Fovean X3 Chip?

I wasn't saying no patent. I just ment the idea of a three deep pixel did not originate with Foveon nor is it a unique idea. The only thing Foveon can protect is the process they use to do it. This limits but does not preclude other manufacturers from building a three color sensor using some other closely related technology.

Ron Parr said:

Foveon's triple well sensor is indeed patented:

http://l2.espacenet.com/dips/bnsviewer?CY=ep&LG=en&DB=EPD&PN=US5965875&ID=US+++5965875A1+I+

The patent goes into detail about prior art, both for sensors and
multilayer chips and describes Foveon's innovation as taking,
"advantage of the differences in absorption length in silicon of
light of different wavelengths to measure different colors in the
same location with sensitive areas almost as large as their
spacing."

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

Click to expand...

KenEis said:

I wasn't saying no patent. I just ment the idea of a three deep
pixel did not originate with Foveon nor is it a unique idea. The
only thing Foveon can protect is the process they use to do it.
This limits but does not preclude other manufacturers from building
a three color sensor using some other closely related technology.

Click to expand...

So, you're saying the patent was granted in error? This certainly happens. Please provide some documentation of prior art in this area then.

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

The only thing wrong with this tech is that we don't have
it in our hands already. Nothing has changed as far as peoples
expectations for the Foveon. We just haven't had any real
news in a while. Yes, if it is as good as it looks, even the
film bodies will go to ebay to help get a good long lens
for the Sigma. The only thing that has changed is that the
D60 has made a very impressive showing, making some people
less likely to purchase the product this time around, at least
if Canon gets their camera delivered before the next round
of images and information hit the net. So far there are hints
at delays, and problems, but nothing is confirmed. The images
are still as good as they were. The user reviews of the camera
this first model is based on have not changed. The patent
has not been revoked. The statement by the top person in
the design team that this sensor is very cheap to produce has
not been refuted. The bomb that will blow up bayer color
interpolation is still ticking. In fact, it is ticking louder than it
was. In the Canon and Nikon SLR forums the legend of how
bad the Sigma lenses are, is being refuted more and more
every day. Posts showing the continued problems with color
interpolation using the old tech continue to surface, even if
the new cameras do a better job than the old. The resolution
is up, the noise is down, and the color is generally better than it
was, but the old problems are still there. It never was a question
of if the old tech could take good images. It is a question of
just how good those image could be, and what percentage
of them are good. It is a question of how much editing time
will be involved in each shot. It is a question of file size to
produce those results. In these questions, nothing has changed.
If the Foveon produces better color, like the samples, better
resolution, like the samples, and does it with a file size half that
of the competing products, it will be the future.

Ron Parr said:

KenEis said:

I wasn't saying no patent. I just ment the idea of a three deep
pixel did not originate with Foveon nor is it a unique idea. The
only thing Foveon can protect is the process they use to do it.
This limits but does not preclude other manufacturers from building
a three color sensor using some other closely related technology.

Click to expand...

So, you're saying the patent was granted in error? This certainly
happens. Please provide some documentation of prior art in this
area then.

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

Click to expand...

For all but the most elite of photographers, image quality will be one of a number of factors in a purchase. If Foveon can produce a better image at less cost, overall, than its competitors, then it will be the imager of choice, ultimately displacing CCD technology. Otherwise Foveon risks being marginalized to niche markets.

This reads to me that anyone that could create a second, unique process that took "ADVANTAGE of the differences in absorption length in silicon of light of different wavelengths to measure different colors in the same location with sensitive areas almost as large as their spacing." could receive a patent as well.

Sounds to me like they patented the process, not the concept, which is probably public domain. It's probable that competitors have, as Kodak has, delved into alternatives to bayer pattern CCD's as well.

Tom May said:

This reads to me that anyone that could create a second, unique
process that took "ADVANTAGE of the differences in absorption
length in silicon of light of different wavelengths to measure
different colors in the same location with sensitive areas almost
as large as their spacing." could receive a patent as well.

Sounds to me like they patented the process, not the concept, which
is probably public domain. It's probable that competitors have, as
Kodak has, delved into alternatives to bayer pattern CCD's as well.

Click to expand...

No - the patent is very broad in that it covers the basic idea of taking advantage of the differences in absorbtion length. It clearly distinguishes between this idea and it's embodiment. The patent covers both.

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

No that wasn't my point. There or other ways of providing three colors at a photocite. Panasonic and other have tried unsuccessfully. The real unique and therefore patentable idea was not that Foveon used the silicon's light selection but rather the industrial process to do it in large scale manufacturing. Patents are usually on industrial processes and not for scientific ideas since ideas are free and its very difficult to prove their origin

An example of what I talking about is that we could be having a conversation on this web cite and speculating on how to improve CCD or CMOS for digital photography and one of us mentions the possbility of using silicon depth as a color filter. We move on to other issues and neither of us realy ever considers the idea any further. Three months later Foveon patents the idea. Sony could break the patent just by researching this web site and showing that some amature physics/photographers were speculating on the same thing and so the idea is not patentable. Sony would win. The industrial process to do it is far more difficult and very unlikely to be the subject of a conversation since most of us are not into industrial processes. I am a physics major but don't have a clue about how to brew the silicon.

Ron Parr said:

KenEis said:

I wasn't saying no patent. I just ment the idea of a three deep
pixel did not originate with Foveon nor is it a unique idea. The
only thing Foveon can protect is the process they use to do it.
This limits but does not preclude other manufacturers from building
a three color sensor using some other closely related technology.

Click to expand...

So, you're saying the patent was granted in error? This certainly
happens. Please provide some documentation of prior art in this
area then.

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

Click to expand...

You are dead wrong on the patent info. The compound
bow was not invented by Allen. It was invented by another
man that actually built the first prototypes. He did not patent
his idea. Allen did, and he still gets paid a fee for every bow
manufactured. For the patent to be broken would require that
the person that invented and proved the idea had the idea
stolen from him, in a way that required breaking his right to
private information. If a man sits down and discusses an idea
openly with you at lunch, you can patent the idea, if you
follow thru. I know. I had a lunch conversation with an older
gentleman about the idea to design an air plunger system
to use on a bow that would shoot a bb, so that anyone could
practice at home. It took less than 60 days for the product to
arrive at the local archery shop, and the gentleman will tell you
it was my idea. It was his money, his workers, and it is his
patent. It was not very popular, but it belonged to the person
that patented it.

KenEis said:

An example of what I talking about is that we could be having a
conversation on this web cite and speculating on how to improve CCD
or CMOS for digital photography and one of us mentions the
possbility of using silicon depth as a color filter. We move on to
other issues and neither of us realy ever considers the idea any
further. Three months later Foveon patents the idea. Sony could
break the patent just by researching this web site and showing that
some amature physics/photographers were speculating on the same
thing and so the idea is not patentable. Sony would win. The
industrial process to do it is far more difficult and very unlikely
to be the subject of a conversation since most of us are not into
industrial processes. I am a physics major but don't have a clue
about how to brew the silicon.

Ron Parr said:

KenEis said:

I wasn't saying no patent. I just ment the idea of a three deep
pixel did not originate with Foveon nor is it a unique idea. The
only thing Foveon can protect is the process they use to do it.
This limits but does not preclude other manufacturers from building
a three color sensor using some other closely related technology.

Click to expand...

So, you're saying the patent was granted in error? This certainly
happens. Please provide some documentation of prior art in this
area then.

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

Click to expand...

--

Click to expand...

KenEis said:

No that wasn't my point. There or other ways of providing three
colors at a photocite. Panasonic and other have tried
unsuccessfully. The real unique and therefore patentable idea was
not that Foveon used the silicon's light selection but rather the
industrial process to do it in large scale manufacturing. Patents
are usually on industrial processes and not for scientific ideas
since ideas are free and its very difficult to prove their origin

Click to expand...

Nope. This is what patents are all about - ideas. Industrial processes are a subset of the things that can be patented, but it's a proper subset.

Read the patent. It's about the idea, not about the industrial process.

Prior art arguments, etc. can be used to break any patent. Industrial processes are not immune to this.

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

Another issue might be whether this concept would be obvious to someone skilled in the arts, ie, an individual working in the field. It would seem logical that these same engineers and scientists would see this as an obvious path of research. If there are any existing papers regarding this concept, prior to the Foveon's patent, then I would imagine that it would be difficult to protect the patent for concept.

On the other hand, the process is very specific, and this patent would be more easily defended. Of note, someone could delineate the visible spectrum into more than RGB layers, and possibly use this as a workaround, albeit at higher cost. Alternately, other materials could be used, though again cost would be an issue.

I love playing devil's advocate, but in truth, I hope that Foveon is successful.

Wasn't there mention of Kodak patents from several years back?

Tom May said:

Another issue might be whether this concept would be obvious to
someone skilled in the arts, ie, an individual working in the
field. It would seem logical that these same engineers and
scientists would see this as an obvious path of research. If there
are any existing papers regarding this concept, prior to the
Foveon's patent, then I would imagine that it would be difficult to
protect the patent for concept.

On the other hand, the process is very specific, and this patent
would be more easily defended. Of note, someone could delineate the
visible spectrum into more than RGB layers, and possibly use this
as a workaround, albeit at higher cost. Alternately, other
materials could be used, though again cost would be an issue.

I love playing devil's advocate, but in truth, I hope that Foveon
is successful.

Click to expand...

Someone else mentioned that as well somewhere, though I don't have a clue of what the patent protects. Conspiracy theory here. but it would be in the best interest of Kodak to trade some of its patents for a solid business partnership with Foveon, if that's what it came to.

Bob Williams said:

Tom May said:

Another issue might be whether this concept would be obvious to
someone skilled in the arts, ie, an individual working in the
field. It would seem logical that these same engineers and
scientists would see this as an obvious path of research. If there
are any existing papers regarding this concept, prior to the
Foveon's patent, then I would imagine that it would be difficult to
protect the patent for concept.

On the other hand, the process is very specific, and this patent
would be more easily defended. Of note, someone could delineate the
visible spectrum into more than RGB layers, and possibly use this
as a workaround, albeit at higher cost. Alternately, other
materials could be used, though again cost would be an issue.

I love playing devil's advocate, but in truth, I hope that Foveon
is successful.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

The money lies in the consumer market - not in the niche. I cannot understand how or why Foveon would tie up together with Sigma who have no proper understanding in the design of a consumer digital camera, such as the new Canon IXUS S330. Sigma deals in lenses and old SLR stuff.

I just hope that Sigma wouldn't start re-inventing the wheel in regards to consumer digicams, but learn and use what's already out there and what makes them good. I can't imagine buying a bulky X3 DSLR for my wife for snapshooting holidays pics.

Yes, we want X3 technology, but also in the form of the excellent useablilty, ergonomics, function galore and miniature sized IXUS S330.

Get me my IXUS S330 with an "X3 inside" symbol on the box, baby.

Hi Bob:

Ken was pretty close on the patent issue. In the U.S., at least, patents can only be issued to true inventors, a person who participates in the conception of the invention. If one person derives their knowledge of the invention from another person and obtains a patent on that invention, the patent is invalid.

Now--before we get into an argument over application of these rules, it is important to remember that the invention is defined by the claims of the patent. If someone describes their idea to me for a compound bow, and I decide it would be even better with an off-center-axis pulley, or that it needs a particular pulley separation to work well, then I can patent that improvement and a good patent attorneys can write the claims so that they appear to cover the broader invention; but I would not be legally entitled to a patent on the basic concept.
Mark Porter

Bob Williams said:

You are dead wrong on the patent info. The compound
bow was not invented by Allen. It was invented by another
man that actually built the first prototypes. He did not patent
his idea. Allen did, and he still gets paid a fee for every bow
manufactured. For the patent to be broken would require that
the person that invented and proved the idea had the idea
stolen from him, in a way that required breaking his right to
private information. If a man sits down and discusses an idea
openly with you at lunch, you can patent the idea, if you
follow thru. I know. I had a lunch conversation with an older
gentleman about the idea to design an air plunger system
to use on a bow that would shoot a bb, so that anyone could
practice at home. It took less than 60 days for the product to
arrive at the local archery shop, and the gentleman will tell you
it was my idea. It was his money, his workers, and it is his
patent. It was not very popular, but it belonged to the person
that patented it.

Click to expand...

--
Mark
Portland, Oregon, USA

No argument. I was just reporting real world application of
the actual system. The compound bow patent was challenged,
and failed. The patent is so broad as to cover all of today's
bows, even tho the original Allen had a 6 wheel design. In
another case from the same field, a machinist from MacDonald
Douglas that also was a partner in and archery range, and a
pretty good competitive shooter, designed a nocking system
that slid into the tube, not over a swagged portion of tube.
It provided almost perfect centering, and support for the back
of the tube. He produced and marketed his own product
in a limited way. Easton now produces what is virtually the
same system, and has for a while. They hold a patent on it,
and they do not pay him a dime. In court, he lost, even tho
he could introduce prior customers. It is possible that in the
time since these things happened, that things have changed.
At the time of these examples, in every case, the person that
applied for the patent first, now holds the rights. The archery
business is just an easy example that I was part of in the big
explosion in popularity, so I got to see a lot of the stuff as
it was developed. There are at least 4 or 5 other examples
that I can think of, and two of them involve the same machinist.
The law in Missouri still states that a prisoner being released
from prison is to be given a horse, a rifle, a suit, and a 50$
gold piece also. That does not mean that is the reality.

Mark Porter said:

Bob Williams said:

You are dead wrong on the patent info. The compound
bow was not invented by Allen. It was invented by another
man that actually built the first prototypes. He did not patent
his idea. Allen did, and he still gets paid a fee for every bow
manufactured. For the patent to be broken would require that
the person that invented and proved the idea had the idea
stolen from him, in a way that required breaking his right to
private information. If a man sits down and discusses an idea
openly with you at lunch, you can patent the idea, if you
follow thru. I know. I had a lunch conversation with an older
gentleman about the idea to design an air plunger system
to use on a bow that would shoot a bb, so that anyone could
practice at home. It took less than 60 days for the product to
arrive at the local archery shop, and the gentleman will tell you
it was my idea. It was his money, his workers, and it is his
patent. It was not very popular, but it belonged to the person
that patented it.

Click to expand...

--
Mark
Portland, Oregon, USA

Click to expand...

Nice analysis, Bob...

We saw something like this in the mid-80's, when a Japanese company (Canon?) attempted to interest American companies like Kodak in a new compact printing technology. Hewlett Packard, hardly known for its printers then, signed up and produced the first LaserJet.

"Those who ignore history..."

Chris

I keep reading the posts about how the mount cripples
this tech. When I go to the Canon or Nikon SLR forums, the
questions being asked, and the samples being displayed, would
tend to make a person think that the available lenses are very
popular, and becoming more so. The samples seem to show
very good image quality. When you add this to the posted info
that Sigma can and will change the mounts on their lenses, it
begins to seem like a win win situation for those that do adopt
this system. Should Canon or Nikon produce a better product
at a later date, the lenses can be switched to that platform, making
these lenses more flexible than any others. The lack of third
party support for the mount is not troublesome to me, as the
Sigma quality seems to be equal or better than that of the
second level manufacturers that are available for the other mounting
systems. The posts as of late about this upcoming camera would
seem to be more Nikon or Canon oreinted users expressing
sour grapes, more than any problems with the Sigma/Foveon
product. Unless they drop the ball, I think they have a winner
that will be beneficial for both companies. Now, if the process
would just move a little faster!

Chris Butler said:

Nice analysis, Bob...

We saw something like this in the mid-80's, when a Japanese company
(Canon?) attempted to interest American companies like Kodak in a
new compact printing technology. Hewlett Packard, hardly known for
its printers then, signed up and produced the first LaserJet.

"Those who ignore history..."

Chris

Click to expand...

Not so many years ago people (and car manufacturers) said the same about Honda "they only make 50cc motorbikers Ha Ha".

Roger

dezzzo said:

The money lies in the consumer market - not in the niche. I cannot
understand how or why Foveon would tie up together with Sigma who
have no proper understanding in the design of a consumer digital
camera, such as the new Canon IXUS S330. Sigma deals in lenses and
old SLR stuff.

I just hope that Sigma wouldn't start re-inventing the wheel in
regards to consumer digicams, but learn and use what's already out
there and what makes them good. I can't imagine buying a bulky X3
DSLR for my wife for snapshooting holidays pics.

Yes, we want X3 technology, but also in the form of the excellent
useablilty, ergonomics, function galore and miniature sized IXUS
S330.

Get me my IXUS S330 with an "X3 inside" symbol on the box, baby.

Click to expand...

--
Roger

my god your thinking is so backwards!! are you from 1950's russia?? no one is re-inventing the wheel. just taking the wood off and putting on rubber. also what level of expertise and accreditation do you have to be able to say that sigma has no understanding of building digital cameras?? i would like to see some more evidence on this as it seems to me they are quite capable. imagine how much easier and cheaper it is for them to simply learn from what’s already in the past. plus all the best consumer digital camera engineers don’t all work for nikon and canon. these people do change their jobs like all the other humans out there. yes sigma is better known for lenses and old slr stuff, but so did nikon, and so did polaroid. good thing sigma is choosing leading edge and learning from past mistakes from other people and not slapping stuff together in an already overstuffed market full of copycat and good enoughers. the x3 chip doesn’t depend on what sigma does. if its going to be in a portable consumer camera (which i doubt until they are 2 or so generations in to it)it will need to be picked up by a more consumer based company like oly or something. i think a good technology should not be wasted at first, especially not on micro ixus cameras. as they are good for tourist and family gatherings they are quite useless for serious work. being so small and unstable they jitter more. if you want to see the x3 ixus your going to have to let the pros and (the corniest term ever,) "prosumers" tear it up and the companies will refine. just like cars. racing technology is not for all of us but is does seep down to the hyundai's and kia's when its proven and cost effective. im sure some people here will not really give any independent thought to my comments and will just react with whatever the popular idea is so im expecting the typical responses.

you can not advance if your afraid of the unknown and unfamiliar.

eric

dezzzo said:

The money lies in the consumer market - not in the niche. I cannot
understand how or why Foveon would tie up together with Sigma who
have no proper understanding in the design of a consumer digital
camera, such as the new Canon IXUS S330. Sigma deals in lenses and
old SLR stuff.

I just hope that Sigma wouldn't start re-inventing the wheel in
regards to consumer digicams, but learn and use what's already out
there and what makes them good. I can't imagine buying a bulky X3
DSLR for my wife for snapshooting holidays pics.

Yes, we want X3 technology, but also in the form of the excellent
useablilty, ergonomics, function galore and miniature sized IXUS
S330.

Get me my IXUS S330 with an "X3 inside" symbol on the box, baby.

Click to expand...

EJAZ.A said:

One thing that keeps clicking to my mind is whether X3 chip is so
powerful and produces sharper, clearer, and true to life like
colors why the companies like Nikon, Canon, or Contax do not adopt
this technology? It might be because of the complexity of technical
details like compatibility issues, integrity issues, and what not
which a company of a size of NIKON or Canon has to address before
implementing that technology to their existing own. Only Sigma, who

Click to expand...

It's impossible to know what the entire story is. There are a thousand
possible reasons why Canon and Nikon have not done deals with Foveon
as well. Many of them having nothing to do with the X3 technology
itself at all.

Time will tell...