Caution about X3

I just want to ask the assembled experts about the Foveon's supposed "times 3" resolution factor when specifying the pixel count. For example, they say their 3.3mp Sigma will have resolution equivalent to 2268 x 1512 x 3 pixels. I'm just not sure what that means. If there are only 3.3 million pixels on the imager, then it will pixelate upon enlargement at the same point any other 3.3mp imager would, right? If you can blow up a normal CCD image to 13 x 19 before you start seeing pixelization, then the Foveon would have the same limitation, right?

So wouldn't a 5 or 6mp CCD imager be superior in resolution, regardless of technology for color separation?

Gary Eickmeier

Not an expert but you must be right in terms of pixelation - ultimately, enlargement factor must be limited by pixelation.

However, the idea seems to be that bayer sensors do not do full justice to the available pixel count and the foveon design supposedly does better here. To a certain extent this could mean it produces images that beat the quality of bayer sensors with similar pixel counts. By how much we won't know until full test results are available. The other factor is that the foveon is a cmos sensor with the advantages and disadvantages that carries.

Gary Eickmeier said:

I just want to ask the assembled experts about the Foveon's
supposed "times 3" resolution factor when specifying the pixel
count. For example, they say their 3.3mp Sigma will have resolution
equivalent to 2268 x 1512 x 3 pixels. I'm just not sure what that
means. If there are only 3.3 million pixels on the imager, then it
will pixelate upon enlargement at the same point any other 3.3mp
imager would, right? If you can blow up a normal CCD image to 13 x
19 before you start seeing pixelization, then the Foveon would have
the same limitation, right?

So wouldn't a 5 or 6mp CCD imager be superior in resolution,
regardless of technology for color separation?

Gary Eickmeier

Click to expand...

DMillier said:

Not an expert but you must be right in terms of pixelation -
ultimately, enlargement factor must be limited by pixelation.

However, the idea seems to be that bayer sensors do not do full
justice to the available pixel count and the foveon design
supposedly does better here. To a certain extent this could mean it
produces images that beat the quality of bayer sensors with similar
pixel counts. By how much we won't know until full test results are
available. The other factor is that the foveon is a cmos sensor
with the advantages and disadvantages that carries.

Click to expand...

Another way to ask my question is, if we want to print at between 200 and 300ppi, then would a Foveon imager be any different from the others in calculating how many pixels you need in the basic image? Why so?

Gary Eickmeier

There seems to be alot of confusion about this. Maybe Phil could weigh in. It appears that what you end up with is only a 3.5 MP image, so the pixel dimensions (and resultant ability to enlarge or reproduce in print) will be the same as with any other camera with a chip this size. The images appear to be very clean and each pixel appears to be very color accurate in the sample shots, so this may give you more headroom for enlargement. A 6MP CCD might be able to compete even if its noisier.

The other question I have not seen addressed is that of the speed of capture. The Sigma camera apparently won't do continuous shooting at full rez and there is no mention of the buffer size in the specs(is there?). Wonder how long you have to wait between shots.--Steven Lyons http://stevenlyons.com

DMillier said:

However, the idea seems to be that bayer sensors do not do full
justice to the available pixel count and the foveon design
supposedly does better here. To a certain extent this could mean it
produces images that beat the quality of bayer sensors with similar
pixel counts. By how much we won't know until full test results are
available. The other factor is that the foveon is a cmos sensor
with the advantages and disadvantages that carries.

Gary Eickmeier said:

I just want to ask the assembled experts about the Foveon's
supposed "times 3" resolution factor when specifying the pixel
count. For example, they say their 3.3mp Sigma will have resolution
equivalent to 2268 x 1512 x 3 pixels. I'm just not sure what that
means. If there are only 3.3 million pixels on the imager, then it
will pixelate upon enlargement at the same point any other 3.3mp
imager would, right? If you can blow up a normal CCD image to 13 x
19 before you start seeing pixelization, then the Foveon would have
the same limitation, right?

So wouldn't a 5 or 6mp CCD imager be superior in resolution,
regardless of technology for color separation?

Gary Eickmeier

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--DSL

Gary Eickmeier said:

DMillier said:

Not an expert but you must be right in terms of pixelation -
ultimately, enlargement factor must be limited by pixelation.

However, the idea seems to be that bayer sensors do not do full
justice to the available pixel count and the foveon design
supposedly does better here. To a certain extent this could mean it
produces images that beat the quality of bayer sensors with similar
pixel counts. By how much we won't know until full test results are
available. The other factor is that the foveon is a cmos sensor
with the advantages and disadvantages that carries.

Click to expand...

Another way to ask my question is, if we want to print at between
200 and 300ppi, then would a Foveon imager be any different from
the others in calculating how many pixels you need in the basic
image? Why so?

Gary Eickmeier

Click to expand...

Gary,

The difference between the two techniques lies in the variance in color in adjacent pixels. Humans percieve detail by noting transitions in color, the more accurate the color the highier in percieved resolution an image will appear to a human. The cones in the eye that detect color are mostly responsible for our ability to discern fine detail precisely because of their color sensitivity. The triple photosite stack used in X3 technology is actually less similar to the cones in the arrangment of the human fovea(bayer sensors actually have more physical similarity). The difference is that the cones in the fovea do not nearly perfectly seperate colors like the filters in bayer pattern sensors do. The cones in the eye have rather imperfect color seperation curves and are sensitive to wavelengths outside their principle range (R is sensitive to G and B,B is sensitive to R an G...etc.) This imperfect color seperation combined with the brains ability to "interpolate" by tiling adjacent colors to fill in gaps in the visual response field lead to very accurate detail resolving capabilities in humans. Very much like the human eye, X3 also has imperfect response curves per photosite, but what many forget(and as was previously stated) is that the sensors in the eye are also imperfect in their response. This realization hints at a possible explanation for the nearly perfect color and resolution of the X3 images seen thus far despite apparently "bad" seperation of colors at the stacked photosites. Read here for ideas on it:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1007&message=2225323

In fact, Microsoft research (where Carver Mead actually worked for some time) came up with a technology called ClearType made to exploit the visual systems ability to percieve detail out of unseperated color. They deliberatly add "color noise" to black text on LCD displays to make it appear smoother(highier percieved resolution). Go to this site to download a very cool demo. app. of the technology:

http://grc.com/cleartype.htm

Remember, that the bayer sensors require interpolation that deliberatly reduces color accuracy at each pixel to gain a color reading for that pixel, this action relative to X3 further reduces color accuracy from pixel to pixel.

So really there can be said to be two strikes against bayer sensors 1) inaccuracy from sampling color on other photosites using almost perfectly color seperated filters and 2) interpolating the missing colors from neighboring sites smearing color information across the final image.

Color information "smears" across the image, this leads to a loss of human percieved detail in comparison to X3 where the color "smear" does not occur, detail is maintained, color accuracy is maintained and percieved resolution goes(or rather stays..) up.

The question remains, how much of a gain will the X3 technology give us? Well, to answer it we must look at the images, from what the overriding majority of people who've seen the images say it would seem the difference in resolution is quite obvious. Now to answer your question, theoretically (as explained above) even with the same number of pixels color accuracy in the X3 image will be better(all other things being unchanged), it will therefor "look" better at the same size and look as good at a larger size relative to a bayer sensor image for the reasons mentioned above. We won't have quantified results that determine weather it is really 2x or 3x better until the analysis of full size images can be done under controlled situations.

Thankfully, that day is fast approaching.

Regards,
--DSL

Fovean is saying there new sensor is much better than the current CCD's. I believe they're right. I think a LOT of people are confused about the "x 3" at the end. That just means each pixel can detect Red Green and Blue. The X 3 does NOT mean 3.5 X 3 = 10.5. Foveon is NOT saying that!

So, what resolution does the Fovean 3.5 megapixel have? 3.5 MEGAPIXELS! Which, by the way, are FAR SUPERIOR to a CCD with that many megapixels. How much clearer we'll see. I think it's probably twice as clear.

So, remember, the 3.5 x 3 doesn't mean 3.5 Megapixels TIMES THREE, it just means 3.5 Megapixels with the X3 Technology that can read EACH COLOR on EACH PIXEL.

Paul

Gary Eickmeier said:

I just want to ask the assembled experts about the Foveon's
supposed "times 3" resolution factor when specifying the pixel
count. For example, they say their 3.3mp Sigma will have resolution
equivalent to 2268 x 1512 x 3 pixels. I'm just not sure what that
means. If there are only 3.3 million pixels on the imager, then it
will pixelate upon enlargement at the same point any other 3.3mp
imager would, right? If you can blow up a normal CCD image to 13 x
19 before you start seeing pixelization, then the Foveon would have
the same limitation, right?

So wouldn't a 5 or 6mp CCD imager be superior in resolution,
regardless of technology for color separation?

Gary Eickmeier

Click to expand...

Gary

Actually that is not what they say at all. That is why they kept the real resolution unlike for example Fuji that publishes the interpolated resolution.

The Foveon sensor does not have 3 times the resolution.

It has the same resolution as a regular 3.3mp sensor but every pixel is derived from 3 real color measurments on the same spot and not as in a standard bayer CCD/CMOS where the color and luminance value for each pixel is interpolated from at least 4 neighboring photo sites that can each only measure one color (via filter)

So essentially you end up with a 3.3mp image with better color information and less problems such as interpolation errors as well as other color problems due to the bayer array and the required interpolation.

How much better they will be remains to be seen

--Michael SalzlechnerStarZen Digital Imaging http://www.starzen.com/imagingE-10 / D30 Photo Albums http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=1605723

When I was young and unprepared to digital misteries, some wise master told me that in RGB most of the detail was in the green channel, and most of the noise, artefacts and other bad smelling particles in the blue channel. It has proved true in many situations (not always), and anyhow it has fueled my disregard for anything blue. In a Bayer CCD or CMOS, half of the sensor feed the green channel, while poor blue and red have to manage with a quarter each. In the Foveon thing, every pixel reads something about green, or at least so they say, so if my old wise master was right the system should receive double information about detail compared to more traditional solutions. So 3.5 MP should equal 7 MP, which sounds very appropriate since everybody seems to be on the point to have 6MP sensors. So Foveon will be able to claim they are ahead of the competition for a month or two, which is the highway to success.
Fabio

Fabio,

3.5 MP = 3.5 MP. Plain and simple. The quality of those 3.5 MP are very much improved. You can't say 3.5 = 7 because there are twice as many green sensors. The only way that would be true is if the current CCD systems didn't make their best guess as to what the green should be in each of those skipped pixels. OR if the current CCD's got EVERY pixel guessed wrong. But you and I both know that isn't the case.

3.5 x 3 = 3.5 with 3 colors each. It WILL have more accurate color and detail, but it isn't a simple mathmatical addition or multiplication that will give you that the amount of improvement. It will depend on what is being photographed, etc. But it IS a WONDERFUL improvement!

Paul

Fabio said:

When I was young and unprepared to digital misteries, some wise
master told me that in RGB most of the detail was in the green
channel, and most of the noise, artefacts and other bad smelling
particles in the blue channel. It has proved true in many
situations (not always), and anyhow it has fueled my disregard for
anything blue. In a Bayer CCD or CMOS, half of the sensor feed the
green channel, while poor blue and red have to manage with a
quarter each. In the Foveon thing, every pixel reads something
about green, or at least so they say, so if my old wise master was
right the system should receive double information about detail
compared to more traditional solutions. So 3.5 MP should equal 7
MP, which sounds very appropriate since everybody seems to be on
the point to have 6MP sensors. So Foveon will be able to claim they
are ahead of the competition for a month or two, which is the
highway to success.
Fabio

Click to expand...

Well put, Paul. If I was playing the numbers game, I'd say the image quality will be up to 50% better than its mosaic counterpart, MPs being equal. Not the 200% some people would like to believe.

Still... wow!!

Paul W. Walters said:

3.5 MP = 3.5 MP. Plain and simple. The quality of those 3.5 MP
are very much improved. You can't say 3.5 = 7 because there are
twice as many green sensors. The only way that would be true is if
the current CCD systems didn't make their best guess as to what the
green should be in each of those skipped pixels. OR if the current
CCD's got EVERY pixel guessed wrong. But you and I both know that
isn't the case.

3.5 x 3 = 3.5 with 3 colors each. It WILL have more accurate color
and detail, but it isn't a simple mathmatical addition or
multiplication that will give you that the amount of improvement.
It will depend on what is being photographed, etc. But it IS a
WONDERFUL improvement!

Paul

Fabio said:

When I was young and unprepared to digital misteries, some wise
master told me that in RGB most of the detail was in the green
channel, and most of the noise, artefacts and other bad smelling
particles in the blue channel. It has proved true in many
situations (not always), and anyhow it has fueled my disregard for
anything blue. In a Bayer CCD or CMOS, half of the sensor feed the
green channel, while poor blue and red have to manage with a
quarter each. In the Foveon thing, every pixel reads something
about green, or at least so they say, so if my old wise master was
right the system should receive double information about detail
compared to more traditional solutions. So 3.5 MP should equal 7
MP, which sounds very appropriate since everybody seems to be on
the point to have 6MP sensors. So Foveon will be able to claim they
are ahead of the competition for a month or two, which is the
highway to success.
Fabio

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

In a Bayer Pattern CCD a 4mpxl camera only provides 1mpxl for Red, 1 mpxl for blue and 2mpxl for green information.

In the Foveon, a 3.5 mpxl camera provides for 3.5mpxl for Red, 3.5mpxl for Blue and 3.5mpxl for Green information.

While the output only results in a 3.5mpxl image, the total color information gathered to create that image is considerably bigger.

From tests I've done, it seems that a good bit of the noise we see from CCD's is DERIVED during the interpolation process... and ISN'T in the RAW capture before interpolation. This jibes with the fact that 'banding' has been addressed with firmware updates by some manufacturers!

What we DON'T know about the Foveon is how accurately and at what ratios each of the three color levels are captured. For instance, if daylight reflects off a pure white object does the collector for the red catch as many photons as the collector for the blue and the green? Or, does some minute amount of the information destined for the lower levels get absorbed in the upper layers. If so, how do they correct for this so that they can truly claim the result EXACTLY matched the original?

But, suppose each pixel DOES acurrately capture the original. This definitely means that we can go a LOT larger with our images than a typical CCD of like size. That' becuase we won't be interpolating noise; but, actual color information as we make it larger. If also means that we can add MORE sharpening since we will be confident that abrupt contrast changes aren't simply the result of random noise; but, actual edge information.

It remains to be seen; but, common sense comes down on Foveon's side at the moment.

Tom

Gary Eickmeier said:

I just want to ask the assembled experts about the Foveon's
supposed "times 3" resolution factor when specifying the pixel
count. For example, they say their 3.3mp Sigma will have resolution
equivalent to 2268 x 1512 x 3 pixels. I'm just not sure what that
means. If there are only 3.3 million pixels on the imager, then it
will pixelate upon enlargement at the same point any other 3.3mp
imager would, right? If you can blow up a normal CCD image to 13 x
19 before you start seeing pixelization, then the Foveon would have
the same limitation, right?

So wouldn't a 5 or 6mp CCD imager be superior in resolution,
regardless of technology for color separation?

Gary Eickmeier

Click to expand...

Tom Meeks said:

In a Bayer Pattern CCD a 4mpxl camera only provides 1mpxl for Red,
1 mpxl for blue and 2mpxl for green information.

In the Foveon, a 3.5 mpxl camera provides for 3.5mpxl for Red,
3.5mpxl for Blue and 3.5mpxl for Green information.

While the output only results in a 3.5mpxl image, the total color
information gathered to create that image is considerably bigger.

From tests I've done, it seems that a good bit of the noise we see
from CCD's is DERIVED during the interpolation process... and ISN'T
in the RAW capture before interpolation. This jibes with the fact
that 'banding' has been addressed with firmware updates by some
manufacturers!

What we DON'T know about the Foveon is how accurately and at what
ratios each of the three color levels are captured.

Click to expand...

Actually the photon response curves shown on the patent for the X3 process indicate the level of color seperation that occurs between the triple wells. It doesn't appear that seperation is very good. However, it turns out it doesn't need to be perfect like it is for bayer filter sensors. Read here to find out why:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1000&message=2234797

Tom Meeks said:

For instance,
if daylight reflects off a pure white object does the collector for
the red catch as many photons as the collector for the blue and the
green? Or, does some minute amount of the information destined for
the lower levels get absorbed in the upper layers. If so, how do
they correct for this so that they can truly claim the result
EXACTLY matched the original?

Click to expand...

As mentioned above, it doesn't need to match "exactly" only enough to be percieved as a near identical match in color by a human being. I think this is the key to how the X3 sensor manages to resolve very very good color with apparently "bad" photon response curves.

Tom Meeks said:

But, suppose each pixel DOES acurrately capture the original. This
definitely means that we can go a LOT larger with our images than a
typical CCD of like size. That' becuase we won't be interpolating
noise; but, actual color information as we make it larger. If also
means that we can add MORE sharpening since we will be confident
that abrupt contrast changes aren't simply the result of random
noise; but, actual edge information.

Click to expand...

True

Tom Meeks said:

It remains to be seen; but, common sense comes down on Foveon's
side at the moment.

Tom

Click to expand...

Regards,

--DSL

Tom Meeks said:

In a Bayer Pattern CCD a 4mpxl camera only provides 1mpxl for Red,
1 mpxl for blue and 2mpxl for green information.

In the Foveon, a 3.5 mpxl camera provides for 3.5mpxl for Red,
3.5mpxl for Blue and 3.5mpxl for Green information.

While the output only results in a 3.5mpxl image, the total color
information gathered to create that image is considerably bigger.

Click to expand...

That's fine, but when I go to print the image, I can only go so large before I am printing at below 200ppi. It just seems that I would be better off with a 6mp regular CCD than a 3.5mp X3. Of course, the ideal would be a 6mp X3, but the story is that we can multiply the resolution by 3 with the "X3" and get the true resolution of the imager, which is what I am struggling with.

Gary Eickmeier

I think you have to consider more then pixelation. Here is my arguement.

I blow up a yellow flower. Yellow is an interpolated color not one of the primaries of the CCD or CMOS chip. As I blow up the image I see pixels. They are obvious because of the color steps. You see one yellow and next to it a slightly different yellow. So the resolution is more then the line pairs in a black and white test pattern but also includes the ability to resolve proper colors. In that area the X3 is truely a 9 MP CMOS device. True it will image a b/w line pair just like a Bayer 3 MP CCD.

The images I've seen are stunning...much better then the 5MP images I've seen from Nikon D1x or D-30 canon.

DMillier said:

However, the idea seems to be that bayer sensors do not do full
justice to the available pixel count and the foveon design
supposedly does better here. To a certain extent this could mean it
produces images that beat the quality of bayer sensors with similar
pixel counts. By how much we won't know until full test results are
available. The other factor is that the foveon is a cmos sensor
with the advantages and disadvantages that carries.

Gary Eickmeier said:

I just want to ask the assembled experts about the Foveon's
supposed "times 3" resolution factor when specifying the pixel
count. For example, they say their 3.3mp Sigma will have resolution
equivalent to 2268 x 1512 x 3 pixels. I'm just not sure what that
means. If there are only 3.3 million pixels on the imager, then it
will pixelate upon enlargement at the same point any other 3.3mp
imager would, right? If you can blow up a normal CCD image to 13 x
19 before you start seeing pixelization, then the Foveon would have
the same limitation, right?

So wouldn't a 5 or 6mp CCD imager be superior in resolution,
regardless of technology for color separation?

Gary Eickmeier

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Gary,

Listen... The story is NOT that you can multiply it by three! Come on, read back on this very thread. It's just 3.5 megapixels of BETTER quality pixels. We've yet to see how well the improved colors and lack of noise compares to the larger CCDs, but the story IS NOT 3.5 x 3 = 9. It's 3.5 of GREAT QUALITY pixels!

Paul

Gary Eickmeier said:

Tom Meeks said:

In a Bayer Pattern CCD a 4mpxl camera only provides 1mpxl for Red,
1 mpxl for blue and 2mpxl for green information.

In the Foveon, a 3.5 mpxl camera provides for 3.5mpxl for Red,
3.5mpxl for Blue and 3.5mpxl for Green information.

While the output only results in a 3.5mpxl image, the total color
information gathered to create that image is considerably bigger.

Click to expand...

That's fine, but when I go to print the image, I can only go so
large before I am printing at below 200ppi. It just seems that I
would be better off with a 6mp regular CCD than a 3.5mp X3. Of
course, the ideal would be a 6mp X3, but the story is that we can
multiply the resolution by 3 with the "X3" and get the true
resolution of the imager, which is what I am struggling with.

Gary Eickmeier

Click to expand...

Turn this arguement around. Is a standard CCD of 3.34MP really 3.34 MP? Well its only 835K of red and blue pixels and double that of green. So a green object...well you get the drift. A 835K CCD (say red) would be scoffed at on this board. We need to consider resolution of colored objects, not just b/w test patterns to determine the real quality of the device.

Besides the CCD you need to consider the artifacts in the processing and the loss of speed in the camera's response while it conducts the interpolaton of a standard CCD image.

Paul W. Walters said:

3.5 MP = 3.5 MP. Plain and simple. The quality of those 3.5 MP
are very much improved. You can't say 3.5 = 7 because there are
twice as many green sensors. The only way that would be true is if
the current CCD systems didn't make their best guess as to what the
green should be in each of those skipped pixels. OR if the current
CCD's got EVERY pixel guessed wrong. But you and I both know that
isn't the case.

3.5 x 3 = 3.5 with 3 colors each. It WILL have more accurate color
and detail, but it isn't a simple mathmatical addition or
multiplication that will give you that the amount of improvement.
It will depend on what is being photographed, etc. But it IS a
WONDERFUL improvement!

Paul

Fabio said:

When I was young and unprepared to digital misteries, some wise
master told me that in RGB most of the detail was in the green
channel, and most of the noise, artefacts and other bad smelling
particles in the blue channel. It has proved true in many
situations (not always), and anyhow it has fueled my disregard for
anything blue. In a Bayer CCD or CMOS, half of the sensor feed the
green channel, while poor blue and red have to manage with a
quarter each. In the Foveon thing, every pixel reads something
about green, or at least so they say, so if my old wise master was
right the system should receive double information about detail
compared to more traditional solutions. So 3.5 MP should equal 7
MP, which sounds very appropriate since everybody seems to be on
the point to have 6MP sensors. So Foveon will be able to claim they
are ahead of the competition for a month or two, which is the
highway to success.
Fabio

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Try this. The X3 doesn't have three times the resolution just three times the color information.

Gary Eickmeier said:

Tom Meeks said:

In a Bayer Pattern CCD a 4mpxl camera only provides 1mpxl for Red,
1 mpxl for blue and 2mpxl for green information.

In the Foveon, a 3.5 mpxl camera provides for 3.5mpxl for Red,
3.5mpxl for Blue and 3.5mpxl for Green information.

While the output only results in a 3.5mpxl image, the total color
information gathered to create that image is considerably bigger.

Click to expand...

That's fine, but when I go to print the image, I can only go so
large before I am printing at below 200ppi. It just seems that I
would be better off with a 6mp regular CCD than a 3.5mp X3. Of
course, the ideal would be a 6mp X3, but the story is that we can
multiply the resolution by 3 with the "X3" and get the true
resolution of the imager, which is what I am struggling with.

Gary Eickmeier

Click to expand...

Gary Eickmeier said:

Tom Meeks said:

In a Bayer Pattern CCD a 4mpxl camera only provides 1mpxl for Red,
1 mpxl for blue and 2mpxl for green information.

In the Foveon, a 3.5 mpxl camera provides for 3.5mpxl for Red,
3.5mpxl for Blue and 3.5mpxl for Green information.

While the output only results in a 3.5mpxl image, the total color
information gathered to create that image is considerably bigger.

Click to expand...

That's fine, but when I go to print the image, I can only go so
large before I am printing at below 200ppi. It just seems that I
would be better off with a 6mp regular CCD than a 3.5mp X3. Of
course, the ideal would be a 6mp X3, but the story is that we can
multiply the resolution by 3 with the "X3" and get the true
resolution of the imager, which is what I am struggling with.

Click to expand...

Hmm, to get 6M pixels from a 3.5M pixel X3 sensor, you'd need to scale the image by about 31%. This seems to be a very modest amount, especially given that you'd be interpolating pixels for which full color information was available, as opposed to the 'fill in the blanks' kind that Bayer algorithms have to do. I think this comparison of a scaled-up X3 vs. a higher resolution Bayer will be one of the first things we can expect to see from Imagining Resource, DP Review, etc.

Cheers,
Pete

Gary Eickmeier said:

Gary Eickmeier

Click to expand...

-- http://www.peter-cockerell.net:8080/

Steven Lyons said:

The other question I have not seen addressed is that of the speed
of capture. The Sigma camera apparently won't do continuous
shooting at full rez and ...

Click to expand...

Steven, yes this is also one of my concerns with the Sigma/Foveon, however I should point out that it appears that what you wrote is not actually correct. The specs for the Sigma SD-9 as published on this site have changed several times (most notably with respect to the highest ISO rating -- first it was 400, then 800 and now it is back to 400), and if you look at the current spec at:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0202/02021104sigmads9.asp

then you will note that Sigma have evidently been in contact with Phil to clarify some issues, one of which is continuous mode shooting. In Phil's original spec it said something like 'continuous shooting is not available at full resolution' (as you wrote), but now it states:

"Continuous: All resolutions (speed unknown)"

This is very good news, although I will be interested to see the actual figures.

Terry.