X3 How much benefit are you expecting? What am I missing?

Peter G said:

After reading all the recent "I am not buying a digicam until it is
X3" followed by a bunch of "me toos". I think my expectations of
this technology must be way off.

Click to expand...

I think its more in the line of: "I am not buying a new digicam until I've seen independent tests of a real life camera with X3 and then decide what to do."

Peter G said:

2: Efficiency: No change.

Click to expand...

The thing might process Tiff's a lot faster.

Peter G said:

I am very excited by the new technology and eagerly awaiting the
Sigma SLR review, because I am a tech junkie, but I am not going to
crawl into a hole for year or two waiting for all cameras to go X3
before emerging. Are you?

Click to expand...

Depends on how the two compare and what it does to prices of the "old" technology. Maybe get a second hand one or so to wait it out.

---- Sander

I am curious about the file size. Is it larger than would be expected for a 3.7 mp camera? I am presuming not. It will just be providing REAL pixel info for each cell instead of some interpolated gobledegoop.

I would love to see a camera with a 6mp X3 ccd. It is at this point that 35mm film will become to me obsolete. This is probably a couple of years out.
Rgds,Charlie

Moshe Vainer said:

Peter G said:

Come on Moshe, if you completely read my message, you will note
that I said where there is continuous tone (ie all the same) then
interpolation will be as good as the real data.

Click to expand...

I have to disagree - If the continues tone is in the color of one
of the sensors (especially red or blue), how the algorithm should
know whether the tone is continues, or are there separate colored
dots on a black background in an image? It's a guesswork. The
algorithm may decide, that the most common case would be continues
tone, and thus prefer this case to other cases. Just like fuji's
SuperCCD would prefer horizontal/vertical lines over diagonal in
it's interpolation. Statistically, images will improve (and that's
why SuperCCD works), but you have no absolute guarantee, you win
some, you loose some.

Click to expand...

Moshe once again. Interpolation works perfectly if all the data is consistent, of course if there are changes it breaks down. That is what I discussed in other points. But if there are no changes there is no way to guess wrong.

A more valid argument against my point would be that there are no continuous tones that all real photographs involve continuous variations. And there I would have to agree with you.

Moshe Vainer said:

Moshe Vainer said:

My last point is
where I point out the obvious disadvantages of mosaic, which are
significant.

Click to expand...

Agreed.

Moshe Vainer said:

I am trying to determine how large is the problem we are trying to
solve. Doesn't warrant the wholesale junking of current digital
cameras and stopping sales until all cameras are X3 as many seem to
advocate. I just think people or over-reacting.

Click to expand...

People are excited with this development, and with the few samples
we have seen so far. Of course they overreact.

Moshe Vainer said:

Comparing the images to those from a D30, they don't strike me as
being that much better. Especially since we dont' know the
conditions. The following are admittedly resized, but so are
Foveons apparently:

http://photography-on-the.net/gallery/photo.php?photo=213&JS_SUBMIT_size_change=ok&exhibition=1&pass=public&size=quarter_hq

http://photography-on-the.net/gallery/photo.php?photo=210&JS_SUBMIT_size_change=ok&exhibition=1&pass=public&size=quarter

Click to expand...

Well, your images are so much resized that this really is an
indication of nothing. They are equivalent to taking every 4 pixels
from GRGB to produce one real pixel, thus reducing resolution 4
times.
As for resized, look at the samples from Phil, those are real
crops, and they are nothing short of amazing. I had a d30 for 2
weeks, and was able to make some shots with it. I really loved that
camera, but it's quality is not on the same level as what we can
see from (admittedly few) X3 samples.
On another note, D30 achieves it's smoothnes by loosing quite a bit
of resolution, for 3mp sensor, it has very low resolving ability.
Almost as if it was bayer interpolated, downsampled, and then
upsampled back (I know it was not, but the antialias filter and
bayer algorithm produce smoothness by loosing resolution). Here the
case seems to be different. The foveon samples show BOTH detail and
smoothness. Very formidable IMHO.

Click to expand...

I think a lot of people would disagree with you about the D30 being soft, it has no shapness applied, but the detail is there. These were the only ones I could find quickly. I am sure someone could provide some much larger and very impressive D30 images.

Moshe Vainer said:

Moshe Vainer said:

How do you think a 3MP X3 will compare to a downsized 6MP d60 image?

Click to expand...

I don't know, we have not seen d60 images at all, if the camera
even exists (it's all guesswork for now, ain't it?).
Assuming the reduction of individual sensors would not introduce
more noise compared to d30, etc.. etc.., i still think you would
need anything between 9 and 12 mp of bayer sensor to get the same
quality as comparable foveon sensor.

Click to expand...

So I guess that 1.3MP Foveon can replace your 6900. As in our last discussion I think you tend to exaggerate the benefits.

Moshe Vainer said:

Don't get me wrong, even 6mp sensor will probably resolve more
detail than 3mp foveon, but to have clean image you would have to
downsample bayer pattern, by binning together GRGB into a single
pixel to have the same quality as foveon.

Click to expand...

Phil stated somewhere in this thread that with current cameras they are topping out at about 75% of theoretical max resolution. Approaching a 100% will be a logorithmic function, so you might hit 85% or 90% with Foveon. 10-20% improvemtn. A 3MP device will not equal 4MP in terms of aboslute resolution (but with curretn effective pixels a 3.4MP Foveon would most likely beat the common 3.8MP mosaics).

Images are quite clean today you won't necessarily have to do a 4 to one reduction to achieve similar smoothness. A downsized 6mp Fuji S2 image (which is announced) will probably be more than competetive with the Foveon for cleanliness and detail captured.

Peter

Peter G said:

Moshe once again. Interpolation works perfectly if all the data is
consistent, of course if there are changes it breaks down. That is
what I discussed in other points. But if there are no changes there
is no way to guess wrong.

Click to expand...

Wrong... You assume that an interpolation somehow knows that the orignal data was continues tone, and not high frequency color spots on a black background. Well, the error in your logic is that it does not know, it simply assumes so. Sometimes it's right, sometimes it's wrong. Try and shoot small blue dots on a black background with your cam (whatever it is), but make sure that dot's are relative in size to one pixel on your imager. See what you'll get.

Peter G said:

A more valid argument against my point would be that there are no
continuous tones that all real photographs involve continuous
variations. And there I would have to agree with you.

I think a lot of people would disagree with you about the D30 being
soft, it has no shapness applied, but the detail is there. These
were the only ones I could find quickly. I am sure someone could
provide some much larger and very impressive D30 images.

Click to expand...

Check the resolution charts on this site. Even though IMHO Phil exagerates in how he read charts, D30 performed really poor on resolution. Sharpening would not help as you can see in my example on
http://www.pbase.com/moshev/rescharts

Look for the d30 sample in full size. It is enlarged, sharpened converted to b&W and contrast maximized untill no more detail could be pulled. You will see that further sharpening does not bring lines, it brings circles... Check it out for yorself. Just for comparison, S1 produces about 1.3 more horizontal and 1.3 more vertical resolution (out of top of my head, did not check the actual numbers) giving you 1.69 more total resolution.

Peter G said:

So I guess that 1.3MP Foveon can replace your 6900. As in our
last discussion I think you tend to exaggerate the benefits.

Click to expand...

No, you misread me. I said clearly that 6mp will give you more resolution, but at the expense of quality of pixels. 3.5 mp is more than enough for me if there is no noise and pixels are as much "perfect" as possible. You also forget that difference between 1.3 mp and 3 mp (arguably more in 6900) is much bigger than 3.4 mp and 6 mp. (hint: it's square, not linear)

As i said in next sentense which you skipped:

Peter G said:

Peter G said:

Don't get me wrong, even 6mp sensor will probably resolve more
detail than 3mp foveon , but to have clean image you would have > > to
downsample bayer pattern, by binning together GRGB into a single
pixel to have the same quality as foveon.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Peter G said:

Phil stated somewhere in this thread that with current cameras they
are topping out at about 75% of theoretical max resolution.

Click to expand...

As i said, i think Phil is wrong in his assesment of the res charts:

Even his own reading of his resolution charts show that a D1X has can only produce 2.9 million separate details in a picture (That's extinction detail), that's from about 5.3 megapixels, which gives you an efficiency of only 54%. (And i have prooved it, so you'll have to come up with a scientific argument why my proof is wrong.)

Peter G said:

Approaching a 100% will be a logorithmic function, so you might hit
85% or 90% with Foveon. 10-20% improvemtn. A 3MP device will not
equal 4MP in terms of aboslute resolution (but with curretn
effective pixels a 3.4MP Foveon would most likely beat the common
3.8MP mosaics).

Click to expand...

Since your numbers are wrong (you start with 75%), i'd guess that it is possible for foveon to have as much as 1.3 - 1.5 more resolution.
You also miss the fact that most bayer sensors use heavy aliasing.

Also, when enlarging, clean image is equally, if not more important. Do you really want to enlarge all your interpolation artifacts?

At least for me, the main reason why i need more resolution, while printing no more than a4, is to be able to downsample in order to clean noise. It seems as if this is not necessary with foveon. It is also true for d30, but d30 achieves it by loosing much, much detail.

Peter G said:

Images are quite clean today you won't necessarily have to do a 4
to one reduction to achieve similar smoothness. A downsized 6mp
Fuji S2 image (which is announced) will probably be more than
competetive with the Foveon for cleanliness and detail captured.

Click to expand...

Agreed, i think i even said that in my answer to you. But that's because fuji's SuperCCD pulls amazing amount of resolution out of their sensors. They are probably as close to that 75% figure as possible, other sensors are not that lucky, and most (maybe except some sony cams) pull much less.

Rgrds,
Moshe

Moshe,

I am done with the Fuji discussion and I mentioned email me if you really want to continue to debate the fine points. Thus I am not going to address your "super CCD" references yet again. More comments inline.

Moshe Vainer said:

Moshe Vainer said:

Moshe once again. Interpolation works perfectly if all the data is
consistent, of course if there are changes it breaks down. That is
what I discussed in other points. But if there are no changes there
is no way to guess wrong.

Click to expand...

Wrong... You assume that an interpolation somehow knows that the
orignal data was continues tone, and not high frequency color spots
on a black background. Well, the error in your logic is that it
does not know, it simply assumes so. Sometimes it's right,
sometimes it's wrong. Try and shoot small blue dots on a black
background with your cam (whatever it is), but make sure that dot's
are relative in size to one pixel on your imager. See what you'll
get.

Click to expand...

This is getting rather tedious, but one last time. AS I said 3 times now. IF

IF the tone is continuous the guess will be correct. Each RGB value is a number between 0-255. if your tone is continuous, every red sensor that you have will read the same data. Interpolation is essentially a guess made by averaging the data you have, not by some random guessing. So IF the tone is continuous all of your neighbors will read the same value say red 42, red 42... Now when you guess you average 42+42/2 = 42. Absolutely correct.

IF you can't understand this point, there is nothing else to discuss...

Peter

Moshe Vainer said:

Moshe Vainer said:

A more valid argument against my point would be that there are no
continuous tones that all real photographs involve continuous
variations. And there I would have to agree with you.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Regardless of the technical details, the samples I have seen makes it much easier to wait for a camera utilizing this technology.

What camera that is depends on the price and what I can afford.

At this point, it's moot. I have new car, ATV and motorcycle payments to take care of for a couple more years. So, when I CAN finally afford a digitia camera that meets my demands and desires, it will probably be based off of this technology, unless something else comes out even better.

I was all for the three sensor, prism solution that Fovean had already come out with, but, I don't like the form factor for the most part. While it's great for studio work, I don't work in a studio. I would rather have something like a Pro-sumer similar to a G2 or an SLR, like the proposed Sigma.

My question to you, is why are you starting a personal crusade against this technology and being so skeptical?

It's good to be skeptical, for your own protection, but, you come off sounding like someone that works for, and holds a lot of stock in, a competing digital imaging company like Nikon or Canon.

Laters,
CRT_Leech

No crusade here; Just skeptical by nature. I have an engineering and computer science background and work in industry where we design products for competetive markets. Press release type statements highlight only the upside(usually overhyped) of any technology. The downside is only discovered during usage.

The level of credulousness in these forums is hard for me to fathom. People are accepting everything positive about the technology and then magnifying and hyping it beyond belief. There are those claiming 400% improvements in image quality because of this development with no realistic basis for that, not even the press release is anywhere near that rosy. I don't think I have seen anyone claim gains of less than 200% gains.

For the record I have no stock or stake, nor work for any imaging company. But if I did, I would surely have dumped it yesterday. There is bound to be an impact from this advance.

I am looking to buy a prosumer camera sometime after PMA and I am not going to wait a year to just to get my hands on a 1.3MP consumer X3 with the belief that it is the equivalent of 4MP bayer cameras. It seems like I am the only one who will be buying a consumer camera in 2002, and I find that most odd.

Clearly I am missing something.

Peter

CRT_Leech said:

Regardless of the technical details, the samples I have seen makes
it much easier to wait for a camera utilizing this technology.

What camera that is depends on the price and what I can afford.

At this point, it's moot. I have new car, ATV and motorcycle
payments to take care of for a couple more years. So, when I CAN
finally afford a digitia camera that meets my demands and desires,
it will probably be based off of this technology, unless something
else comes out even better.

I was all for the three sensor, prism solution that Fovean had
already come out with, but, I don't like the form factor for the
most part. While it's great for studio work, I don't work in a
studio. I would rather have something like a Pro-sumer similar to a
G2 or an SLR, like the proposed Sigma.

My question to you, is why are you starting a personal crusade
against this technology and being so skeptical?

It's good to be skeptical, for your own protection, but, you come
off sounding like someone that works for, and holds a lot of stock
in, a competing digital imaging company like Nikon or Canon.

Laters,
CRT_Leech

Click to expand...

Peter G said:

Just skeptical by nature.

Click to expand...

its good as far as it different from 'argumentative' (IMO)

Peter G said:

I am looking to buy a prosumer camera sometime after PMA and I am
not going to wait a year to just to get my hands on a 1.3MP
consumer X3 with the belief that it is the equivalent of 4MP bayer
cameras. It seems like I am the only one who will be buying a
consumer camera in 2002, and I find that most odd.

Clearly I am missing something.

Peter

Click to expand...

I agree, its better to buy something and enjoy real picture taking than waiting for X3 and missing a year. However, I doubt if this decision can be derived from undremining X3 potential. Kudos to Mead for clarifying a great lot that how much interpolation companies were selling. ( and its not as simple as 3=3 and so on if its not for X3)

I would say buy a good entry level camera instead(not much financial stake, after pma it may be even cheaper, and you would not feel bad departingwith it after a good solution is available) and enjoy real picture taking. This way you would be more patient about the new innovation X3 to come in a in a successful body. (that require genuine time).

Also, it would be less abstract to appreciate about good and bad about a digital camera on a very practical level. Sya to acknowledge which buttons and setting comes handy for you or how things appear on a real print., help you see only deeper into things. so the early the better.

Karl,

Actually, the area factor can be not that bad.

First, 0.13um process becomes readily available, so one can pack 9 transistors pretty dense.

Second, deep trenches can be used for pixel isolation, so diffusions should not really be concentric. One should provide a contact to the diffusions, but this can be made very compact in corner. Deep trench is a pretty common technology these days.

Obviously, this is on top of using microlenses array.

Up untill now the main factors preventing CMOS sensors from wide spread is picture to picture variations caused by active elements variations. I'd like to see how Foveon solves this.

For obvious reasons, they keep tightly lipped on this, other than saying they've some improvements here. If they use digital calibration and correction, it might be pretty expensive. They can impress people with great demos this way, but it's too expensive to be in the mainstream of digicams.

I'd like to see real products and independent tests before making my own opinion on this.

Vladimir.

Karlg said:

BUT, if we look at the Foveon Patent and consider the layout of a
Pixel, the area that can capture light of a Foveon X3 pixel appears
to be greatly reduced. First there is the issue of fitting 9
transitors into the cell. Then there is the issue of the
concentric diffusions/wells that form the photo sensing diodes.
The active light catching area of the top diode appears to be less
than 1/4th of the pixel (of course this is 4 years old or so and I
don't know how it scales -- this may be why they went to .18 micron
ahead of others, to reduce the amount of light blockage by the
trasistors).

Click to expand...

--Vladimir.

Peter G said:

The level of credulousness in these forums is hard for me to
fathom. People are accepting everything positive about the
technology and then magnifying and hyping it beyond belief. There
are those claiming 400% improvements in image quality because of
this development with no realistic basis for that, not even the
press release is anywhere near that rosy. I don't think I have seen
anyone claim gains of less than 200% gains.

For the record I have no stock or stake, nor work for any imaging
company. But if I did, I would surely have dumped it yesterday.
There is bound to be an impact from this advance.

I am looking to buy a prosumer camera sometime after PMA and I am
not going to wait a year to just to get my hands on a 1.3MP
consumer X3 with the belief that it is the equivalent of 4MP bayer
cameras. It seems like I am the only one who will be buying a
consumer camera in 2002, and I find that most odd.

Clearly I am missing something.

Peter

CRT_Leech said:

Regardless of the technical details, the samples I have seen makes
it much easier to wait for a camera utilizing this technology.

What camera that is depends on the price and what I can afford.

At this point, it's moot. I have new car, ATV and motorcycle
payments to take care of for a couple more years. So, when I CAN
finally afford a digitia camera that meets my demands and desires,
it will probably be based off of this technology, unless something
else comes out even better.

I was all for the three sensor, prism solution that Fovean had
already come out with, but, I don't like the form factor for the
most part. While it's great for studio work, I don't work in a
studio. I would rather have something like a Pro-sumer similar to a
G2 or an SLR, like the proposed Sigma.

My question to you, is why are you starting a personal crusade
against this technology and being so skeptical?

It's good to be skeptical, for your own protection, but, you come
off sounding like someone that works for, and holds a lot of stock
in, a competing digital imaging company like Nikon or Canon.

Laters,
CRT_Leech

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Well, it seemed to me at least, that you seem ultra-skeptical. Sometime, things do skip a generation or so and do seem too far advanced to be credible.

I for one, will continue to shoot slides and film until I know more about this technology and see if I want to wait or get something that is currently out there, which would probably be the G2 or it's replacement.

From what I have seen and read from posts by Phil and Peter iNova, I think I will probably be waiting for this technology. The samples I've seen are just TOO good not to wait for a bit to see if they pan out.

Since the Sigma will accept Micro Drives, I may go the extra $2k and get one. We'll see. I would hate to abuse my credit line that much, but, heck, I would hate to spend $1k on a camera, only to replace it in a year with a much better technology. I'll save my money. Sometimes, it does pay to wait.

Laters,
CRT_Leech

I sold my previous digicam months back and will not return to film. So there will be no

While I think the technology is great, Bayer is just not that bad. It seems to have gone from first to worst in a week.

I find this baffling when the D30 is considered the equal or better than film by many.

Certainly there is room for improvement, but how much?

Peter

CRT_Leech said:

Peter G said:

The level of credulousness in these forums is hard for me to
fathom. People are accepting everything positive about the
technology and then magnifying and hyping it beyond belief. There
are those claiming 400% improvements in image quality because of
this development with no realistic basis for that, not even the
press release is anywhere near that rosy. I don't think I have seen
anyone claim gains of less than 200% gains.

For the record I have no stock or stake, nor work for any imaging
company. But if I did, I would surely have dumped it yesterday.
There is bound to be an impact from this advance.

I am looking to buy a prosumer camera sometime after PMA and I am
not going to wait a year to just to get my hands on a 1.3MP
consumer X3 with the belief that it is the equivalent of 4MP bayer
cameras. It seems like I am the only one who will be buying a
consumer camera in 2002, and I find that most odd.

Clearly I am missing something.

Peter

CRT_Leech said:

Regardless of the technical details, the samples I have seen makes
it much easier to wait for a camera utilizing this technology.

What camera that is depends on the price and what I can afford.

At this point, it's moot. I have new car, ATV and motorcycle
payments to take care of for a couple more years. So, when I CAN
finally afford a digitia camera that meets my demands and desires,
it will probably be based off of this technology, unless something
else comes out even better.

I was all for the three sensor, prism solution that Fovean had
already come out with, but, I don't like the form factor for the
most part. While it's great for studio work, I don't work in a
studio. I would rather have something like a Pro-sumer similar to a
G2 or an SLR, like the proposed Sigma.

My question to you, is why are you starting a personal crusade
against this technology and being so skeptical?

It's good to be skeptical, for your own protection, but, you come
off sounding like someone that works for, and holds a lot of stock
in, a competing digital imaging company like Nikon or Canon.

Laters,
CRT_Leech

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Well, it seemed to me at least, that you seem ultra-skeptical.
Sometime, things do skip a generation or so and do seem too far
advanced to be credible.

I for one, will continue to shoot slides and film until I know more
about this technology and see if I want to wait or get something
that is currently out there, which would probably be the G2 or it's
replacement.

From what I have seen and read from posts by Phil and Peter iNova,
I think I will probably be waiting for this technology. The samples
I've seen are just TOO good not to wait for a bit to see if they
pan out.

Since the Sigma will accept Micro Drives, I may go the extra $2k
and get one. We'll see. I would hate to abuse my credit line that
much, but, heck, I would hate to spend $1k on a camera, only to
replace it in a year with a much better technology. I'll save my
money. Sometimes, it does pay to wait.

Laters,
CRT_Leech

Click to expand...