Erichatch
Senior Member
--EricF707 http://www.pbase.com/erichocinc
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Also, I was thinking that their technology might "filter" out light more thoroughly than the color filters on the current generation of CCDs.
U
Ulysses
Guest
Commentary from Phil on this very question. My theory may be right on:
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1000&message=2193569
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1000&message=2193569
David J. Littleboy
Senior Member
My thought exactly. I was really disappointed at the DA when I took some city night shots and the deep blue neon turned into bright cyan. Sigh. (Sky does that too. It's because the green pixel filters let through some amount of blue. When the blue intensity is at 250 or so a green level of 50 is no big deal, but when blue is 5 times brighter than "256", the green will come up and the blue doesn't have anywhere to go.)
The X3 may or may not have better cutoff than the Sony color filters, but I'll bet it fails in very different ways.
--David J. LittleboyTokyo, Japan
U
Ulysses
Guest
Well... let's just say that it is "innocent until proven guilty". 
I'd like for Phil to mention some of the low points of the technology or the cameras, as well as the good points. But we have no way of knowing just yet until we see some full-sized original shots for ourselves.
I'd like for Phil to mention some of the low points of the technology or the cameras, as well as the good points. But we have no way of knowing just yet until we see some full-sized original shots for ourselves.
Resize the image you get from your 707 from 2560 x 1920 to their smaller a 2300x1500. The downsizing process may give you the same image clarity as theirs.
U
Ulysses
Guest
Well... it will improve, but it will not match the Foveon chip. Not even close except in some of the best shots that come out of the F707.
Good suggestion, however. This is why downsized shots often look even better than the original once they have been sent through an Unsharp Mask.
It should be noted that the large images at the Foveon site are probably also downsized or else cropped.
Good suggestion, however. This is why downsized shots often look even better than the original once they have been sent through an Unsharp Mask.
It should be noted that the large images at the Foveon site are probably also downsized or else cropped.
David SL
Senior Member
--DSL
Cubfan
Leading Member
I haven't seen any fullsize 2560 x 1920 images from the Foveon. Where are they?Well... it will improve, but it will not match the Foveon chip. Not
even close except in some of the best shots that come out of the
F707.
ZipperZ
Senior Member
I on the otherhand think the 707 can.
This (boxer)is a studio production shot with clean high powered strobes and in TIFF mode.
The cat photo is soft and nothing special. The only advantage i see here is the noiseless black shadows/backgrounds.
But then again...i bought my blad based on the stunning photos i saw in brochures too. Theres nothing wrong with all the hype on this new X3 but with the same controlled enviroment i believe the 707 is just as capable.--cheersZip
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -BFS: NOSticker Status: ON...but on upsidedownPie Chute: UnCorked Lens Cap: No dangle at any angle - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
R
Ron Parr
Guest
1800x1800 is the biggest we've seen so far. We don't know if this was full size for the sensor that was used to produce them.I haven't seen any fullsize 2560 x 1920 images from the Foveon.Well... it will improve, but it will not match the Foveon chip. Not
even close except in some of the best shots that come out of the
F707.
Where are they?
Full size for the SD9 will be 2268 x 1512.
Ron
--Ron ParrFAQ: http://www.cs.duke.edu/~parr/photography/faq.htmlGallery: http://www.pbase.com/parr/
Cubfan
Leading Member
oops thats what i meant- 2300 x 1500. Typo. Didn't think they had any fullsize posted (or at least 3 megapixel fullsize)- but the resized images that are posted look outstanding.1800x1800 is the biggest we've seen so far. We don't know if thisI haven't seen any fullsize 2560 x 1920 images from the Foveon.Well... it will improve, but it will not match the Foveon chip. Not
even close except in some of the best shots that come out of the
F707.
Where are they?
was full size for the sensor that was used to produce them.
Full size for the SD9 will be 2268 x 1512.
Ron
A
Arlene
Guest
Ron,
I agree the image of the boxer is very three dimensional but it also has to do with a the way it's 'side lit' Side lighting also brings out more detail in an image. In fact all three larger shots are side lit. The one thing that is indisputable is the true to life color--very impressive. I can't wait to see the images from Phils full testing on a production model. That's going to be exciting.
Arlene
I agree the image of the boxer is very three dimensional but it also has to do with a the way it's 'side lit' Side lighting also brings out more detail in an image. In fact all three larger shots are side lit. The one thing that is indisputable is the true to life color--very impressive. I can't wait to see the images from Phils full testing on a production model. That's going to be exciting.
Arlene
A
Arlene
Guest
Not so easy with a 707 and all it's flash issues. ---Arlene
I on the otherhand think the 707 can.
This (boxer)is a studio production shot with clean high powered
strobes and in TIFF mode.
The cat photo is soft and nothing special. The only advantage i see
here is the noiseless black shadows/backgrounds.
But then again...i bought my blad based on the stunning photos i
saw in brochures too. Theres nothing wrong with all the hype on
this new X3 but with the same controlled enviroment i believe the
707 is just as capable.
--
cheers
Zip
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
BFS: NO
Sticker Status: ON...but on upsidedown
Pie Chute: UnCorked
Lens Cap: No dangle at any angle
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
A
Arlene
Guest
These are my picks
Canon Casio
Epson
Fuji
HP
Kodak
Minolta
Nikon
Olympus
Ricoh
Sony
Toshiba
Canon Casio
Epson
Fuji
HP
Kodak
Minolta
Nikon
Olympus
Ricoh
Sony
Toshiba
I'm thinking it will be one of the smaller players, the ones who
have a LOT more to gain in market share in order for buyers and
investors to sit up and notice.
Let's see who's in the market right now in terms of producing
decent cameras:
Canon
Casio
Epson
Fuji
HP
Kodak
Minolta
Nikon
Olympus
Ricoh
Sony
Toshiba
These are some of the major players. Now, which ones would you put
an asterisk next to, signifying that they'd take the Foveon Flying
Leap of Faith in order to increase their product awareness, while
at the same time heightening their quality?
Looks interesting, now, doesn't it?
--
Ulysses
U
Ulysses
Guest
Actually, that's not the correct size for the Foveon images.
But currently, as far as we know, Phil has a number of X3 samples (shot with a reference camera... he may also have a Sigma, I'll bet), but he won't be able to post any of the full-size shots until at earliest the PMA announcement. -- Ulysses
A
Arlene
Guest
U
Ulysses
Guest
The resized images that I mentioned earlier this week are nice to look at. But to be honest, they only tell us a limited amount of information about the sensor technology, and almost nothing about the camera that was used.
For all we know, it could have been a reference developer's kit that was used... it could have been a Sigma... we just don't know.
The images could have been resized and enhanced, cropped and retouched. Again, we just don't know.
There is some indication in the shots, however, the noise level is extremely low. The best sample of this is in the billiards table, where any number of areas could be chosen that would present ordinary consumer/prosumer level cameras with fits. There are a lot of things happening with highlights and shadows in that shot that are reproduced really well, assuming that there was no great attempt at retouching.-- Ulysses
For all we know, it could have been a reference developer's kit that was used... it could have been a Sigma... we just don't know.
The images could have been resized and enhanced, cropped and retouched. Again, we just don't know.
There is some indication in the shots, however, the noise level is extremely low. The best sample of this is in the billiards table, where any number of areas could be chosen that would present ordinary consumer/prosumer level cameras with fits. There are a lot of things happening with highlights and shadows in that shot that are reproduced really well, assuming that there was no great attempt at retouching.-- Ulysses
U
Ulysses
Guest
You won't see Canon dump Sony's chips. For one thing, they've already admitted publicly that their CMOS tech is expensive and doesn't have the speed that they'd like to retain in a consumer product. Sony Semiconductor is sooner likely to drop prices for a huge client like Canon, providing incentive for them to just stick with the status quo.
But Kodak... now that's a good candidate.
But Kodak... now that's a good candidate.
I really enjoyed this link to make people understand exactly the difference between digital and 35mm, and what it will take to make the 2 different formats equal. I think he did his homework well.
http://www.users.qwest.net/~rnclark/scandetail.htm
http://www.users.qwest.net/~rnclark/scandetail.htm
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum