Reading mode: Light Dark

Pixel Pitch Universally Defined

Go to last post
mgates said:
Foveon is a good concept but a 4/3 footprint is way too small for
clean 14MPs. Clean high ISO is expected today. Foveon needs to be
at least 2 stops cleaner to be purchased instead. The SD10 is 3
stops noisier. The SD14 will probably about be the same given the
smaller pixels and bad samples. Meanswhile other cameras add stops.
Click to expand...
Wow, that rocks. For all cameras using high ISO is a compromise but not for best IQ - unless you are a P&S like DSLR shooter - aren't your.

About the high noise of the SD10 - it is probably as good or better with good light at ISO100 than that of the 5D. There is not only noise at high ISO but also at low ISO. This also counts and for best IQ the noise characteristics of the SD10 and the most probably the SD14 are among the best. With your argumentation most of the medium format backs cannot be sold because high ISO is not superior. For a good IQ you need good light. Sometimes it is expensive to provide it (Studio, on site flashes etc) but using high ISO will not give you best pictures today. Light is all about photography - high ISO performance is very often not needed.

Hope you learnt something today

wolfgang

P.S. did you see my two low light examples in another thread? For me the SD10 is still usable at twilight and I don't want take pictures at night because of the missing light necessary for good photography.
 
mgates, my interpretation of this thread is that you don't understand the physics involved plus/or the design of the Foveon sensor. Since I know even less about physics I'm bowing out. As physics professor, I highly recommend Dr. Carver Mead. After reading what he calls his "little green book" "Collective Electrodynamics" I told him when I next saw him that I hadn't followed him on the math, the equations, but I had on the big ideas. He laughed heartily and said, "That's the important part, Sandy, the big ideas." I don't think you've followed him and the other Foveon engineers on their big photonic ideas.
Best regards, Sandy
[email protected]
http://www.pbase.com/sandyfleischman
 
Tristan Cope said:
to educate you.

Lets say I have triple glazed windows.
Click to expand...
Hello Tristan, I could not believe your post above...I was thinking of the very same thing :) However, I was going to ask him (mgates) if he were selling triple glazing and someone broke all three layers of glass in a window would he only charge for the first layer?

Anyway, despite what some folk think on here it is always advisable for someone to play the devil's advocate, otherwise this would be one hell of a boring forum, with nothing to break the sound of silence other than the noise from Sigma (or other brands depending on what forum your in) members slapping other Sigma members on the back in a self congratulatory fervor.

I also don't suspect that HE is such a fool as people on here would make out and that indeed there is some deliberate opposing thoughts expressed for a purpose. It's mostly harmless fun and nobody gets hurt along the way (sticks and stones type stuff).

--
Thank you for your time, Chris.
 
Please said:
I also don't suspect that HE is such a fool as people on here would
make out and that indeed there is some deliberate opposing thoughts
expressed for a purpose. It's mostly harmless fun and nobody gets
hurt along the way (sticks and stones type stuff).
Click to expand...
You don't have the entire picture here I assume.

mgates have been positviely identified as a notorious poster here and in news:rec.photo.digital and I also think in some Amiga forums and I suppose also otherwise possibly in many other forums. This poster has many names - sg9, Suzie, George Preddy, ... and many many more ... and now also mgates. It is him all right ... no doubt about it any more.

This poster has been banned from DPReview a number of times under different names. The owner of this site does not like him obviously.

The sole purpose of this posters posts are to amuse himself by claiming the same thing over and over and over again. I guess it is a kind of social game or test. And ... he can go on for months with the same issue. Personally I am not all that disturbed by his posts - it can even be amusing. But - I have stopped several years ago to even bother talk other than nonsens with him. That can be fun - he is not all that well balanced that it first looks :) And he is probably reading this post and planning what to reply. Are you not Preddy?

But don't fool yourself - the posts has nothing with photgraphy or technology to do. It is all about teasing people to get upset.

--
Roland
http://klotjohan.mine.nu/~roland/
 
Roland Karlsson said:
You don't have the entire picture here I assume.
Click to expand...
Hello Roland, while it is true, that I have not been around these forums during his heyday and his many and varied alter egos, I do understand the antagonism that he seems to deliberately cause due to his views. I also understand, as you say, that he probably does it for fun.

However, I also believe that it is not necessary to call him stupid just because he has an opposing view to many on here or because of his perseverance. Although I don't agree with his views, for the most part, it is clear to me that he does have a pretty good understanding of the subject (whatever that subject maybe at any given time), more so than me on occasions, only he prefers to turn it on its head in order to amuse himself, and no doubt many others here too.

Just to reiterate...I know the "game" he is playing, but when you see how it affects some people here it leaves me in no doubt why he does it :)

--
Thank you for your time, Chris.
 
Chris,

Since you have some catching up to do by your own admission, here is some bedtime reading:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1027&message=20374388

Add to that

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/postersprofile.asp?poster=hhigieilhdiv

and the current

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/postersprofile.asp?poster=hhixifilhvii

and you have the picture here. Over at Google, he wreaked havoc on everything under the sun.
Please said:
Roland Karlsson said:
You don't have the entire picture here I assume.
Click to expand...
Hello Roland, while it is true, that I have not been around these
forums during his heyday and his many and varied alter egos, I do
understand the antagonism that he seems to deliberately cause due
to his views. I also understand, as you say, that he probably does
it for fun.

However, I also believe that it is not necessary to call him stupid
just because he has an opposing view to many on here or because of
his perseverance. Although I don't agree with his views, for the
most part, it is clear to me that he does have a pretty good
understanding of the subject (whatever that subject maybe at any
given time), more so than me on occasions, only he prefers to turn
it on its head in order to amuse himself, and no doubt many others
here too.

Just to reiterate...I know the "game" he is playing, but when you
see how it affects some people here it leaves me in no doubt why he
does it :)

--
Thank you for your time, Chris.
Click to expand...
--
Laurence

My idea of good company is the fellowship of clever, well-informed people, who have a great deal of conversation and liberality of ideas.

Jane Austen

http://www.pbase.com/lmatson/root
http://www.pbase.com/sigmadslr/root
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/sd10
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/sd9
http://www.beachbriss.com
 
Please said:
...
Click to expand...
I think you still miss it. This is a very special guy. He is VERY good at what he is doing - and he is extremely well known. I assume he has a very good knowledge about technology and just pretends to be "strange" because it amuses him. Laurence gave you some links. Personally I don't think those links makes Mr Preddy justice.

Go to http://groups.google.com/ and search for "George Preddy". You will get 14.000 hits or so. The first I get is " George Preddy - Put Up or Shut Up". In the next someone talks about "A person with a serious disease". Thats Mr Preddy.

Then think about the fact that he obviously have been banned from DPReview 35 times. I assume you could not break that record even if you tried!

Now - personally I find him rather amusing - he makes life more interesting. Unfortunately - at the same time he also is making life miserable for lots of people and destroys serious discussions and can make a forum practically useless if you don't understand who he is.

So - OK - you shall not call someone "stupid". And in this case he i all but stupid really. But to balance things - he has been called much stronger things than "stupid" - many, many, many times. His da master of being called stuff.

--
Roland
http://klotjohan.mine.nu/~roland/
 
If it were free, would you still want to do that?

Actually, we should not get down on the Sooners.
BarrytheB said:
of relevance here is if we take Oklahoma when we secede?
--
Barry Byrd
http://www.pbase.com/barryb
http://www.pbase.com/sigmadslr
Click to expand...
--
Laurence

My idea of good company is the fellowship of clever, well-informed people, who have a great deal of conversation and liberality of ideas.

Jane Austen

http://www.pbase.com/lmatson/root
http://www.pbase.com/sigmadslr/root
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/sd10
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/sd9
http://www.beachbriss.com
 
mgates said:
Professionals who offer to help Sigma and Foveon engineer
non-photographers figure out why the camera is failing is not a bad
thing. Some professionals are open to a Foveon sensor. Most are
not based on existing problems. There are few things stopping
Sigma and Foveon from working.
Click to expand...
Few as in "0". Your mind on the other hand seems to have trouble getting in gear.
mgates said:
1. Most Sigma users don't understand other cameras.
Click to expand...
Well I've only used the D200 and the D70 and a variety of other cameras. But then I guess those don't count. I guess all of the people around here who have come from other camera systems don't count.

I would say that the Sigma users actually understand other cameras, or cameras at all, far better than you do just based on the things that you post.
mgates said:
2. No C/N mount. A few good lenses but no great lenses. The very
small real pixel pitch of the SD10 (5.3 microns) and SD14 (4.5
microns)
Click to expand...
The SD-14 has a pixel pitch of 7 microns, in three layers. This is one of those times where you are basically posting the scentific equivlent of a perpetual motion proposition - physical facts show you wrong. Note that since you get it wrong at the start, all following assumptions yoyu make are veen more flawed - kind of like assuming the sun will not rise tomorrow and advising everyone to stock up on flashlights.
mgates said:
Rick. f/2.8 and faster is critical. You think it is useless
because Sigma dSLRs are useless in low light. Profitable
photographers live a f/2.8 and wider. f/2.8 is fairly stopped
down. Frankly. Ls and some non-Ls are very sharp at f/2.8 and
need to get faster.
Click to expand...
Well that made no sense. We have plenty of Sigma f2.8 lenses and one f1.4 in the classic size.
mgates said:
Professionals cannot afford to buy outside of their mount. Even if
some might they would not add SA.
Click to expand...
A trifectca of incorrectness! With the abiltiy to easily sell off old gear on places like eBay without the loss you would traditionally take unloading gear at a used cameras store, at no point in history has it been so easy to switch lens mounts on a whim.
mgates said:
3. Very high noise. SD10 high ISO images are unusable from a
professional persepective. Ergo the camera is unusable.
Click to expand...
Proof by counterexample: Gary Mercer has a gallery where he sells image professionaly, quite large ones too. Other people here sell images as well, by definition they are professional. The only people that lean heavly on higher ISO are wedding photographers and to some extent nature photographers.

And of course what we are realy talking about is not the SD-10, which people have pushed to amazing uses, but the SD-14 which in theory makes your whole point about high ISO noise moot.
mgates said:
Sigma cameras cannot.
Specifications and samples suggest the smaller pixel pitch of the
SD14 will result in the same or worse noise.
Click to expand...
The only sample we have seen shows a noiseless ISO 800 print. I guess you forgot to actaully think before posting - again. The "mgates" are closed, it would appear.
mgates said:
What? You say? No one says the SD10 is extremely noisy. Most
tell us it is "ok". Well. We are being nice.
Click to expand...
I say it's noisy at ISO 1600, to anyone that asks. It's not really noisy at all though if you are willing to go B&W. However some of that noise can be addressed by software, just as the noise from other cameras is addressed in-camera by software. All cameras are noisy at some level, it's a matter of where correction occurs.
mgates said:
4. Lighting is more important than lenses. Consumers and amatures
don't understand why. So it only makes it to reason #4. Sigma SA
is incompatible with professional lighting systems. Until Sigma is
compatible with C or N lighting it is a dead system.
Click to expand...
You mean like the PC-Sync the SD-14 offers? You're really on a roll, a shame for you it's all downhill. At least you'll gather no moss.
mgates said:
5. Sigma. I think people were open to them succeeding. They
missed their opportunity. The SD14 is less competitive than was
the SD9. With that Sigma's opportunity to be a smart camera Brand
is gone.
Click to expand...
The SD-14 is more compentve because it offers more consumer oriented features, like in-camera JPG and improved AF along with an incorperated flash. I guess you are ignoring features that are actually useful and basing your opinion on your flawed mental image of the SD-14. As I said before, since you started with a bad assumption on the pixel pich all other conclusions you come to are flawed - you have build your house on top of sand, and it shifts from under you as you wonder why your view tilts. ANything else you posted is just the sign of shifting sands, and can be ignored....

--
---> Kendall
http://InsideAperture.com
http://www.pbase.com/kgelner
http://www.pbase.com/sigmasd9/user_home
 
Laurence Matson said:
Chris,

Since you have some catching up to do by your own admission, here
is some bedtime reading:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1027&message=20374388

Add to that

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/postersprofile.asp?poster=hhigieilhdiv

and the current

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/postersprofile.asp?poster=hhixifilhvii

and you have the picture here. Over at Google, he wreaked havoc on
everything under the sun.
Click to expand...
Cheers for that Laurence, I guess "50 FAST Photoshop CS Techniques" that I have just loaned from my local library will have to wait :)

--
Thank you for your time, Chris.
 
It will certainly be more enlightening.
Please said:
Laurence Matson said:
Chris,

Since you have some catching up to do by your own admission, here
is some bedtime reading:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1027&message=20374388

Add to that

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/postersprofile.asp?poster=hhigieilhdiv

and the current

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/postersprofile.asp?poster=hhixifilhvii

and you have the picture here. Over at Google, he wreaked havoc on
everything under the sun.
Click to expand...
Cheers for that Laurence, I guess "50 FAST Photoshop CS Techniques"
that I have just loaned from my local library will have to wait :)

--
Thank you for your time, Chris.
Click to expand...
--
Laurence

My idea of good company is the fellowship of clever, well-informed people, who have a great deal of conversation and liberality of ideas.

Jane Austen

http://www.pbase.com/lmatson/root
http://www.pbase.com/sigmadslr/root
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/sd10
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/sd9
http://www.beachbriss.com
 
mgates said:
Leon Wittwer said:
microlenses which increase the effective collection areas above
that of the active pixel area alone. I'm not sure how it plays
regarding Foveon and Bayer but is does impact the issue.
Click to expand...
They both have them. So it doesn't impact Sigmas incorrect pitch
calculations.
Click to expand...
Indeed, your incorrect Sigma pitch calculations are in no way impacted by micro lenses, the actual pixel pitch is 7.8 um. Thanks for finally admitting you made a mistake.

--
---> Kendall
http://InsideAperture.com
http://www.pbase.com/kgelner
http://www.pbase.com/sigmasd9/user_home
 
mgates said:
miketuthill said:
Are you feeling ok?
Click to expand...
when my stock split three-for-one. The price got cut in three.
But they didn't give me anymore shares.
Click to expand...
So you got stock in Bayer. We could have told you that was a poor choice.

Meanwhile my Foveon investment shines, with money pouring down and three buckets to catch any that spills from the bucket above. With the bayer investment two-thirds of the money was diverted to the gutter.

--
---> Kendall
http://InsideAperture.com
http://www.pbase.com/kgelner
http://www.pbase.com/sigmasd9/user_home
 
mgates said:
In other words you refuse to measure the distance between centers.
The result is an answer you do not want.

0
0
9.1

0
0
9.1

0
0
9.1
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what you are trying to say with those numbers, though I could interpret them quite badly for the Bayer sensor as measurements showing the vast desert of color loss between red and blue photosites- but I digress.

For a Foveon sensor if you measure between the center of the photosites, you get 7.8 microns. If you measure from the edges of the photosites you get 7.8 microns. That's what happens when you put a bunch of blocks next to each other and measure the size of them. The size of an edge of said square is the size, it's plain to see. In the case of Foveon you just have stacks of three blocks, and stacking blocks does not make them smaller.

In a bayer sensor, the same number of blocks you used in the Foveon sensor have to be shrunk to fit side by side instead of stacked in the same total area containing all the blocks. It's very simple to see that said blocks will be smaller. You can understand something as simple as children's blocks - surely?

Looks like the mgates are still kind of rusty there. You need some mental WD-40 which I am happy to provide.

--
---> Kendall
http://InsideAperture.com
http://www.pbase.com/kgelner
http://www.pbase.com/sigmasd9/user_home
 
mgates said:
The reason is that each square houses three Foveon sensors so total
silicon must be divied up into three parts. The parts can be
horizontally exclusive and still share the same centroid so all
three sensors can still be located in the middle of the square.
Foveon's diagram shows that.
Click to expand...
Great Googly Moogly - you can't even read a simple diagram! That is a riot. You are going to never live that one down. Each photosite gets the full 7.8 microns of space, the very definition of "stacked"! The light travels through each layer in turn. Does a prism consist of independent pieces of glass, each for a different color or does the light pass through and split apart equally?

When you buy pancakes in a stack do they put them side by side on the plate?

When you stack chairs do you carefully lay them side by side, or atop one another?

Such real world examples about of just what "stacked" means.

Hilarious, Mr. "PanGates".

--
---> Kendall
http://InsideAperture.com
http://www.pbase.com/kgelner
http://www.pbase.com/sigmasd9/user_home
 
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