Check, nutbar conspiracy theorist, believes that technology held back by camera company cabal.
Well at least you are consistent in alway believing the most outlandish possabilities.
Now we know what level of credence to give your stories.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Why on earth doesn't Foveon...
- Thread starter R Johns
- Start date
Well at least you are consistent in alway believing the most outlandish possabilities.
Now we know what level of credence to give your stories.
gheil
Senior Member
Completely incapable of apprehending the absurdity of his situation. Yup it is impossible to reach humans with humour or sarcasm, it just raises their back up till they cannot see straight. Probably follows Fox News when he tunes into a broadcast at 11 too. The humourless tend to pack in herds and believe the herds going in the other direction are misguided. What matters that there is a cliff ahead of him?
i wonder if the ones in the mistaken herd ever heard of modern conveniences ... like spell checkers? But of course such a humorous situation is incomprehensible to those on the other side of the fence ... like telling a cat joke to a cat, or a dog joke to a dog. Even when the language is universal they still get their blinkers up in time.
--
http://public.xdi.org/=greg.heil
Hi Tom, please let's not perpetuate this myth-information. The detail was incorrect in those threads as well as incorrect here.The saga of Foveon's early days is well documented -- anyone interested should read about it.
Best regards, Sandy
[email protected]
http://www.pbase.com/sandyfleischman
Best regards, Sandy
[email protected]
http://www.pbase.com/sandyfleischman
richard stone
Senior Member
This is the perfect response to my post, in illustrating each of my points.
This is shown by the implicit assertion that all pixels are the same, so that to create the effect of the Foveon chip all you have to do is downsize the Bayer chip results. Not true. You might as well say that the digicam micro chip pixels are the same as DSLR chip pixels, because they use Bayer technology.
The Foveon approach is fundamentally different.
Similarly, as to how many Canon/Nikon etc users will switch or add the Sigma system... Who knows? I want Sigma to do well, and prosper, and I don't know why anyone would wish them ill. Some users of other cameras will switch or add a system. Will it be 1%? 5%? or 10%? More?
The idea behind the SD14 is, obviously, to improve upon the SD10. Based on the specs one would have to think that all aspects have indeed been improved. Will the camera now suit the needs of all? Probably not, indeed, certainly not, but then, does any camera suit the needs of all? Clearly not, so why argue about that?
The secondary point of my post is that Sigma must know that to succeed it has to provide a superior product, clearly superior to the N80, K10, etc., and if it wants to maintain a price at the level of the D200 it also has to be superior to that camera in terms of image. Can Sigma deliver? I think we should all hope so, because it would be good for the industry in general. But so far there are no images to compare.
If Contax is only sleeping I would love to see them wake up, but I think the situation is much more dire, and anyway, so what? The point is that the digital business has just devastated the camera makers, to the point where even Pentax, with its history of quality and innovation, had to go looking for assistance. I am glad that Minolta found a partner, but that partner is the big Bayer chipmaker itself, Sony. Sigma appears to be on its own, still.
My point in regard to Sigma being independent is that it alone took on the Foveon technology. The rest of the camera makers decided not to, and are in a pickle trying to differentiate themselves in the market through features. But soon they will all have about the same features. Indeed, most of them do already.
The ONLY way to evaluate the SD cameras is to look at the images and decide for yourself. I don't know of any images yet from the SD14 that have been processed using the Photo pro 3.0 system. The SD10 images are about the same in terms of resolution as 6-8MP bayer cameras, in general. But, as you can see from the posted image of the owl, in the ealier message, there is more to it than pure resolution. That is why some compare the SD10 output to that from cameras with 10MP chips, and more.
The SD10 has some issues in regard to being as easy to use for consumers as other digital cameras. Will the SD14 correct all of these issues? It seems they have corrected most of them, but we will soon see. However, the focus of the SD14 is on image quality, not competing on features.
As to having a choice being "groovy" I am afraid I have to leave that alone for its ineffable widom.
This is shown by the implicit assertion that all pixels are the same, so that to create the effect of the Foveon chip all you have to do is downsize the Bayer chip results. Not true. You might as well say that the digicam micro chip pixels are the same as DSLR chip pixels, because they use Bayer technology.
The Foveon approach is fundamentally different.
Similarly, as to how many Canon/Nikon etc users will switch or add the Sigma system... Who knows? I want Sigma to do well, and prosper, and I don't know why anyone would wish them ill. Some users of other cameras will switch or add a system. Will it be 1%? 5%? or 10%? More?
The idea behind the SD14 is, obviously, to improve upon the SD10. Based on the specs one would have to think that all aspects have indeed been improved. Will the camera now suit the needs of all? Probably not, indeed, certainly not, but then, does any camera suit the needs of all? Clearly not, so why argue about that?
The secondary point of my post is that Sigma must know that to succeed it has to provide a superior product, clearly superior to the N80, K10, etc., and if it wants to maintain a price at the level of the D200 it also has to be superior to that camera in terms of image. Can Sigma deliver? I think we should all hope so, because it would be good for the industry in general. But so far there are no images to compare.
If Contax is only sleeping I would love to see them wake up, but I think the situation is much more dire, and anyway, so what? The point is that the digital business has just devastated the camera makers, to the point where even Pentax, with its history of quality and innovation, had to go looking for assistance. I am glad that Minolta found a partner, but that partner is the big Bayer chipmaker itself, Sony. Sigma appears to be on its own, still.
My point in regard to Sigma being independent is that it alone took on the Foveon technology. The rest of the camera makers decided not to, and are in a pickle trying to differentiate themselves in the market through features. But soon they will all have about the same features. Indeed, most of them do already.
The ONLY way to evaluate the SD cameras is to look at the images and decide for yourself. I don't know of any images yet from the SD14 that have been processed using the Photo pro 3.0 system. The SD10 images are about the same in terms of resolution as 6-8MP bayer cameras, in general. But, as you can see from the posted image of the owl, in the ealier message, there is more to it than pure resolution. That is why some compare the SD10 output to that from cameras with 10MP chips, and more.
The SD10 has some issues in regard to being as easy to use for consumers as other digital cameras. Will the SD14 correct all of these issues? It seems they have corrected most of them, but we will soon see. However, the focus of the SD14 is on image quality, not competing on features.
As to having a choice being "groovy" I am afraid I have to leave that alone for its ineffable widom.
Peter Spader
Veteran Member
The "red" is on the bottom, not the top. A place to get a quick description of the Foveon sensor is on the Foveon site at:
http://www.foveon.com/article.php?a=67
Although looking at images on a computer screen has its limits if you want to see a good sampling of Sigma SD10 and SD9 images look at samples on the pbase SigmaDSLR site at:
http://www.pbase.com/sigmadslr
Many of these images are available at the original 2268 by 1512 size.
There are no images from the new SD14 posted yet, but the prints displayed at Photkina 2006 from a pre-production camera suggest the wait will be worth it.
Pete
http://www.foveon.com/article.php?a=67
Although looking at images on a computer screen has its limits if you want to see a good sampling of Sigma SD10 and SD9 images look at samples on the pbase SigmaDSLR site at:
http://www.pbase.com/sigmadslr
Many of these images are available at the original 2268 by 1512 size.
There are no images from the new SD14 posted yet, but the prints displayed at Photkina 2006 from a pre-production camera suggest the wait will be worth it.
Pete
dj_nme
Forum Enthusiast
This doesn't explain why a lot of the images that were put up on the 'net soon after the SD9 was released had an aparrent yellow cast.
Unless it was because the people who posted them didn't (or could not work out how to) convert the RAW file into jpeg with a convincing white balance, or the diagram on this webpage isn't exactly accurate and is more of a schematic (like a railway map) rather than a true representation of how the colour seperations are layered .
I'm not saying that the SD14 will be a dog of a camera.
On the contrary, the pictures that I've seen of the SD14 make it look like a well made and erganomicaly designed camera.
If (notice that I'm writing IF ) there were any problem with images from the SD9 or SD10, then they must have been rectified with this, Sigma's third go at a DSLR camera.
The early SD9 and firmware had some exposure problems I wont get into. At any rate it was all over the board. With the older firmware I had to bracket almost every shot.
The yellow cast was 95% to do with underexposure and the blue channel The blue channel drops off first. The mistake everybody made was that the camera exposure was so unpredictable I remember several people that just left their camera set on -.5 ev which is exactly the wrong thing to do.
The key several of us found out later on was to fill the histogram and that took care of the problem.
After that new firmware helped a lot and the SD10 got micro lenses and that helped with channel filling.
Color shift in underexposed photos happens to others too like canon, but it shifts towards blue.
--
http://www.troyammons.com
http://www.pbase.com/tammons
http://www.troyammons.deviantart.com
Tom Rowland
Veteran Member
Hi Sandy,
I personally dont know if this myth-information is true or not. And I thought my post made that clear. I have never seen details about how the Foveon chip wound up in Sigma bodies as opposed to Canon, Nikon, or some other body.
On the other hand my post did make it clear that Sigma does not act like a typical camera maker. I have never seen any one claim Sigma would not sell lots more bodies with a EF mount as opposed to a SA mount. Joe W claims 10X more, and while I am not sure the sales increase would be an order of magnitude IMHO it would be lots more.
And given Sigmas Kodak experience it is clear Sigma could easily produce bodies with those mounts. And as Joe has pointed out EF and SA mounts are more alike than different.
But more importantly if Sigma does want to incease its market share a body with a EF mount does seem like an easy way to do it. And quite frankly I dont see any down side to it.
Do you?
http://www.yorkshiremedia.com/news/articles_and_reviews/minolta_evangelist_gary_friedman/
(as I said, I read it, not first hand info.
--
John
Leo
Veteran Member
Current lens and camera makers do not want and may be scared by the Foveon X3 idea/product. They can loose their markets to Sigma. After all Sigma-Foveon would not forgive them but punish. Only us watching Sigma with a hope. It may take time. Fuji is also working in the same direction with an new organic three layers sensor.
Leo
Leo
digital_ray_of_light
Veteran Member
Usually any idea that threatens to change the status quo is seen as a threat by the status quo, and given the cut-throat nature of high-tech competition, I wouldn't be surprised if Sony made the rounds giving unofficial ultimatums to its sensor customers with regards to Foveon usage.
--
Comprehensive Photokina 2006 speculation: http://photographyetc.livejournal.com
Joseph S Wisniewski
Forum Pro
That's not even third hand info, because "Minolta Evangelist" Gary Friedman doesn't cite a source, either. And if you read his article, he gets a lot of other things wrong, like this:http://www.yorkshiremedia.com/news/articles_and_reviews/minolta_evangelist_gary_friedman/
(as I said, I read it, not first hand info.
"Maxxum/Dynax 9000 - This was Minolta's 2nd autofocus camera, which was the best camera in the world BY FAR when I bought mine in 1985. Nikon and Canon hadn't even come out with their autofocus systems yet."
Nikon launched the F3AF in 1983.
And sees conspiracies (again without providing a shred of evidence) as the reason Minolta failed in other markets:
"Why is Minolta so overlooked?
I believe it's got more to do with a religious mindset, coupled with the truths of capitalism. In capitalism, it's NOT true that the best products get the market share. If this were true, the Apple Macintosh would have taken over the world, and McDonalds, Tandy Electronics, and General Motors would be out of business. If this were true, the Minolta would have won over professional photographers with the XK / XK Motor, and later on the Dynax 9000, both were the best cameras in the world when they were introduced. "
If you want to know what "a religious mindset" is, start with the guy who has to write "the best camera in the world BY FAR" with "BY FAR" in capital letters.
--
Normally, a signature this small can't open its own jumpgate.
Ciao! Joe
http://www.swissarmyfork.com
Joseph S Wisniewski
Forum Pro
I would be totally surprised by that.
Sony is the world's biggest sensor manufacturer. I'd guess they outgun be by at least several hundred to one on expertise in this field. So they certainly can do all the math required to see that Foveon is no threat.
1) The degree to which a Foveon sensor's response is colormetric (capable of seeing color in the same way as the human eye) is limited by the physics of silicon color separation. There's no such limit on Bayer or other color filter sensors. So the best of the current crop Bayer sensors have five times the accuracy of a Foveon.
2) Given an equal amount of data processing and storage capability (like comparing a 10.2mp Nikon D200 against a 10.2mega sample SD10) a Bayer sensor outperforms a Foveon in terms of resolution, on an equal sized print.
3) Because of the numeric noise (large non diagonal terms in a 3x3 matrix, or steep local slopes on a space to space interpolator) inherent in processing the Foveon sensor output into some semblance of a colormetric response, it can't match the high ISO performance of a Bayer sensor.
4) There will come a time (and it won't be that far away, at the rate megapixel counts are growing) when all sensors, Bayer and Foveon, outresolve lenses. At that point, the anti-aliasing filters on Bayer cameras simply go away, and no one will be able to tell whether an image came from one sort of sensor or the other. With Sony's knowledge base, they should be better at predicting exactly when this will happen than anyone else.
So there really are no vast conspiracies. Sony really isn't going around the world, strong arming every camera company into not using Foveon products. They didn't force Minolta to change the sensor used in their DSLR.
The Foveon sensor is a unique product, with some interesting strengths, but it also has its share of weaknesses. Pound for pound, it's not "a threat", and it won't "punish" anyone.
--
Normally, a signature this small can't open its own jumpgate.
Ciao! Joe
http://www.swissarmyfork.com
I agree. Some people see conspiracies everywhere, but in truth this kind of behavior in this case is completely unecessary and could result in legal action against Sony if it did happen. Unethical things do happen but then generally stem from low risk actions with potentiall high reward. In this case you are looking at moderately high risk and essentially no reward. It makes no sense.
I agree on pixel count increasing making this moot soon (if not alreadY). The real design advantage of the Foveon approach is per-pixel sharpness and that matters less and less as counts increase.
It makes perfect sense why Sigma went Foveon and why no one else did.
It is unique and it brings attention to Sigma DSLRs that no one would even mention if they didn't have Foveon.
Currently other DSLRs have better mainstream acceptance and the unique nature of Foveon might even negatively affect that acceptance. They want to be known as the "brand", not the Foveon camera.
It is all pretty straight forward and sensible without conspiracy theories.
Build a better mousetrap and the world will beat a path to your door. The thing is, Foveon is a different mousetrap, not necessarily a better (or worse) one.
Roland Karlsson
Forum Pro
If you invent a direct color sensor that ....
1. ... detects R, G and B or something very near.
2. ... has the same well capacity per layer as a monochrome sensor.
3. ... has the same sensitivity and noise as a monochrome sensor.
4. ... is just as cheap and easy to make as a Bayer CFA sensor.
Then you would have a threat to Bayer CFA sensors.
The inventors of this senor will not have to work hard for years to convince the world that it has a better solution. It is a better solution! Everyone understands it. So ... it will be a success in one way or another. If it is a small company that invents it - it will probably be bought by Kodak or Sony or ... for lots and lots of money.
--
Roland
http://klotjohan.mine.nu/~roland/
DonAvebury
Senior Member
gheil
Senior Member
That is trivial they can do it now, all they need to do is eat the processing time to offload the high megapixel chip ... but the noise would be horrendous, like a P&S camera with small enough sensels. They are already going in that direction, increasing the megapixel count at the expense of light gathering area witness the broad changeover from 6MP to 10MP following Sony's lead in introducing their new 10MP imager as the "standard" part. So why not stay with a company that is making large sensels like Foveon? Why must every company come up with new "noise reduction" software and hardware to "compensate" for this new, ever more crippled, generation of chips?
Any proof it is NOT happening? Who said the conspiracy needs to be "vast"? Would that not make it harder to conceal? You have dealt with Japanese companies, do you feel they are any more open and transparent than other companies around the world? How can you argue there can NOT be collusion? Sony has a lot of quid pro quo's to bargain with it would be very easy for them to lay down conditions which were unmistakeable.
--
http://public.xdi.org/=greg.heil
Roland Karlsson
Forum Pro
I would take this more serious if the SD14 had max ISO 6400 instead of an "extended" ISO 1600.
The fact is that a D200/D80/400D probably have 2 or 3 more stops of usable ISO than SD14. So - the large sensel SD14 - that also not filters away 2/3 of the light - has lower sensitivity. Not the other way around.
This is partly due to the fact that it has to make a strong conversion from the detected "colors" to RGB.
-
Roland
http://klotjohan.mine.nu/~roland/
--Got the info wrong; "The Sleeping Bear Dunes are the world's largest perched dunes".
http://gorp.away.com/gorp/resource/us_ns/mi_sleep.htm
At any rate, it's quite a view...
Russ
Greater is He that is within me, than he who is in this world...
gheil
Senior Member
No doubt the SD10 has more light gathering area, but so does Sony's 6MP chip over its 10 MP chip.
You are also mixing several sensor sources here, and 2 or 3 stops is a considerable exaggeration: that is more like the difference between a 2/3" imager and a low end dSLR - a lot of difference. We are losing more like a stop a generation not 2 or 3 stops.
Sure Foveon has disadvantages, no doubt at all. But not so large as you are making out and i doubt it is pure physics which is preventing experimentation and growth in the technology. Economics and whose bread is buttered make a lot of difference as well. Not all to the consumers benefit, unfortunately.
--
http://public.xdi.org/=greg.heil
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum