Foveon sensor

DMillier said:

Ok, Sandy, we were beginning to mend some bridges, now you've chopped
away one of the new supports. What would you have me say?

Click to expand...

.....

you're misquoting me or expanding or twisting my statements again ;-) you said contentious issue, I replied only by those who contend and contend and contend. Most of us here see and understand some differences in our own work You don't fine. But you're back saying there is no difference in images. I and most Sigma users see and understand differences.

So this is why I linked my top reply again. Zone8 wrote something recently which has stuck with me. Paraphrasing widely and not very accurately (apologies Zone8): two general types of photographers/photographs, those which are 'artistic' and those which record the scene. He was referring to 'daily life' snapshots, but I'll expand his point.

(My add: I think recording the scene can be artistic too, but that's another matter).

My favorite types of photos are those like in Outdoor Photographer and Azizona Highways. Accurate recordings of landscape scenery. I cannot necessarily say, 'oh, that one's by xx, that's his style.." The photo is a generic, technically perfect view of a slot canyon stream for example. It might have been taken by a number of people. Those who know me and I've talked to about photos and exhibits know I admire **** and Seng Merrill's work tremendously. That's what I aspire to be able to produce. Where I stood most often at PMA was in front of the Monument Valley shot and the Bryce Canyon shot. Without reading the card I cannot tell who took which photo, there isn't completely a style. Just a wonderful photo of the scene, capturing the light and the reality of the moment.

I'm still a novice. I tend to record the scene, I tend to big landscapes, overviews of the Grand Canyon, too much clutter. You on the other hand seem to zero in on a detail. Bolt, pattern, several strands of grass, strong light on an angle detail, that type of photo.

So back to photos: In some photos I certainly agree one cannot tell the type of camera, sometimes not even film vs digital or Nikon or Sigma or whatever. (Think Arizona Highways). In some I can. Looking at my own body of work, I can tell often which camera I used for which shot. I think most of us can say the same about our own work.

Every camera has advantages and disadvantages, this applies to image quality too. I'm big on grass, leaves, foliage; lots of grass, leaves, foliage, not one or two stands. The SD10 and SD14 consistently for me capture grass detail well rather than sometimes/often turning it into mush. Yes, I have photos to prove it to me You guys would say, oh that's not a comparison. How many repliers (to Mike's test posts and reports SD14 and 5D) took apart Mark Chaney, even going the ad hominem route, convinced me to stay out of the comparisons/tests business. I just take photos.

I'm very busy this week and heading to PA over the weekend; mother-in-law visit again.

I highly recommend the http://www.pbase.com/sigmadslr galleries and pbase search by camera for anyone interested in Sigma/Foveon images.
Best regards, Sandy
[email protected]
http://www.pbase.com/sandyfleischman
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sandyfleischmann (many new SD14s Pow Wow)

I looked up my Grand Canyon photos from 2004, still online http://www.pbase.com/sandyfleischman/grand_canyon_04_sd10&page=all and see some other versions of Hackberry Arizona too (spm's gallery)

If you look at Seng's galleries, you'll understand (they were there recently). Old Route 66 'atmosphere' hehe That was a memorable trip for me in 2004. And I'm jealous they were on the lake and in the slots..NOT the slot machines of NV but the Antelope Slots.

Husband and I still talk a lot about NV and Death Valley CA, looking forward to January 2008 trip hopefully. The western US is really... different.. for us. I like NV.
Best regards, Sandy
[email protected]
http://www.pbase.com/sandyfleischman
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sandyfleischmann (many new SD14s)

There is a danger in this reply of trying to address too many issues at once, but stay with me...

SandyF wrote:
"Most of us".

I don't it is fair for you to say you represent or stand for the views of everyone else. How do you know that? Do you know how many people use this forum? i don't. Do you know how many agree with you? I don't. Obviously, you have supporters but because a group of people is very active on the forum doesn't prove everyone is with you. I see this claim (which you keep repeating) as more of a rhetorical device to win a debate...

SandyF said:

Most of us here see and understand some
differences in our own work You don't fine. But you're back saying
there is no difference in images.

Click to expand...

In this sentence you are a) Doing it again and b) Suggesting that if one doesn't see the differences, there is something wrong...

SandyF said:

I and most Sigma users see and understand differences.
So this is why I linked my top reply again.

Click to expand...

I've never seen those publications, sadly. But I've always been a big Ansel Adams fan and I love the work of marcel de jong often displayed in this forum.

SandyF said:

My favorite types of photos are those like in Outdoor Photographer
and Azizona Highways. Accurate recordings of landscape scenery. I
cannot necessarily say, 'oh, that one's by xx, that's his style.."
The photo is a generic, technically perfect view of a slot canyon
stream for example. It might have been taken by a number of people.
Those who know me and I've talked to about photos and exhibits know I
admire **** and Seng Merrill's work tremendously. That's what I
aspire to be able to produce. Where I stood most often at PMA was in
front of the Monument Valley shot and the Bryce Canyon shot. Without
reading the card I cannot tell who took which photo, there isn't
completely a style. Just a wonderful photo of the scene, capturing
the light and the reality of the moment.

I'm still a novice. I tend to record the scene, I tend to big
landscapes, overviews of the Grand Canyon, too much clutter.

Click to expand...

I don't agree with this. I'm a big landscape fan. But opportunities for such work have been rare for me recently, so I'm showing what I can get to with a baby bouncing on my knee...

SandyF said:

You on
the other hand seem to zero in on a detail. Bolt, pattern, several
strands of grass, strong light on an angle detail, that type of photo.

Click to expand...

So, look at my "Longleat" gallery and see if you can see anything different between the canon and SD9 shots. http://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/weblongleat/index.html

SandyF said:

So back to photos: In some photos I certainly agree one cannot tell
the type of camera, sometimes not even film vs digital or Nikon or
Sigma or whatever. (Think Arizona Highways). In some I can. Looking
at my own body of work,

Click to expand...

I can, too, with some cameras. I can partucularly spot Kodak shots. But this does not mean one camera is better! Once you have carefully post processed a shot to optimise it to your purpose, in most cases it will look indistinguishable (IMO).

SandyF said:

I can tell often which camera I used for
which shot. I think most of us can say the same about our own work.

Every camera has advantages and disadvantages, this applies to image
quality too.

Click to expand...

I find this an interesting claim because when I got the SD9, the very first thing I did was shoot long range landscapes with grass, foliage, trees. After post processing and appropriate sharpening, I found absolutely no difference, zero, nothing, in its abilities to render fine detail in foliage from that of the 350D. This includes examing shots at 400% magnification.

Furthermore, doing the comparisons with different cameras showed me that the things that actually make a real difference with this sort of subject are absolute resolution and careful sharpening. The 14n and 5D outperform all my cameras including the SD9 on foliage rendering. I would expect the extra resolution from the SD14 would bring it up to a similar level.

SandyF said:

I'm big on grass, leaves, foliage; lots of grass,
leaves, foliage, not one or two stands. The SD10 and SD14
consistently for me capture grass detail well rather than
sometimes/often turning it into mush.

Click to expand...

And it is correct to do so if one's intention is to establish the truth rather than be nice to one another. This is simply a recognition of the fact that it is quite easy to make experimental errors or errors of judgment.

Delivering results that can withstand the most severe attacks is the way to demonstrate something is true. It's not fun to have one's efforts savaged but if they survive the experience then one's point is established. If not, you learn something and the pool of knowledge remains uncorrupted.

SandyF said:

Yes, I have photos to prove it to me
You guys would say, oh that's not a comparison.

Click to expand...

I think Mike's work stood up pretty well though. He ran the gaunlet and produced credible results. It is wise to see them in context: his results were not general but they did demonstrate the Foveon's abilities with dealing with highly saturated colours.

SandyF said:

How many
repliers (to Mike's test posts and reports SD14 and 5D) took apart
Mark Chaney, even going the ad hominem route, convinced me to stay
out of the comparisons/tests business.

Click to expand...

Ah, but you don't. You like to have your cake and eat it. You are prepared to stand up and make strong assertions, or take potshots at contrary views but (unlike Mike, say) you run away as fast as possible when challenged to provide some evidence.

SandyF said:

I just take photos.

Click to expand...

You're always busy when directly challenged to post evidence ;-) A neat technique...

SandyF said:

I'm very busy this week and heading to PA over the weekend;
mother-in-law visit again.

Click to expand...

John King said:

Dear Roland

I have no desire to put words in anyone's mouth, least of all yours.

I do not care who at Nikon wrote the patent application. Do you
really think that one lonely engineer sitting by themselves in a back
room at Nikon, solely and personally wrote this?

Click to expand...

I wrote and people that worked for me wrote many patents when I was at Fairchild, Loral and Lockheed. I was also VP for Technology at a Loral and Lockheed division and was responsible for all patents from that division. From experience at all three farily large companies I can tell you this is pretty much how it works for commerical, unclassifed and classified patents.

The process is to identify technologies that come out of R&D or product development that warrent patent protection. Hours along with associated cost and schedules are then allociated to engineering team to produce the patent. Producing a patent application is treated just like any project has to fall within the budget constraints.

The team normally consists of a primary writers - normally the inventer but if it's his/her first patent they might have help - a professional technical writer to reduce the engineereeze to something readable. This was then passed to the legal deptartment for their input. The final product - the patent application was then approved by the appropriate person - in my case that was me and sent through through to the patent attorney for submission.

While of course the marketing folks were aware of new technologies, they were not directly involved in the patent process - nor should they have been. I suspect most large companies, including Canon and Nikon opperate pretty much the same.

--
Truman
http://www.pbase.com/tprevatt

I won't do a point by point, have to get to work, I'd prefer to take photos and/or process them even to argue with words. My 'body of work' is my reply I suppose. I have about 2000 photos online between some of my first ever photos with SD10 at http://www.pbase.com/sandyfleischman to weekend SD14 ISO400-800s photos processed yesterday and day before at http://www.flickr.com/photos/sandyfleischmann

And there are 51,146 SD10s at pbase, 37,773 SD9s at pbase and 6,803 SD14s at pbase. http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma

I must get some additional selected and online at pbase; that would be my next priority (and backing up....)
Best regards, Sandy
[email protected]
http://www.pbase.com/sandyfleischman
http://www.flicrk.com/photos/sandyfleischmann
A photo is worth a thousand words

See my previous two posts for prediction this what you would say (and will always say) to a direct challenges, no matter how simple....

Never mind, this will always be a stumbling block, I think.

SandyF said:

I won't do a point by point, have to get to work, I'd prefer to take
photos and/or process them even to argue with words. My 'body of
work' is my reply I suppose. I have about 2000 photos online between
some of my first ever photos with SD10 at
http://www.pbase.com/sandyfleischman to weekend SD14 ISO400-800s photos
processed yesterday and day before at
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sandyfleischmann
And there are 51,146 SD10s at pbase, 37,773 SD9s at pbase and 6,803
SD14s at pbase. http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma

I must get some additional selected and online at pbase; that would
be my next priority (and backing up....)
Best regards, Sandy
[email protected]
http://www.pbase.com/sandyfleischman
http://www.flicrk.com/photos/sandyfleischmann
A photo is worth a thousand words

Click to expand...

--
Galleries and website: http://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/mainindex.htm

SandyF wrote:
that would

SandyF said:

be my next priority (and backing up....)

Click to expand...

For success in this, Sandy, find the most awkward, cussed individual you can - such people always get your back up
--
Zone8

The photograph isolates and perpetuates a moment of time: an important and revealing moment, or an unimportant and meaningless one, depending upon the photographer's understanding of his subject and mastery of his process. -Edward Weston

sure, I'll continue to post my comments and my photos, and I assume you'll do the same. No problem. I'm not 'backing off' of anything. I've said over and over that one test, one set of photos won't 'prove' a thing. Nor would one set be any kind of definitive proof of anything I like the edges, the roll-off, the 'pop' whatever in my thousands and thousands of SD10/14 photos. I have a GB of photos Saturday with the Pentax K100D (ran out of mem card or I'd have more..) and I took 4 GB of SD14s. I see the difference, I know what the cameras produce and how they behave.*

I can look at the photo in PSE5 and usually tell which is which as I flipped through the catalog even for the first time. You can tell which is which I think even without my notes on the ones online. (Pentax were first online, so early on in the series) at flickr For better for worse. Hmm, Pentax or SD14. The in-cam optical stabilization of the Pentax is very useful for me. So the Pentax are often sharper. But if I zoom in, the detail breaks down. Peoples' faces.

Richard West, NMAI Director. I'll try to get a side-by-side Pentax and Sigma SD14 up sometime today. Yes, others will reply, of course, Pentax is 'only' a 6 MP cam (the K100D). .. "how dare you compare" (I got that on my F30 comparisons).

I don't know what MP you prefer to call the SD14 but the detail in those GBs of low light shots holds up better. That was that place and time. What the cams would do in comparison in strong light at 6000ft or at Lake GeorgeNY this fall (automn leaf color) is a different situation.
Footnote: photos online.
Best regards, Sandy
[email protected]
http://www.pbase.com/sandyfleischman
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sandyfleischmann

Zone8, that's funny ... I didn't mean backing up in that sense but rather burning the Pow Wow photos to DVD and/or getting things sorted out onto my external harddrives. I have a mess of different files scattered around on different drives and I learned my lesson last month when my main computer unexpectedly failed. Per George Lepp, paraphrasing, 'it's not a matter of IF your hard drive will fail but when...'

I tend to not 'archive' stuff (ie back it up) 'til I think I've finished with it, and that's dangerous because I never seem to finish before the next batch of GBs is taken, then I don't get the backup done.. then I get confused what's where. Managing the computers and storage is truly more difficult than taking the photos!
That was my first impression of SD10 too. Files, files, RAW, versions. Zikes.
Best regards, Sandy
[email protected]
http://www.pbase.com/sandyfleischman
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sandyfleischmann (many new SD14s)

DavidMillier said:

Mike Chaney pointed out, once pixel count gets high enough and pixel separation small enough, then there is no effective difference between bayer and foveon approaches.

Click to expand...

Hmm. Expecting 18MP in DX format? In the next few years it will be interesting to see if DX format can sustain increased noise reduction and image improvements as more and more MPs are packed into dx chips. I have my doubts, but I'd like to be proven wrong. Even though there is a data penalty for increasing the MP of a Foveon chip, I think Foveon's design has more 'headroom' for MP improvements than DX format chips. If Sony does have a FF chip coming in the next year it will be interesting to see how cameras that use it are priced.

All,

I'll try to be brief on this. One more time, I totally support any technical, unbiased, factual comparison of imaging technologies. And if reasonable people can agree on reasonable conditions and criteria...have at it.

As for the continuing discussions, debates, conversations...that's fine too. I've chosen to object less and post less so long as there's a core group who want to do it. Cheaper and more intellectual entertainment than my Colts (US football) season tickets.

Regarding the images, the end product, I don't know how to get around subjectivity in that discussion. Each of us has our own favorite subjects, techniques, choices of cameras and lenses, etc. To me, with a limited budget for photo equipment and no offsetting income (all contributions gratefully accepted ;-) ), every purchase is necessarily an "experiment". And when I hitch my wagon to a particular product, I generally hang on to it and make it my personal mission to make it work for me . As I've said elsewhere, recently, I know my shooting has changed with the SDs and new glass. I'm looking for subjects with POP more often, along with favorite subjects. For instance, see my recent in camera flower jpegs http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1027&thread=24354749 (whether or not they are great examples) compared with my "golden oldies" post of 2004 SD9 photos on the Notre Dame University campus http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1027&thread=24369891 .

Other photographers who have purchased or otherwise used the SDs as something other than their primary camera (and perhaps some who have "adopted") may not do those kinds of photos which most show off (IMHO) the difference to the same degree. Whatever the reasons, I think there will be those who do and those who don't. So long as Sigma/Foveon has it's fair shot in the marketplace and onlookers aren't unduly put off by these debates and less-informed reviews, I'm happy with what I have.

Kind regards,
--
Ed_S
http://www.pbase.com/ecsquires

Perhaps we will see higher resolution, low ISO only chips? My A200 packs 8Mp into a 2/3 format chip and is pretty good at base ISO. 24MP ought to fit into APS if the 2/3 chip is scaled up. No good at high ISO but as a niche product. Presumably once the DSLR sales boom saturates, we'll start to see vendors exploring niches...

ChromeLight said:

ChromeLight said:

Mike Chaney pointed out, once pixel count gets high enough and pixel separation small enough, then there is no effective difference between bayer and foveon approaches.

Click to expand...

Hmm. Expecting 18MP in DX format? In the next few years it will be
interesting to see if DX format can sustain increased noise reduction
and image improvements as more and more MPs are packed into dx chips.
I have my doubts, but I'd like to be proven wrong. Even though there
is a data penalty for increasing the MP of a Foveon chip, I think
Foveon's design has more 'headroom' for MP improvements than DX
format chips. If Sony does have a FF chip coming in the next year it
will be interesting to see how cameras that use it are priced.

Click to expand...

--
Galleries and website: http://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/mainindex.htm

DavidMillier said:

DavidMillier said:

Presumably once

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

That would be good indeed. By the way, I'm still working on making prints.

DavidMillier said:

Either the images produced by the different technologies are clearly different or they are not.

Click to expand...

Why limit yourself to just comparing different technologies? Why not compare images from the Canon 5D and the Canon A570IS, viewed "on the web" at 800x600 or in 4x6 prints from Costco (or your local equivalent "chemist's photo service"). Either the images produced by the different cameras are clearly different or they are not, eh? You'd be looking for "clues" like "that was taken with a very long telephoto, must be the 5D", not "image quality" . . .

DavidMillier said:

I believe that most of the time there is no real difference.

Click to expand...

And I would agree. What difference would you expect to see between the 7.1 megapixels of the A570IS and the 12 of the 5D? Certainly that slight difference would disappear when downrezed to 800x600. And while the 5D might be expected to excel in low light that "IS" on the A570 should be good for a stop or two. One could even make the argument that the A570 is the superior camera, because the little camera in your pocket is worth a lot more than the big thing "back in the car" when you stumble across those never-to-be-repeated "magic moments" . . .

But what about those other moments, the ones where the extra capabilities of the 5D do give it an advantage over the A570? Aren't they like those other moments when the SD14 has advantages, even over the 5D?

You make a reasonable point but is it the one that is under debate?

I would certainly agree that that are minor differences in the output of similar cameras and somewhat larger differences between the output of DSLRs and compacts. And of course those differences can be exploited to good effect. But the usual arguments here are about trade offs (eg enlargeability and low noise versus say price and portability).

But the issue that was raised here was somewhat different. Rather than concentrating on the image characteristics and trade-offs of bayer and foveon technology (my position); it is about how Foveon images are "obviously" better than all bayer images and how the Foveon images have a clearly superior look.

Now I don't accept this is so clear cut, nor do some other people on this forum and there is certainly little evidence that it is so obvious to the great unwashed buying public...

It seems to me that it would be helpful if those who "know" without doubt that foveon images are so much better could share that with the rest of us by demonstrating the differences.

For example, I suggested a simple test to Sandy which would take about 5 secs to do (shoot two SD14 pictures of a suitable subject one at medium aperture, one stopped down) which would be a useful way for demonstrating whether the SD14 has better anti-aliasing measures than its predecessors or not. But like other suggestions it was thrown back in my face even though the excuses probably took longer to type than the test would have to perform.

This kind of attitude which is often seen in this forum indicates to me that some forum members prefer to remain in a comfort zone than to explore the characteristics of their cameras - which always carries the somewhat embarrasing risk that the equipment might not be quite so good as you thought....

Deward Hastings said:

Deward Hastings482101 said:

Either the images produced by the different technologies are clearly different or they are not.

Click to expand...

Why limit yourself to just comparing different technologies? Why not
compare images from the Canon 5D and the Canon A570IS, viewed "on the
web" at 800x600 or in 4x6 prints from Costco (or your local
equivalent "chemist's photo service"). Either the images produced by
the different cameras are clearly different or they are not, eh?
You'd be looking for "clues" like "that was taken with a very long
telephoto, must be the 5D", not "image quality" . . .

Deward Hastings482101 said:

I believe that most of the time there is no real difference.

Click to expand...

And I would agree. What difference would you expect to see between
the 7.1 megapixels of the A570IS and the 12 of the 5D? Certainly
that slight difference would disappear when downrezed to 800x600.
And while the 5D might be expected to excel in low light that "IS" on
the A570 should be good for a stop or two. One could even make the
argument that the A570 is the superior camera, because the little
camera in your pocket is worth a lot more than the big thing "back in
the car" when you stumble across those never-to-be-repeated "magic
moments" . . .

But what about those other moments, the ones where the extra
capabilities of the 5D do give it an advantage over the A570?
Aren't they like those other moments when the SD14 has advantages,
even over the 5D?

Click to expand...

--
Galleries and website: http://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/mainindex.htm

And I'm still working on waiting for the results!!

ps

I'll be on holiday for the first couple of weeks in September and out of contact.

ChromeLight said:

ChromeLight said:

ChromeLight said:

Presumably once

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

That would be good indeed. By the way, I'm still working on making
prints.

Click to expand...

--
Galleries and website: http://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/mainindex.htm

DMillier said:

You make a reasonable point but is it the one that is under debate?

I would certainly agree that that are minor differences in the output
of similar cameras and somewhat larger differences between the output
of DSLRs and compacts. And of course those differences can be
exploited to good effect. But the usual arguments here are about
trade offs (eg enlargeability and low noise versus say price and
portability).

But the issue that was raised here was somewhat different. Rather
than concentrating on the image characteristics and trade-offs of
bayer and foveon technology (my position); it is about how Foveon
images are "obviously" better than all bayer images and how the
Foveon images have a clearly superior look.

Click to expand...

So who says that??
You are exaggerating again.

DavidMillier said:

Now I don't accept this is so clear cut, nor do some other people on
this forum and there is certainly little evidence that it is so
obvious to the great unwashed buying public...

It seems to me that it would be helpful if those who "know" without
doubt that foveon images are so much better could share that with the
rest of us by demonstrating the differences.

Click to expand...

We have thousands and thousands of images from SD9, SD10, and SD14s online. That's the body of evidence.

DavidMillier said:

For example, I suggested a simple test to Sandy which would take
about 5 secs to do (shoot two SD14 pictures of a suitable subject one
at medium aperture, one stopped down) which would be a useful way for
demonstrating whether the SD14 has better anti-aliasing measures than
its predecessors or not. But like other suggestions it was thrown
back in my face even though the excuses probably took longer to type
than the test would have to perform.

Click to expand...

Just checking in online and see you're still exaggerating and misrepresenting what I've said over and over, specifically and in this case. I said, I don't have the appropriate 'roofs' to go out and shoot a '5 secs shot' Would take me longer than that, it wouldn't 'prove' anything, and I'm not playing that game. Also I wrote I won't have a chance to do any photography this week (busy) maybe this weekend. I don't see obvious problems in any roof shots I have done, and some are online. You're welcome to scour my photos for problems. You spend an amazing amount of time harping on my posts.

DavidMillier said:

This kind of attitude which is often seen in this forum indicates to
me that some forum members prefer to remain in a comfort zone than to
explore the characteristics of their cameras - which always carries
the somewhat embarrasing risk that the equipment might not be quite
so good as you thought....

Click to expand...

I'm finding it's better.

For example, for a camera the reviewers say 'can't do' ISO400 and up, it sure does it. And I've posted the photos.
Best regards, Sandy
[email protected]
http://www.pbase.com/sandyfleischman
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sandyfleischmann

DavidMillier said:

it is about how Foveon images are "obviously" better than all Bayer images and how the Foveon images have a clearly superior look

Click to expand...

Set up a straw man so you can knock it down? Some differences appear “on the margin” of resolution, and in handling how fine detail is rendered. The difference is not discernable in low resolution JPEGs. There are iconic images familiar to all of us which would not be “improved” in any way were they presented with the “pixel perfect” full color detail of which the SD14 is capable (that one of the napalmed girl in Viet Nam, for example), and it’s hard to argue the “superiority” of showing every pimple in a wedding photo. Perhaps your straw man would, and if he did you’d be right to knock him down. Oddly, perhaps, I’ve seen no one here make the argument that you set out to demolish. Fine detail in a macro of a rose petal is a different question, and a good case has been made here for a “clearly superior look” from the SD14. Whether one prefers “Foveon color” is a matter of taste (although there must be such a thing (must there not?) since critics of the SD14 (other than yourself, of course) routinely condemn it (“cyan cast” and all that . . .).

DavidMillier said:

For example, I suggested a simple test

Click to expand...

Your “simple test” is neither “simple” nor would it generate a useful answer to any interesting question. If the rest of the system is “higher resolution” than the sensor then any digital camera (without anti-aliasing) will produce aliasing artifacts. Degrading something in the rest of the system (adding diffraction limit blurring, for example) will reduce aliasing where it otherwise exists. But in a majority of cases vibration and lens softness already blur the image enough (in a camera with the inherent resolution of the SD14) to reduce aliasing to insignificance except in those rare cases where it might occur with an excellent lens, on a tripod, etc. etc. etc. And in those rare cases it is a not unreasonable decision to accept aliasing in tiny portions of an image rather than blur the whole image to avoid it (although that option always exists). In any case it is a tiny issue (and one shared by (unblurred) Bayer cameras) compared to the artifact problems generated throughout an image by the Bayer mosaic (which almost requires deliberate blurring to produce an acceptable image).

In any case comments seemingly based on the SD9 are “old history”. That camera, the first of its kind, had in its time obvious strengths and obvious weaknesses. It’s two generations old now, long since discontinued, and in the SD14 many of the strengths have been improved, and most of the weaknesses reduced or eliminated. Any SD14 “aliasing problem” exists more in the imagination than in reality (which is exactly what SD14 owners here have been consistently telling you). They are not trapped in some “comfort zone” . . . they are constantly testing the limits of their equipment. And they are much more reliable in their reports than is your straw man . . .

richard stone said:

Thank you so much for your advice on which threads and conversations
to skip. Perhaps to be of some help in that regard you should label
your posts as "pure argument and Bayer marketing?"

Click to expand...

Since I avoid the term Bayer and prefer the term CFA, I've taken the liberty of changing the label for the title of this post. If you feel this way about all my posts, then you should consider my name in the Identify field label enough.

richard stone said:

These "corrective" posts are not only questionable in terms of "fact,"

Click to expand...

Obviously you can question anything. The key is what basis has been provided (if any) for the stated assertion. Nothing can be proven on a forum such as this - the best that can happen is to present information so that readers may make up their own minds.

richard stone said:

they amount to marketing for Bayer cameras, even if those who
post such "corrective" arguments are too naive to see it.

Click to expand...

I think this is an interesting example of an "if you're not with us, you're against us" attitude. If you have in mind the same posters I do, they seem somewhat technology neutral. I.e., they feel that both technologies and real-world implementations have strengths and weaknesses.

richard stone said:

You propose that in order for my "Wow..." comment to be true I would
have to document (and thus "prove"?) each occurrence: Not so.

Click to expand...

You do not "have to" do anything. However, it would be helpful if you did so. Then we could determine if we are talking about the same types of posts or something different. Perhaps there are many such posts and I've missed them. Or that we are interpreting the same posts quite differently.

richard stone said:

Disparaging my reading of the posts on the forum is just
a cheap trick, and unworthy of the high tone of these forums.

Click to expand...

You realize that by saying this you are disparaging my reading of the forum (and my posting style). So much for the high tone....

richard stone said:

My response to these posts is not so much for your benefit as for
that of others who might read your posts and think you know more
about these topics than they and others do.

Click to expand...

"On the internet, nobody knows you're a dog." I try to include enough references in my posts for readers to check my assertions. I don't insist on anyone taking my word alone.

richard stone said:

You seem not to dispute that point
made above that all you do is dress up your opinions as facts and
argument, but rather, in an apparent but ill-advised defense, accuse
everyone else of the same fault.

Click to expand...

As you pointed out previously "[a] statement is either true (or false) irrespective of any proof I might present, or truth is a matter of some (probably unresolvable) dispute. Take your pick." and "there are no rules to determine what is admissable and what is not, what is proof and what is not, and there is no third party to determine if it proves the point or not". So make up your mind: either everyone is asserting "opinions as facts" or there exists a standard for "facts" and "proof". I'm simply pointing out that whichever definition one chooses, it should be applied uniformly.

richard stone said:

But your contention in that regard
is demonstrably false due, for example, to to the "fact" of equal
color resolution for the Foveon sensor.

Click to expand...

Which contention are you referring to? What is the standard of proof you are claiming for this "fact?"

richard stone said:

but I don't think I have ever read of anyone
actually saying they preferred the Bayer images.

Click to expand...

Ask the question in News, Open Talk, or one of the other camera forums if you want to hear this answer.

richard stone said:

None of this means that the Bayer images are better.

Click to expand...

In my opinion dressed up as fact, for a given scene, the results depend more on the skill of the photographer is shooting/processing than the camera. Mike Chaney writes "Neither is perfect nor fundamentally flawed. There are things you can argue about both technologies but there is nothing fundamentally wrong with either."

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1027&message=24248495

--
Erik

SandyF said:

DMillier said:

You make a reasonable point but is it the one that is under debate?

I would certainly agree that that are minor differences in the output
of similar cameras and somewhat larger differences between the output
of DSLRs and compacts. And of course those differences can be
exploited to good effect. But the usual arguments here are about
trade offs (eg enlargeability and low noise versus say price and
portability).

But the issue that was raised here was somewhat different. Rather
than concentrating on the image characteristics and trade-offs of
bayer and foveon technology (my position); it is about how Foveon
images are "obviously" better than all bayer images and how the
Foveon images have a clearly superior look.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I'll think you find plenty of assertions foveon images are superior and bayer images irrecoverably flawed on this forum. Indeed, one or two within this very thread.

SandyF said:

So who says that??
You are exaggerating again.

SandyF said:

Now I don't accept this is so clear cut, nor do some other people on
this forum and there is certainly little evidence that it is so
obvious to the great unwashed buying public...

It seems to me that it would be helpful if those who "know" without
doubt that foveon images are so much better could share that with the
rest of us by demonstrating the differences.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Thousands of pictures can be many things but a demonstration of the presence or absence of certain image quality characteristics they do not without bayer shots to compare them to.

Would you say that examing a group of 5D, 1Ds or D2x shots in isolation was useful for making up your mind how well the camera does in comparison to others? There is a reason phil's reviews compare photos....

SandyF said:

We have thousands and thousands of images from SD9, SD10, and SD14s
online. That's the body of evidence.

SandyF said:

For example, I suggested a simple test to Sandy which would take
about 5 secs to do (shoot two SD14 pictures of a suitable subject one
at medium aperture, one stopped down) which would be a useful way for
demonstrating whether the SD14 has better anti-aliasing measures than
its predecessors or not. But like other suggestions it was thrown
back in my face even though the excuses probably took longer to type
than the test would have to perform.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Hmmm. You don't particularly need roofs, just repeating detail of an appropriate frequency. And I didn't ask you to 'prove' anything, just to check how well the SD14 handles aliasing because it has been suggested that microlenses and software AA have removed the need for a real AA filter. I doubt that but it would do no harm to perform a simple check.

After all, if Chromelight can go to the trouble and expense of producing big comparison prints and send them across the pond to me for scanning in the name of public service, it's hardly a big ask... ;-)

SandyF said:

Just checking in online and see you're still exaggerating and
misrepresenting what I've said over and over, specifically and in
this case. I said, I don't have the appropriate 'roofs' to go out and
shoot a '5 secs shot' Would take me longer than that, it wouldn't
'prove' anything, and I'm not playing that game. Also I wrote I won't
have a chance to do any photography this week (busy) maybe this
weekend.

Click to expand...

Now who's misrepresenting. We had a conversation a few weeks ago about the aliasing in my pier shots. You produced some shots of your own of a church roof that demonstrated exactly the same diagonal aliasing problem!

SandyF said:

I don't see obvious problems in any roof shots I have done,
and some are online. You're welcome to scour my photos for problems.

Click to expand...

And you likewise with mine.

SandyF said:

You spend an amazing amount of time harping on my posts.

SandyF said:

This kind of attitude which is often seen in this forum indicates to
me that some forum members prefer to remain in a comfort zone than to
explore the characteristics of their cameras - which always carries
the somewhat embarrasing risk that the equipment might not be quite
so good as you thought....

Click to expand...

I'm finding it's better.
For example, for a camera the reviewers say 'can't do' ISO400 and up,
it sure does it. And I've posted the photos.
Best regards, Sandy
[email protected]
http://www.pbase.com/sandyfleischman
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sandyfleischmann

Click to expand...

--
Galleries and website: http://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/mainindex.htm