Reading mode: Light Dark

What will it take to make the Fovean naysayers to S.U.

Go to last post
Edwaste said:
After the latest set of images posted by Phil, will we hear the end
of the Anti-Fovean camp? If this is what's possible with a 3
megapixel sensor, what can a 6 megapixel do?
Click to expand...
--

Edwaste,

For the most of us the existing 2, 3, 4 and5 Mp bunch is more than enough. Nikon, Canon and others know it. That is why you see new cameras designed for Photokina. There are many scenarios available for the future including CMOS sensors. I think, the photographing public will enjoy for a while the variety of cameras to choose. The Forum represents just a knowledgeable minority and millions of buyers are buyib just “digital” with no details.

I do not plan for a $1,800 Sigma or anything above $500. It should have manual settings be at least 3Mp with x10 zoom minimum, EVF and be compact. I do not see X3 based in the near future that will fit into my requirements. So far there are HP, Olympus, Panasonic (may be), Fuji X6 (may be).

Sigma may not sell many new X3s because we are waiting for 4 – 6 Mp X3s.
Leo
 
Karl Guttag said:
If the X3 is going to
clearly beat/obsolete the Bayer sensors, it has to get nearer to
the megapixels of the Bayer sensors AND have the same or less noise
at the same ISO, while at the same time it has to show that it can
ship reliably in high volume (yet to be seen).
Click to expand...
increase the pixel's physical size (and improve S/N), keep things at about 1/3 the Bayer sensor's number of megapixels, and get to a full frame sensor at lower cost (this may be possible with 1/3 the number of Bayer pixels). The X3 should theoretically (we will all learn of practical limitations soon) always beat Bayer pattern sensors from the standpoint of artifacts. IMO, the scenario I discuss above is realistic at the top of the camera food chain.

I don't believe X3 has to be number one in every category to be a success. What they really required for success is a couple of camera manufacturers to adopt the X3 sensor in their low cost camera line-up; this is the only way X3 can be financially successful, and therefore, survive. If the technology gets into the low cost camera line-up, there is a good chance X3 will become the "sensor of choice" in a couple of years. Timing (and yield) is everything - if they slip schedules or don't land in the right back yards at the right time, they could easily go under regardless of how great the technology is.

You have brought up a lot of very good points. My reply is not to argue with you, just to point out that there are other options (right or wrong) that have to be considered.

Joe Kurkjian
 
DMillier said:
You don't need to overhype...

It's quite possible that with the SD9 Foveon have just sent a
signal that the days of Bayer sensors are numbered.

But, you're not saying that the SD9 images outclass the Kodak 14MP
or even the 1Ds are you?
Click to expand...
I think the Foveon plays in the same league as those imagers (Well haven't seen any from the Kodak yet) for the purposes of quality prints. No Bayer interpolation blur for the Fovean, and raw color resolution should be comparable (I don't give a hoot about fake interpolated pixel resolution).

--
my favorite work: http://www.pbase.com/sdaconsulting/favorite_work
 
Your discussion was interesting, but doesn't change the fact that to many of us, the Bayer images look lousy compared to the Foveons, especially when ressed up for printing.

Talking about "resolution" and "artifacts" etc. is one thing, but the bottom line is for many of us the Foveon images look right and the Bayer images look bad. To fix the Bayer image you have to downsample it to 1/4 the stated Megapixel resolution.

--
my favorite work: http://www.pbase.com/sdaconsulting/favorite_work
 
Matthew Cromer said:
Your discussion was interesting, but doesn't change the fact that
to many of us, the Bayer images look lousy compared to the Foveons,
especially when ressed up for printing.
Click to expand...
I doubt I'll get it, but all this talk of the magical qualities of the Foveon, and the people who say they can always point out digital prints due to some sort of plasticy feeling, make me want a blind test to see if people can really reliably pick out the Foveon images in prints. If they could, you'd think Sigma and Foveon would love to have the test done.

I haven't printed the images myself, and without some similar images from a decent camera to compare against (decent meaning digital SLR) I am not sure. The two tests with a Sigma vs. a Bayer-sensor camera I have seen were at Imaging Resource and Yamada Digital Photo. The IR test used a Sony F717 and it is clear that camera can't compete with a large sensor digital SLR. The Yamada test sure didn't show up well for the SD9. The image of the boy is fine, but what is up with his hair -- it looks just as colored as any Bayer-sensor camera.
Matthew Cromer said:
Talking about "resolution" and "artifacts" etc. is one thing, but
the bottom line is for many of us the Foveon images look right and
the Bayer images look bad. To fix the Bayer image you have to
downsample it to 1/4 the stated Megapixel resolution.
Click to expand...
I'd believe it more if it were Michael Reichmann talking, or a well thought out review by Phil. I am not arguing that you do not see this, but I don't, nor do most people who sucessfully use digital cameras in their profession and came from film (35mm or MF or both). Some of the people on photo.net do (the 3D quality of film... the holographic nature of Leica lenses...), so you're not alone.
 
Dana Jacobsen said:
The Yamada
test sure didn't show up well for the SD9. The image of the boy is
fine, but what is up with his hair -- it looks just as colored as
any Bayer-sensor camera.
Click to expand...
It is true, the Yamada sample looks the least convincing of all I have seen hee, it has a heavy colour cast, and direct comparisions with the usual example photos like IR and pdreview will show more, nevertheless it is amazing how many people were immediately convinced by the shown pictures - so were I. A printed out 11x14 sample (of Phil´s) showed so fine and clean detail in the print that I started to wonder if 3,4MP would not be enough for the A3 printers which, for most, will be the upper limit they print...

Bernie
 
The technology is great and has a great potential. However, we that don't preach the Foveon way are unimpressed because of the bottom line. I don't really care how great a 6 megapixel foveon sensor can be, all I know is we only have a 3 megapixel camera to deal with.

It's priced in the range of the D60/S2/D100, so it must be compared with those cameras. From what I've seen, it does not exceed the quality of the forementioned cameras, therefore, what reason do I have to be excited?

The future is the future, and we'll judge that when it comes.
Edwaste said:
After the latest set of images posted by Phil, will we hear the end
of the Anti-Fovean camp? If this is what's possible with a 3
megapixel sensor, what can a 6 megapixel do?
Click to expand...
 
Dana Jacobsen said:
I doubt I'll get it, but all this talk of the magical qualities of
the Foveon, and the people who say they can always point out
digital prints due to some sort of plasticy feeling, make me want a
blind test to see if people can really reliably pick out the Foveon
images in prints. If they could, you'd think Sigma and Foveon
would love to have the test done.
Click to expand...
Before Photokina I spent a bit of time using the search tool
on pbase.com to look for D60 images, and I put together
a good collection on my hard disk. So I have seen a fair amount
of D60 images.

Maybe I am kidding myself, and I am wrong, but I think I could
come up with a good score in terms of separating 40 pictures
into 2 piles. One pile from the D60, and one pile from the Sigma
SD-9, in a blind test.

Especially for the photos that had bright colors.

Look at Phil's box of "Smarties" from Photokina. Even if I didn't
know, I could tell you that didn't come from a D60. Same thing
for the orange "Piaggio" motor-scooter.
 
Brian Cao said:
bottom line. I don't really care how great a 6 megapixel foveon
sensor can be, all I know is we only have a 3 megapixel camera to
deal with.
Click to expand...
I look at this and I am reminded of something one of the characters
in the Woody Allen film "Hanna and Her Sisters" says. There's this
young guy that has become a very rich rock star, and he's looking
to buy a painting. But he wants the painting to be really big. The
artist character tells him, "I don't sell my art by the yard".

But maybe I have misunderstand you, so I ask, why ? Why does
it have to be six million pixels ?
Brian Cao said:
It's priced in the range of the D60/S2/D100, so it must be compared
with those cameras. From what I've seen, it does not exceed the
quality of the forementioned cameras
Click to expand...
The colors on the SD-9 are better. And the resolution is the same.
 
Tim,

I do not agree with you. The resolution of a 3Mp sensor is less than a 4Mp resolution sensor. The sharpness of the image in this case may be different and may be not. We should wait for the coming Phil’s test. I do agree with Brian. ..He would buy a camera and not a X3 idea. The SD-9 camera with a lens is not as good as Fuji or Canon and very bulky – over 3 lbs. The Sigma did not conquer highs in their lens business and their cameras are not that excellent also. I am sure some people will buy the camera. That is not a blooming business. May be the next development when the X3 sensor will get to the people who know the photography business better (Canon, Fuji, Nikon)
Leo
.
tim martin said:
Brian Cao said:
bottom line. I don't really care how great a 6 megapixel foveon
sensor can be, all I know is we only have a 3 megapixel camera to
deal with.
Click to expand...
I look at this and I am reminded of something one of the characters
in the Woody Allen film "Hanna and Her Sisters" says. There's this
young guy that has become a very rich rock star, and he's looking
to buy a painting. But he wants the painting to be really big. The
artist character tells him, "I don't sell my art by the yard".

But maybe I have misunderstand you, so I ask, why ? Why does
it have to be six million pixels ?
tim martin said:
It's priced in the range of the D60/S2/D100, so it must be compared
with those cameras. From what I've seen, it does not exceed the
quality of the forementioned cameras
Click to expand...
The colors on the SD-9 are better. And the resolution is the same.
Click to expand...
 
Brian Cao said:
I don't really care how great a 6 megapixel foveon
sensor can be, all I know is we only have a 3 megapixel camera to
deal with.
Click to expand...
What kind of car would you rather buy today? A large lliter engine, or a smaller engine with a turbo? Almost the same here ... A more pixel count Bayer that catches 1/3 the data, or a smaller pixel count X3 that catches 3x the data? Dont forget, 6mp Bayer only have 6mpx12 bits worth of real data. The 3.5mp X3 has 3x3.5mpx12 bits or 10.5mpx12 bits worth of data.

Larger do not always translate to better.
Brian Cao said:
It's priced in the range of the D60/S2/D100, so it must be compared
with those cameras.
Click to expand...
And I believe they will be, as many of us already have in our own way. We will just have to wait until Oct for Phil's review to see the real results from a controlled environment.

--
jc
Sony F707
http://www.reefkeepers.org/gallery/f707
http://www.reeftec.com/gallery
 
tim martin said:
Maybe I am kidding myself, and I am wrong, but I think I could
come up with a good score in terms of separating 40 pictures
into 2 piles. One pile from the D60, and one pile from the Sigma
SD-9, in a blind test.
Click to expand...
OK, how many of the D60 photos from pbase were originally shot in RAW and then converted by someone with a good eye and how many are just out-of-the camera? How many of the SD-9 photos you've seen have been converted using the "default" setting by joe random user?

Did you look at the "default" conversions Phil uploaded? They look rather, well, ordinary. Good but not great. Kinda like what you would get out of the camera with most cameras. I have a strong suspicion that this is why the french, Imaging Resource, and Yamada samples are less impressive as well.

--
Erik
 
Well you must think that film looks artificial and computer generated too because I certainly think that my D100 A4 prints equal or better (35mm) film
Matthew Cromer said:
Personally I feel they quite simply destroy D60 and D100 shots in
image quality. The shots look sharp, clean and real, in comparison
the Bayer camera shots simply look artificial and computer
generated.

--
my favorite work: http://www.pbase.com/sdaconsulting/favorite_work
Click to expand...
 
I don't agree with your maths here.

The foveon uses 3*3.5 million data samples, true. BUT,they are not all on separate areas of the image. Every point on the surface has 3 stacked light sensors all occurpying the same spot. These triplets don't collect 3 pixels worth of data (in the sense that we conventionally describe a pixel) rather, they are used to generate a single, more accurate pixel).

The bigger bayer sensors do collect more data points, it's just that do not form the image directly. Instead the individual filtered monochrome samples are used as the input to an algorithm that creates the final full colour pixels.

The foveon method clearly has an advantage pixel for pixel but not for the reason you suggest.
Jimmy Chen said:
Jimmy Chen said:
I don't really care how great a 6 megapixel foveon
sensor can be, all I know is we only have a 3 megapixel camera to
deal with.
Click to expand...
What kind of car would you rather buy today? A large lliter engine,
or a smaller engine with a turbo? Almost the same here ... A more
pixel count Bayer that catches 1/3 the data, or a smaller pixel
count X3 that catches 3x the data? Dont forget, 6mp Bayer only have
6mpx12 bits worth of real data. The 3.5mp X3 has 3x3.5mpx12 bits or
10.5mpx12 bits worth of data.

Larger do not always translate to better.
Jimmy Chen said:
It's priced in the range of the D60/S2/D100, so it must be compared
with those cameras.
Click to expand...
And I believe they will be, as many of us already have in our own
way. We will just have to wait until Oct for Phil's review to see
the real results from a controlled environment.

--
jc
Sony F707
http://www.reefkeepers.org/gallery/f707
http://www.reeftec.com/gallery
Click to expand...
 
Leo said:
I do not agree with you. The resolution of a 3Mp sensor is less
than a 4Mp resolution sensor.
Click to expand...
Your statement is only correct when you compare a bayer vs a bayer. You are incorrect when you compare a bayer vs the X3.

It takes a min of 2x2 pixels for a bayer pixel to resolve any color within the RGB space, it only takes one X3 pixel to resolve same space.

With the X3, you can truly have an area of bw/wb within the 2x2 pixel area.



For a bayer sensor it will require a min of 3x3 area to display the same bw/wb with the 18% gray as a bouns.



--
jc
Sony F707
http://www.reefkeepers.org/gallery/f707
http://www.reeftec.com/gallery
 
Matthew,

I do not agree. You are saying that D60, D100 images are not clean, sharp and their color looks artificial. That is not true. Even my C2100 or C700 produce sharp and clean images. The color reproduction for C700 is excellent. The images from these two small cameras are not up to D60 standards for large prints but for 5x7 or 4x6.... I think that images from different GOOD cameras printed at 4x6 and 5x7 hard to label per their origin. I had many digital cameras and it is my experience. That is why I have 2Mp camera with a big zoom. I do not print large images and mostly display them on the screen.
Leo
Matthew Cromer said:
Personally I feel they quite simply destroy D60 and D100 shots in
image quality. The shots look sharp, clean and real, in comparison
the Bayer camera shots simply look artificial and computer
generated.

--
my favorite work: http://www.pbase.com/sdaconsulting/favorite_work
Click to expand...
 
Erik Magnuson said:
OK, how many of the D60 photos from pbase were originally shot in
RAW and then converted by someone with a good eye and how many are
just out-of-the camera? How many of the SD-9 photos you've seen
have been converted using the "default" setting by joe random user?

Did you look at the "default" conversions Phil uploaded? They look
rather, well, ordinary. Good but not great. Kinda like what you
would get out of the camera with most cameras. I have a strong
suspicion that this is why the french, Imaging Resource, and Yamada
samples are less impressive as well.
Click to expand...
I think you're pushing on this a little too hard, Erik. However, why not try it yourself?

Download Canon's RAW image converter and then download a few RAW files. There's one in Phil's D60 review and there are a few at Canon's bebit site.

I have a D30 and a D60 and I've spent a lot of time tweaking my shots. IMO, no amount of twiddling will give the crisp edges the SD9 shots have at full size.

--
Ron Parr
FAQ: http://www.cs.duke.edu/~parr/photography/faq.html
Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/parr/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top