cases that don't occur in the real world. also, bayer sensors have a
> *lot* more pixels, so even with a small error they're still ahead of
> the game.
Try the exercise I mentioned - sampling a random colour image with in
Bayer pattern and then reconstructing it.
> > If you only capture one colour component per pixel you won't be
> > able to accurately reconstruct the luminance data, especially in image
> > areas where you have pixel level colour changes.
>
> you can't reproduce pixel level changes no matter what you do because
> of aliasing.
That depends on the AA filter. In any case, the problem with Bayer
sensors is that the colour resolution is only half of the luminance
resolution. Either you dimension the AA filter for the colour
resolution, thereby avoiding the aliasing but throwing away a lot of
image information or you dimension it for the luminance resolution and
have a lot of colour aliasing. It's one big mess. The sampling unit in a
Bayer sensor is not well defined: is it one individual pixel or one RGGB
block of pixels?
J. Clarke
> In article <161120081026114401%nos...@nospam.invalid>, nospam
> says...
>
>> 'lots' ? ever measure it? it's not that much except in extreme
>> edge
>> cases that don't occur in the real world. also, bayer sensors have
>> a
>> *lot* more pixels, so even with a small error they're still ahead
>> of
>> the game.
>
> Try the exercise I mentioned - sampling a random colour image with
> in
> Bayer pattern and then reconstructing it.
Why does a "random colour image" have relvance to the real world of
photography?
Can you describe this "random colour image" in such a manner that
different observers can achieve repeatable results?
>>> If you only capture one colour component per pixel you won't be
>>> able to accurately reconstruct the luminance data, especially in
>>> image areas where you have pixel level colour changes.
>>
>> you can't reproduce pixel level changes no matter what you do
>> because
>> of aliasing.
>
> That depends on the AA filter. In any case, the problem with Bayer
> sensors is that the colour resolution is only half of the luminance
> resolution. Either you dimension the AA filter for the colour
> resolution, thereby avoiding the aliasing but throwing away a lot of
> image information or you dimension it for the luminance resolution
> and
> have a lot of colour aliasing. It's one big mess. The sampling unit
> in a Bayer sensor is not well defined: is it one individual pixel or
> one RGGB block of pixels?
So show us a camera that we can buy that in the real world works
better than the ones with bayer sensors. If you can't, then what
purpose to you believe to be served by your continued pontificating?
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
J. Clarke
> In article <S5STk.88253$E41....@text.news.virginmedia.com>, David
> J
> Taylor says...
>
>> The Foveon may have less accurate large-area luminance values
>> because the silicon colour filters are not as well defined as in a
>> Bayer matrix.
>
> I was talking about a full-colour sensor, not about the Foveon.
So where can one buy this full-colour non-Foveon sensor?
> You
> could for instance have a camera with a scanning back, where the
> scanning back captures the full RGB information for each pixel.
Yes, you could. And if one has the budget for it and the nature of
the subject allows it and the nature of the finished image to be
provided require it, I believe that you will find that it is generally
agreed that a scanning back would be the way to do the job, so to what
purpose are you arguing?
>> So you have a choice - capturing RGB pixels poorly, or capturing
>> three times as many pixels in Bayer matrix. Neither is perfect.
>> Which is better for your needs? You decide, and buy your kit
>> accordingly!
>
> It't not the same thing. It's big difference whether you capture
> just
> one colour component per pixel all the full colour information.
>
> Since pixels can't get much smaller, they will have to get better.
> And
> that means finally capturing the full colour information per pixel
> and
> stop throwing away 2/3 of all incoming photons.
You have a choice. You can buy a camera and use it or you can wait
for Molon's Pie In The Sky to be invented. I know which I'm going
for.
Alfred Molon
> So show us a camera that we can buy that in the real world works
> better than the ones with bayer sensors.
Not available yet, except for the Foveon. But a scanning back for
instance is able to capture RGB images.
It is just a matter of time until such full colour sensors become
available. An Asian manufacturer is for instance doing research on a
full colour sensor.
> If you can't, then what
> purpose to you believe to be served by your continued pontificating?
The point simply is that for obvious reasons a full colour sensor is
better than a Bayer sensor. Whether such a camera is available now or in
the future is another issue.
Arnie Plank
>In article <161120081026114401%nos...@nospam.invalid>, nospam says...
>
>> 'lots' ? ever measure it? it's not that much except in extreme edge
>> cases that don't occur in the real world. also, bayer sensors have a
>> *lot* more pixels, so even with a small error they're still ahead of
>> the game.
>
>Try the exercise I mentioned - sampling a random colour image with in
>Bayer pattern and then reconstructing it.
That's a totally flawed test that you designed to show you only what you wanted
to see. (Self deception runs rampant on usenet.) You didn't resize the original
photo-site information (the RAW data), you resized the interpolation from it.
You will have to perform your tests on the actual sensor data, as you would
obtain directly from a Foveon sensor in the resulting image. Ooops, you can't do
that. You can't resize your RAW Bayer data without interpolation first.
Try again.
nospam
Molon <alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > So show us a camera that we can buy that in the real world works
> > better than the ones with bayer sensors.
>
> Not available yet, except for the Foveon. But a scanning back for
> instance is able to capture RGB images.
that works well for still images, but not so great for anything that
moves.
> It is just a matter of time until such full colour sensors become
> available. An Asian manufacturer is for instance doing research on a
> full colour sensor.
canon, nikon and fuji are all working on it, however, as mentioned
before, it is not as simple as it seems. canon's sytem varies the
filters over time, which has it's own set of drawbacks. nikon's system
uses dichroic mirrors and it looks like a royal pain to manufacture.
fuji is supposedly using organic dyes. it might happen one day but so
far, attempts have not been any better.
> > If you can't, then what
> > purpose to you believe to be served by your continued pontificating?
>
> The point simply is that for obvious reasons a full colour sensor is
> better than a Bayer sensor.
all things being equal, that's true. however, all things are *not*
equal and so far, bayer works the best, at least for human viewing.
> Whether such a camera is available now or in
> the future is another issue.
if it's not available, then it doesn't really matter whether it's
better or not.
nospam
<alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <161120081026114401%nos...@nospam.invalid>, nospam says...
>
> > 'lots' ? ever measure it? it's not that much except in extreme edge
> > cases that don't occur in the real world. also, bayer sensors have a
> > *lot* more pixels, so even with a small error they're still ahead of
> > the game.
>
> Try the exercise I mentioned - sampling a random colour image with in
> Bayer pattern and then reconstructing it.
is this 'random colour image' an actual photo or something synthesized
designed to show flaws in bayer?
try what i suggested -- convert an image to lab and blur the colour
channels. that's basically what's happening with bayer, and you can
blur it quite a bit before there's a noticeable change.
> > > If you only capture one colour component per pixel you won't be
> > > able to accurately reconstruct the luminance data, especially in image
> > > areas where you have pixel level colour changes.
> >
> > you can't reproduce pixel level changes no matter what you do because
> > of aliasing.
>
> That depends on the AA filter.
right, it's required, or you get aliasing.
> In any case, the problem with Bayer
> sensors is that the colour resolution is only half of the luminance
> resolution.
and the colour resolution of the human eye is 1/10 that of luminance,
so bayer is already ahead.
> Either you dimension the AA filter for the colour
> resolution, thereby avoiding the aliasing but throwing away a lot of
> image information or you dimension it for the luminance resolution and
> have a lot of colour aliasing. It's one big mess.
it really isn't that messy. just look at actual images from bayer
cameras. they look very good.
> The sampling unit in a
> Bayer sensor is not well defined: is it one individual pixel or one RGGB
> block of pixels?
simplified, it's basically a single pixel that looks to many of its
neighbors for chroma. contrary to a lot of foveon propaganda, it's not
taken in blocks of four.
J. Clarke
> In article <gfphr...@news6.newsguy.com>, J. Clarke says...
>
>> So show us a camera that we can buy that in the real world works
>> better than the ones with bayer sensors.
>
> Not available yet, except for the Foveon. But a scanning back for
> instance is able to capture RGB images.
>
> It is just a matter of time until such full colour sensors become
> available. An Asian manufacturer is for instance doing research on a
> full colour sensor.
When it happens and when they actually do something that makes them
worth spending money on get back to us.
>> If you can't, then what
>> purpose to you believe to be served by your continued
>> pontificating?
>
> The point simply is that for obvious reasons a full colour sensor is
> better than a Bayer sensor. Whether such a camera is available now
> or
> in the future is another issue.
If it's not available now then what's the point of blathering
endlessly about it?
Paul Furman
I did not know that, thanks.