Foveon support!!

Tom May · Feb 23, 2002

Ulysses:

I would add that memory requirements will be higher, but looking down the road on flash pricing, this wouldn't seem to be a problem.

I would still disagree that it will be any of advantage long term for Adobe, since they would most likely support whatever plugins their customers require anyway, and MS support for the RAW format, while not enhancing MS position to my way of thinking (other than offer ecouragement to upgrade to XP). does lend support for the RAW format.

Either way, I would acknowledge that it will drive the RAW format, standardized or not. Expect RAW support on everything by PMA next year, which is good for all of us, however you slice it.

Tom

Tom May said:
Ulysses said:

Disadvantages of RAW format
Requires proprietary acquire module (typically TWAIN) or plugin to
open images
Images can take 20-40 seconds to process on an average machine
No universally accepted RAW standard format, each manufacturer
(even each camera) differs

==================

Ron Parr said:

Photoshop doesn't have a format called "raw", but their .pdd format
is essentially a big bitmap.

Camera manufacturers, e.g. Canon, compress the data in their raw
files using a lossless compression algorithm. I don't know
specifically which algorithm they use, but it's probably some kind
of adaptive humman encoding or Lempel Ziv type thing.

Click to expand...

--

Ulysses

Click to expand...

Ulysses · Feb 23, 2002

The excitement is about Foveon and support for their X3 chip and associated image technology. Sigma is just a camera company. Whether they have a problem camera will have not much at all to do with Foveon.

MAC said:
For $3K it is not worth it IMO for high end hobbiest! Sigma can
have quality issues also so watch out. Not sure what all the
excitment is about.-- Ulysses

Ulysses · Feb 23, 2002

Tom May said:
I would still disagree that it will be any of advantage long term
for Adobe

Clearly, Foveon benefits more than either Adobe or Microsoft.

Adobe benefits in that their software is once again associated with a high-quality digital imaging name, and with the development of Carver Mead. But Foveon benefits most because they can say that they have the backing of Adobe.

Tom May said:
Either way, I would acknowledge that it will drive the RAW format,
standardized or not. Expect RAW support on everything by PMA next
year, which is good for all of us, however you slice it.

Well, I don't know about "everything", but maybe it will catch on a bit more. The average consumer still won't want to go through the hassle that it presently needs to manipulate RAW. Building that support and possibly even management right into the OS and into supporting software such as Photoshop (making handling transparent to the user) will be a wonderful thing in the minds of most. And then there won't be all of the questions such as "Why does grandma's hair look such a funny color? And is Uncle Bill embarrassed, or did the camera do that?" Imaging ought to generally be easier and of higher quality. -- Ulysses

Ulysses · Feb 23, 2002

I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with you on both of those in the context of the announcement.

Jimmy Chen said:
Jimmy Chen said:

Errr... wounldn't the two be inestricably linked?

Support one and you're supporting the other:

Click to expand...

LOL, dont we all like to think so ... Many companies have devices
that reads the sony memory stick, but those same companies dont all
have devices that can write to the Sony memory stick ...

So MS OS being able to read Foevon RAW data format doesnt
automatically translate to higher accpetance of the X3 chip.

-- Ulysses

Homer40784 · Feb 23, 2002

Peter G said:
Essentially I think Foveon RAW will be nearly identical to TIFF,
possibly being a 12 bit TIFF, to go with 8bit and 16bit versions
already out there.

Actually no.
Raw and Tiff are never "nearly identical" Peter.
And it won't be so with the Foveon either.
With the F7 the average file size will be
8MB for RAW
22MB for TIFF.

Homer

Homer40784 · Feb 23, 2002

Jimmy Chen said:
So MS OS being able to read Foevon RAW data format doesnt
automatically translate to higher accpetance of the X3 chip.

jc

Gee whiz Jimmy.

It might not in the long run amount to a hil of beans, but it DEFINITLY translates to "higher acceptance of the X3 chip".

I would KILL to come out with something (anything) that Billy would support right outa the git go.

Homer

Ulysses · Feb 23, 2002

Tom May said:
Since it's in Foveon's interest to make the
technology available for other applications and OS (Linux, OSX), it
sounds like Ron Parr's premise that deleting a hardware translater
for JPEG to reduce cost has merit for Foveon OEM's.

We're probably branching off into other territory here, and it's difficult to foresee where it's headed without seeing actual application.

Sidenote: Linux? OS X???? It will be interesting to see if announcements come on those fronts. Don't know if there is the kind of money and mindshare to be made there. Maybe with OS X....

Tom May said:
I just don't see any long term advantage for anyone, other than
moving image compression to the desktop. All that's been done is
the bar has been raised. Where's JPEG 2000 in all of this.
Obsolete? I don't think so.

I'm not sure I understand your questions. And on your last point, I'm not following you at all. -- Ulysses

Peter G · Feb 23, 2002

Compressed TIFF essentially, obviously it will be slightly different, but it will be essentially a losslessly compressed bmap like compressed TIFF. 8MB files are what has been reported.

There has been talk that this will be the only format. I have to wonder if these guys have stock in Flash Ram producers.
8mb per image is going to be a pain. 14 pics to a 128MB card??

One of the enablers for RAW usage on Mosaic cameras is that it is not much bigger than a high quality JPEG. I don't know anyone who shots TIFF, because of file size.

Also somewhere else it was mentioned that it would take Pentium4 12 seconds to open an image. They were touting this as a reason to upgrade your computer.

Its seems this inexpensive technology is only for the rich.

Peter

Ron Parr said:
Peter G said:

Essentially I think Foveon RAW will be nearly identical to TIFF,
possibly being a 12 bit TIFF, to go with 8bit and 16bit versions
already out there.

Click to expand...

Well, TIFF is a family of formats, not a specific format. There is
compressed TIFF and there is uncompressed TIFF. Which do you mean?

We already know that, like other raw formats, the images will be
compressed.

I agree that they will be larger than jpeg, and that X3 raw files
should be aroudn 3X D30 raw files, which would still put them
smaller than a F707 or S85 Tiff file.

--
Ron Parr
FAQ: http://www.cs.duke.edu/~parr/photography/faq.html
Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/parr/

Jimmy Chen · Feb 23, 2002

Homer40784 said:
Gee whiz Jimmy.
It might not in the long run amount to a hil of beans, but it
DEFINITLY translates to "higher acceptance of the X3 chip".
I would KILL to come out with something (anything) that Billy would
support right outa the git go.

Dont forget, Homer, Billy boy has been DYING to put his foot into the imaging industry for the longest time, just that he hasnt been able to with any of the existing format because they are either free from all over the place, or they are owned by other large companies such as Adobe, which he couldnt swallow up for pennies ... So as of this point everything that exist just doesnt add up to his "cost-profit" plans ...

Foevon? Who? If you get what I mean ... If I am Foevon, that last thing I want is for Billy boy to make my "format" part of his OS ... Unless I intent to sell to him later on ...

jc

MAC · Feb 23, 2002

Ulysses said:
The excitement is about Foveon and support for their X3 chip and
associated image technology. Sigma is just a camera company.
Whether they have a problem camera will have not much at all to do
with Foveon.

Hmmm, If B is flawed it effects A, when C was the expected result.

MAC

Member said:
MAC said:

For $3K it is not worth it IMO for high end hobbiest! Sigma can
have quality issues also so watch out. Not sure what all the
excitment is about.

Click to expand...

--

Ulysses

Ulysses · Feb 23, 2002

My question to the points you raise is this: Won't it depend much on the manufacturer and the type of processing that they choose to do on-camera, and what support they build into the hardware?

Fore example, the SD9 will work with the following three formats:

12-bit losslessly compressed RAW
TIFF
JPEG (Hi, Med, Low)

For the really discriminating user or the shot that demands work that can best be achieved in RAW, you have the option. -- Ulysses

Ulysses · Feb 23, 2002

... but then there is a reason that folks here call my math "fuzzy math".

)

We're probably judging the Sigma camera too early here, either for good or for bad. What seems fortunate either way is that Sigma is apparently not the only camera maker that will be using the chip. They are only the first.

If the camera fails, it probably won't be because of image quality; it will be because build quality or features simply aren't "as good as" the units from Nikon or Canon. In this crowd, all it has to do is outperform the Fuji, and it's got a relatively decent foothold then. Relatively speaking.

MAC said:
Ulysses said:

The excitement is about Foveon and support for their X3 chip and
associated image technology. Sigma is just a camera company.
Whether they have a problem camera will have not much at all to do
with Foveon.

Click to expand...

Hmmm, If B is flawed it effects A, when C was the expected result.

MAC

MAC said:

MAC said:

For $3K it is not worth it IMO for high end hobbiest! Sigma can
have quality issues also so watch out. Not sure what all the
excitment is about.

Click to expand...

--

Ulysses

Click to expand...

-- Ulysses

Ron Parr · Feb 23, 2002

Peter G said:
There has been talk that this will be the only format. I have to
wonder if these guys have stock in Flash Ram producers.
8mb per image is going to be a pain. 14 pics to a 128MB card??

I don't think people getting $3K SLRs will mind. They will be storing stuff on microdrives.

Peter G said:
One of the enablers for RAW usage on Mosaic cameras is that it is
not much bigger than a high quality JPEG. I don't know anyone who
shots TIFF, because of file size.

Also somewhere else it was mentioned that it would take Pentium4 12
seconds to open an image. They were touting this as a reason to
upgrade your computer.

Its seems this inexpensive technology is only for the rich.

Foveon chips that find their way into low end cameras will be lower resolution and the files will be smaller. In the few years it takes for this to happen, computers will be faster and memory will be cheaper.

Also, if they're talking about truly disposable cameras, they may be able to use a technology less expensive than flash to store pictures because there's no need to erase.

--Ron ParrFAQ: http://www.cs.duke.edu/~parr/photography/faq.htmlGallery: http://www.pbase.com/parr/

Jimmy Chen · Feb 23, 2002

Member said:
my math "fuzzy
math". )

LMAO ... It is also my opinion that anything "fuzzy" works the best ... why is why I tend to use "fuzzy logic" ... Heck, even I cannot understand it at times ...

jc

Peter G · Feb 23, 2002

Initially it looks like this is the strategy (RAW only) Foveon is pushing. Eventually I would expect someone to produce JPEGs in camera. Its difficult for them to say they save money on expensive processors if they have one for producing JPEGS.

From Phils Spec sheet:

Image formats
RAW (Can be converted to TIFF or JPEG later by software)

Same info on the Sigma site. And in the article Homer posted before. Nary a JPEG in sight.

It will be interesting to see the tradeoffs when these cameras come to market.

Peter

Ulysses said:
My question to the points you raise is this: Won't it depend much
on the manufacturer and the type of processing that they choose to
do on-camera, and what support they build into the hardware?

Fore example, the SD9 will work with the following three formats:

12-bit losslessly compressed RAW

TIFF

JPEG (Hi, Med, Low)

For the really discriminating user or the shot that demands work
that can best be achieved in RAW, you have the option.
--

Ulysses

MAC · Feb 23, 2002

Yep, your math is less than perfect -- but so is mine...but so goes it...

Cost vs results will drive decisions. It will be interesting. Maybe I was too fast and paid too much on my $1900 D30, Siverly got refurb for $1500, but it is good enough for me for the next few years. I haven't had issues with focus after Larry taught me the key...A $2200 D60 sounds tempting though -- but more likely it will be $3K. The Nikon will be delayed as usual and is being anounced to keep buyers of other cams at bay. I own one Sigma lens -- 70 -200 F2.8. It is good build and quality, rated high 3.9 but they've had QC issues with other lenses. Word is their camera will be bare bones in features -- tying up with them first might not be good strategy for forveon if there are issues IMHO.

MAC

Ulysses said:
We're probably judging the Sigma camera too early here, either for
good or for bad. What seems fortunate either way is that Sigma is
apparently not the only camera maker that will be using the chip.
They are only the first.

If the camera fails, it probably won't be because of image quality;
it will be because build quality or features simply aren't "as good
as" the units from Nikon or Canon. In this crowd, all it has to do
is outperform the Fuji, and it's got a relatively decent foothold
then. Relatively speaking.

MAC said:

Ulysses said:

The excitement is about Foveon and support for their X3 chip and
associated image technology. Sigma is just a camera company.
Whether they have a problem camera will have not much at all to do
with Foveon.

Click to expand...

Hmmm, If B is flawed it effects A, when C was the expected result.

MAC

Member said:

MAC said:

For $3K it is not worth it IMO for high end hobbiest! Sigma can
have quality issues also so watch out. Not sure what all the
excitment is about.

Click to expand...

--

Ulysses

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--

Ulysses

Ulysses · Feb 23, 2002

Peter G said:
Initially it looks like this is the strategy (RAW only) Foveon is
pushing. Eventually I would expect someone to produce JPEGs in
camera. Its difficult for them to say they save money on expensive
processors if they have one for producing JPEGS.

Peter G said:
From Phils Spec sheet:

Image formats
RAW (Can be converted to TIFF or JPEG later by software)

Same info on the Sigma site. And in the article Homer posted
before. Nary a JPEG in sight.

Ahhh... my small mistake there. I borrowed from the spec sheet at the Imaging Resource rather than from the Sigma site directly (serves me right... I've got so many windows opened right now that I'm on info overload, and my not-so-gracefully-aging PC is giving me some seriously ugly noises of complaint...)

Still (and I'm about to pull a Jimmy Chen here with my speculative mode), it seems that this would depend upon the camera maker as to whether or not to build in support for a JPEG mode.

Or maybe you're totally right here; I can go either way. Maybe with the smaller F10 sensor (more for the consumer grade camera) the RAW image would be of a more manageable size. No matter how we get around it, the key to eventual higher quality images is going to be that as much as possible of the original data is preserved and transmitted intact.

Peter G said:
It will be interesting to see the tradeoffs when these cameras come
to market.

Yes. But so far, the only real one that seems to have been raised is with the size of the RAW image. And I don't consider that a serious tradeoff, not with the pressure to lower costs of flash memory.-- Ulysses

Ulysses · Feb 23, 2002

Ron Parr said:
I don't think people getting $3K SLRs will mind. They will be
storing stuff on microdrives.

Yeah, that's rather where my thoughts were headed here. The F7 users will get their larger RAW images stored on Microdrives.

The F10 users will have a smaller file size even in a RAW mode. And for those low-end consumer cameras, they'll likely retain a JPEG mode on-camera or built directly into the transferral software

Just as a for instance: Suppose MS wants to build support for Foveon's chip and the RAW files. Jimmy Chen may have a point that the OS doesn't need to know how to do anything with the file other than read it and convert it. For example, have you been to MS Photos? The site will read and accept several different types of formats, some of them proprietary. But it converts EVERYTHING that goes onto the site into a JPEG image. Imagine Windows XP doing the same so that you could get your images from a high-quality Foveon-based camera and then transfer it to your album or to your grandmother.

Interesting possibilities.

Member said:
Member said:

One of the enablers for RAW usage on Mosaic cameras is that it is
not much bigger than a high quality JPEG. I don't know anyone who
shots TIFF, because of file size.

Also somewhere else it was mentioned that it would take Pentium4 12
seconds to open an image. They were touting this as a reason to
upgrade your computer.

Its seems this inexpensive technology is only for the rich.

Click to expand...

Foveon chips that find their way into low end cameras will be lower
resolution and the files will be smaller. In the few years it
takes for this to happen, computers will be faster and memory will
be cheaper.

Also, if they're talking about truly disposable cameras, they may
be able to use a technology less expensive than flash to store
pictures because there's no need to erase.

--
Ron Parr
FAQ: http://www.cs.duke.edu/~parr/photography/faq.html
Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/parr/

-- Ulysses

Homer40784 · Feb 23, 2002

Stop and thnk about it Jimmy.
What do we have?
MS and Foveon.
Or more to the point.
Billy Gates and Carver Mead.
Carver and Billy worked together years ago (at Intel) as I remember it.
Carver was Billys boss wasn't he?

So, although I admit that climbing into bed with MS normally is like sleeping with a bear, in this case I think there is a strong personal relationship.

And your point about MS not being able to digest Adobe is well taken.

But I would say that Natl Semi (which has a very large chunk of both Synaptics and Foveon) would ALSO give Billy pause. Natl Semi is huge.

Homer

Jimmy Chen said:
Jimmy Chen said:

Gee whiz Jimmy.
It might not in the long run amount to a hil of beans, but it
DEFINITLY translates to "higher acceptance of the X3 chip".
I would KILL to come out with something (anything) that Billy would
support right outa the git go.

Click to expand...

Dont forget, Homer, Billy boy has been DYING to put his foot into
the imaging industry for the longest time, just that he hasnt been
able to with any of the existing format because they are either
free from all over the place, or they are owned by other large
companies such as Adobe, which he couldnt swallow up for pennies
... So as of this point everything that exist just doesnt add up to
his "cost-profit" plans ...

Foevon? Who? If you get what I mean ... If I am Foevon, that last
thing I want is for Billy boy to make my "format" part of his OS
... Unless I intent to sell to him later on ...

jc

Ulysses · Feb 23, 2002

It still won't matter as long as at least two things happen:

1) Sigma puts out a relatively "safe" and problem-free camera
2) Foveon lands other accounts to use the chip.

It's about Foveon, not about Sigma. It's always been about Foveon.

But I follow what you're saying. I would imagine that you're not the only one who feels like you do, particularly if you're already invested in a D-SLR. There's not enough reason for you to lay out the cost. Not yet.

MAC said:
tying up with them first might not be
good strategy for forveon if there are issues IMHO.

-- Ulysses

Foveon support!!

Veteran Member

Ulysses

Guest

Ulysses

Guest

Ulysses

Guest

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Ulysses

Guest

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Ulysses

Guest

Ulysses

Guest

Ron Parr

Guest

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Ulysses

Guest

Ulysses

Guest

Veteran Member

Ulysses

Guest

Keyboard shortcuts