-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Re: Sigma SD9 - from the show floor
- Thread starter Lyall Pearce
- Start date
Loren84044
Member
I do! Unless there is majic in the 3 jpg files available for download and review. The 3 images are a 1200 x 1800 Cat (1275K), Boxer 1200 x 1800 (1098K) and Pool Table 1800 x 1800 (1298K). Note that these are JPG files, not RAW and that the Cat and Boxer are 80% of the Sigma file size.
I downloaded these files, upsampled them to 26" x 40" for the Boxer and 40" x 40" for the Pool Table at 400dpi. I then cropped an 8.5" x 11.77" portion from each (the largest size my Fuji Pictrography 3500 will print) and printed the images. The results far surpass any expectations that I might have had. The tip of the Pool Que after upsampling is 3" in Dia. and from the tip of the Que to the beginning of the wooden part of the Que is 5". There is, what appears to be artifacting along the wooden part of the Que but this could be due to the fact that this is an upsampling of a JPG or a product of DOF. Simply amazing
Loren
Gary Eickmeier
Veteran Member
The square images were made from the 2048x2048 experimental camera that we have read about and that Phil used. The rectangular images were made with an actual Sigma. The resolution is the same; the aspect ratio is all that changes. It is a terrific imager.
And the lens must not be any slouch, either.
Gary Eickmeier
I am sure Sigma cannot do faster than 2 fps.
It is written on the specfication of the F7 chip Sigma is using.
http://www.foveon.net/prod_f7.html
near the bottom of it.
Please note that 2 fps is theoretical maximum speed assuming the external interface is perfect. If there exists any delay in image processing, buffering it will become slower.
So the best Sigma can do is 2fps with a big enough buffer to sustain it for a longer while.
It is written on the specfication of the F7 chip Sigma is using.
http://www.foveon.net/prod_f7.html
near the bottom of it.
Please note that 2 fps is theoretical maximum speed assuming the external interface is perfect. If there exists any delay in image processing, buffering it will become slower.
So the best Sigma can do is 2fps with a big enough buffer to sustain it for a longer while.
Valliesto Bailey
Senior Member
A 3000x2000 sensor has 6 million pixels. In that it has 6 million data points per image, no doubt at all. The Foveon sensor has 3~ million data points, so it is a 3 million pixel sensor. I can understand that Foveon wants to highlight the fact that their sensor captures full color at each pixel, but adding the x3 at the end is misleading or at least confusing. They seem to be implying it has three times the resolution (not proven and most likely false) or color data (misleading).
--Valliesto
Valliesto Bailey
Senior Member
You are right in that the X3 sensor produces 10.5m 12bit-words for each exposure. But that does not equate to 10.5mp. 10.5mp implies that the sensor has 10.5 million data collection points, when it actually only has 3.5 million data points.
The amount of data being moved surely will reduce the frame rate. I am sure that the CF card writer in the DS-9 is also partly to blame as well, unless Sigma has included a unit of similar speed (and cost) to the D1x/h 1D units.
The amount of data being moved surely will reduce the frame rate. I am sure that the CF card writer in the DS-9 is also partly to blame as well, unless Sigma has included a unit of similar speed (and cost) to the D1x/h 1D units.
--Valliesto
pcockerell
Forum Enthusiast
Um, what definition of the term "resolution" are you using whereby a 2048 x 2048 and a 2268 x1512 sensor have the same resolution? I don't understand this.
Cheers,
Pete-- http://www.peter-cockerell.net:8080/
pcockerell
Forum Enthusiast
Valliesto, you're wasting your breath. It seems the definiton of the term "pixel" has been modified to suit the arithmetic vagaries of certain Foveon fanciers, and no amount of pointing out that "pixel" had a perfrectly serviceable (and different) definition already is going to change their minds. Sad, really.
Cheers,
Pete
-- http://www.peter-cockerell.net:8080/
Valliesto Bailey
Senior Member
The technology is impressive. I think it might be superior to other sensor technology. Remember until it is reviewed fully and tested by users under real world conditions, it can not be claimed to be superior (no amount of specs or wishing will make it superior). It is truly sad the way some have chosen to ignore reason and hope on the band wagon. Is it so easy to lose one's objectivity? Lots os things looked very promising before being found either not as impressive or worthless. Anyone remember Transmeta?
--Valliesto
Gary Eickmeier
Veteran Member
Well then, let's talk about it. The two sensors have the same pixel size and density. The only difference is that one has the top and bottom cut off to make it rectangular.
If you aimed both at the same test target at the same distance with the same lens, they would have identical resolutions. You got a problem with that?
Gary Eickmeier
Tom May
Senior Member
I'm always impressed that when a new technology comes along, many assume that the current technology is instantly rendered obsolete. I have heard many passionate arguments claiming that film is dead and now equally passionate arguments that CCD imagers are dead.
However one views Foveon technology, I doubt that it will replace existing technology overnight, nor do I believe that further research in existing or alternate technologies will be terminated by the current leaders in imaging technology.
At some point, all competing technologies are "good enough" for their market and the competition defaults to features and value, otherwise becoming commodities that are marketed and branded. At that point, internal technology has little, if any marketing value at all. With the rapid pace of technological improvements in digital imaging, that point may be in the near future.
Tom
However one views Foveon technology, I doubt that it will replace existing technology overnight, nor do I believe that further research in existing or alternate technologies will be terminated by the current leaders in imaging technology.
At some point, all competing technologies are "good enough" for their market and the competition defaults to features and value, otherwise becoming commodities that are marketed and branded. At that point, internal technology has little, if any marketing value at all. With the rapid pace of technological improvements in digital imaging, that point may be in the near future.
Tom
T
Terry Sessford
Guest
It doesn't imply this to me! That is just your (and perhaps others' interpretation) -- if they really wanted to imply three times the resolution then they could simply just state that the sensor has 10.5 Mpixels (and conveniently distort the definition of pixels to mean 'colour samples' or 'Bayer equivalent pixels' or some such contrivance) and this would be both misleading and incorrect. But I see no problem whatsoever with simply placing 'x3' following the true pixel dimensions in order to indicate the greater information content of those pixels.
Terry.
T
Terry Sessford
Guest
Yes, I am aware of the specification of the sensor on the Foveon website, however the following is an exact quote from an email that I received directly from Sigma:
SD-9 has a drive speed of 3.5 fps.
The burst rates are:
HI Mode up to 7 frames
Med Mode up to 14 frames
Low Mode up to 28 frames
Perhaps I have been given duff information (which is possible, since it is apparent that at this stage only the people at the heart of Sigma seem to have full details of the camera, the rest are being fed info in dribs and drabs) or perhaps Foveon and Sigma have found a way to overcome the 2 fps limit, I don't know. But whatever, the above is what I was told. I guess we'll just have to wait for the official release of the full spec and Phil's review before we know the truth.
Terry.
SD-9 has a drive speed of 3.5 fps.
The burst rates are:
HI Mode up to 7 frames
Med Mode up to 14 frames
Low Mode up to 28 frames
Perhaps I have been given duff information (which is possible, since it is apparent that at this stage only the people at the heart of Sigma seem to have full details of the camera, the rest are being fed info in dribs and drabs) or perhaps Foveon and Sigma have found a way to overcome the 2 fps limit, I don't know. But whatever, the above is what I was told. I guess we'll just have to wait for the official release of the full spec and Phil's review before we know the truth.
Terry.
Mark Wrathall54294
Active member
Lets assume the Foveon technology is really superior. It still has an uphill battle to become the established standard.
My analogy would be the Wankel rotary engine.
The Wankel is a better technology than reciprocating engines, but it has largely disappeared from the marketplace for the following reason.
It's greatest advantage is reliablity, and was developed at time when you were lucky to get 50k miles before overhauling your engine. However by the time the initial teething troubles and manufacturing processes were sorted out, the advances in manufacturing had improved recip reliablity to 100K miles, where it was no longer in issue to consumers. No manufacturers other than Mazda stuck with the new technology as it's advantages no longer struck a chord in the market.
Look at the 3mp Foveon file, then a D-60 file. They are both so good that for me, other factors would sway my decision. Like my Canon lenses and flash, reputation, availablity of used lenses, realsale value etc.
Take a look at Digital Video, where all cameras are close enough to broadcast video quality that the chip characterisics don't even feature in marketing literature, other than the two tier single chip, three chip divide.
Why would Canon pay Foveon for a license, when they know that there own CMOS technology will deliver the quality that the market demands? Same goes for Nikon. The end user doen't need to know the specifics of the technology, if the result is good, the result is good.
I would have guessed that Foveon-Minolta or Foveon - Pentax would have been the best match.
Interestingly, almost all the large auto manufacturers obtained a license for the Wankel technology.
--Mark
My analogy would be the Wankel rotary engine.
The Wankel is a better technology than reciprocating engines, but it has largely disappeared from the marketplace for the following reason.
It's greatest advantage is reliablity, and was developed at time when you were lucky to get 50k miles before overhauling your engine. However by the time the initial teething troubles and manufacturing processes were sorted out, the advances in manufacturing had improved recip reliablity to
Look at the 3mp Foveon file, then a D-60 file. They are both so good that for me, other factors would sway my decision. Like my Canon lenses and flash, reputation, availablity of used lenses, realsale value etc.
Take a look at Digital Video, where all cameras are close enough to broadcast video quality that the chip characterisics don't even feature in marketing literature, other than the two tier single chip, three chip divide.
Why would Canon pay Foveon for a license, when they know that there own CMOS technology will deliver the quality that the market demands? Same goes for Nikon. The end user doen't need to know the specifics of the technology, if the result is good, the result is good.
I would have guessed that Foveon-Minolta or Foveon - Pentax would have been the best match.
Interestingly, almost all the large auto manufacturers obtained a license for the Wankel technology.
--Mark
DavidMillier
Forum Pro
But if Mazda had fitted the rotary engine to a 1.1 litre £7000 Mazda 121 instead of in a £50,000 car...
Then they probably would have gone out of business. The Wankel
was a fine running engine, but also high maintenance. Could Mazda
have afforded the warrenty risk on a high volume, low profit model?
was a fine running engine, but also high maintenance. Could Mazda
have afforded the warrenty risk on a high volume, low profit model?
--Jeff
Kevin Regan
Well-known member
Hmm, maybe instead of talking about pixels, we should talk about "color sensors". So, a standard 3 MP camera as 3 Million color sensors and an 3 MP X3 camera has 9 Million color sensors (3 million pixels X 3 color sensors/pixel)...
--Kevin
--Kevin
DavidMillier
Forum Pro
question is, is the foveon a high performing, low maintenance low cost part or not? Time will tell.
J
jacques
Guest
To you all,
Well you all seem to buy everything, react without thinking. Nobody with real reasoning, all just as you heart is telling you, shut off the brains ??
I own and use a F707 5 Mpixel camera, I red about magig Fuji cameras having only 3 Mpixel but by the arangement give you 6 Mpixel rasolution.
As the X3 sensor works as they tell, well it's the first real 3Mpixel.
Meaning it would be entiteled to aclain itself a 9 Mpixel or maybe even higher Mpixel sensor.
The X3 doesn't do any interpolation, what you get in the RAW is what there realy was.
In software you could calculate a 12 Mpixel image by using interpolation in accordance with the 'normal' , RGGB CCD's or you might calculate to 18 Mpixel resolution using the algorithems of Fuji.
As the chip realy can do what they say, then just forget the other technics.
Lets hope they told us partly the truth, meaning at every spot the three colors are measured, well then we are wittnesses of a new breaktrough in digital photography and be sure in that case we just can trow away what we bought sofar.
--jacques
Well you all seem to buy everything, react without thinking. Nobody with real reasoning, all just as you heart is telling you, shut off the brains ??
I own and use a F707 5 Mpixel camera, I red about magig Fuji cameras having only 3 Mpixel but by the arangement give you 6 Mpixel rasolution.
As the X3 sensor works as they tell, well it's the first real 3Mpixel.
Meaning it would be entiteled to aclain itself a 9 Mpixel or maybe even higher Mpixel sensor.
The X3 doesn't do any interpolation, what you get in the RAW is what there realy was.
In software you could calculate a 12 Mpixel image by using interpolation in accordance with the 'normal' , RGGB CCD's or you might calculate to 18 Mpixel resolution using the algorithems of Fuji.
As the chip realy can do what they say, then just forget the other technics.
Lets hope they told us partly the truth, meaning at every spot the three colors are measured, well then we are wittnesses of a new breaktrough in digital photography and be sure in that case we just can trow away what we bought sofar.
--jacques
Ross
Veteran Member
Mark,
Another analogy: Color Transparency Film
1906 - Autochrome - Large Format on glass plates using a layer of random red,blue & green dyed particles. One manufacturer.
1935 - Kodachrome - three layers of color dye sensative silver emulsions on a plastic base. One manufacturer.
1946 - Ektachrome - three colors in the emulsion on a plastic base with easier processing (at home even) and a technology others grabed onto into our present.
PATIENCE......
--Bob RossKeyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum