Reading mode: Light Dark

2 more samples

Go to last post
K

Kim Bomstad

Well-known member
Messages
193
Reaction score
135
kim bomstad said:
2 more samples @ German Sigma web site, also TIFF

http://www.sigma-foto.de/
  • Produkte
  • Kameras
  • SD9
  • Beispielaufnahmen
( http://www.sigma-foto.de/digital/sample/sample.html )
Click to expand...
But there's something strange about this pictures. To start
with the first is 4408 pixels by 2940, and the second is
4724 by 3150.

But I think all of Phil's pictures from Photokina are 2268 by
1512.

Considering the sensor is 3.4 million pixels, I trust Phil's way
more. The math works.

And what are all those back dots up in the left hand corner ?
Was the lens dirty or something ?

These pictures seem a bit strange, for sure.
 
tim martin said:
But there's something strange about this pictures. To start
with the first is 4408 pixels by 2940, and the second is
4724 by 3150.
Click to expand...
Yeah, the image dimensions are suspicious. Is there any indication elsewhere on the site that the point of those samples was to demonstrate how well X3 images can be interpolated bigger? Even so, I'm examining the TIFF image and it doesn't look like it was upsampled at all (certainly not to the extent of quadrupling the number of pixels).

So either this image was not captured with the SD9, or someone has done an amazing job of resampling a 3-megapixel image to a 12-megapixel one.
 
tim martin said:
But there's something strange about this pictures. To start
with the first is 4408 pixels by 2940, and the second is
4724 by 3150.

But I think all of Phil's pictures from Photokina are 2268 by
1512.
Click to expand...
True, spec on SD9 is as you say - so ??

I dont understand so much German, so I used babelfish to translate: "Beispielaufnahmen" means "Example photographs" and the text above the samples is "The following photographs were provided by Klaus Tiedge, photographer, with the SIGMAS SD9 during photokina 2002 live at the exhibition booth."

--
Regards
KimB
 
First of all, thanks for the link.

I am not a technician, and I will welcome comments from those who are. However, these two tiffs look amazing at any magnification I use. At 1600%, the flow of pixels is clean and even. If these have been resampled up, then someone has a pretty amazing piece of software. If Sigma supplies that with this camera, then it is understandable that the Hassel project was shelved.

It is also clear that they should get into the microdrive business real quick too.
 
Thanks for the link.

These are strange. The sizes are too big.

The detail is stunning as usual. There's appears to be some luma noise in the tea. In the absense of Phil's more objective tests, I'm trying to calibrate this with respect to other cameras. I'd guess it's not worse than I'd expect from, say, a Nikon D100 at its min. ISO of 200, but I think it's a bit worse than I'd expect from a Canon D60 at its min ISO of 100.

Here's a D100 shot:

http://img.dpreview.com/reviews/NikonD100/Samples/Compared/d60_scene/d100_iso200.JPG

Notice the noise, for example, in the dark gray patch in the color test chart to the right.

Here's a D60 shot for comparison:

http://img.dpreview.com/reviews/NikonD100/Samples/Compared/d60_scene/d60_iso100.JPG

--
Ron Parr
FAQ: http://www.cs.duke.edu/~parr/photography/faq.html
Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/parr/
 
Second Paragraph on the attached Link

http://www.sigma-foto.de/digital/digital_sd9_a.html

Der Sensor hat eine effektive Empfindlichkeit von ISO 100, die auf ISO 200, 400 und 800 gesteigert werden kann.

Or the Google German translation at :

http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sigma-foto.de%2Fdigital%2Fdigital_sd9_a.html&langpair=de%7Cen&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&prev=%2Flanguage_tools

"the sensor has effective sensitivuity of ISO 100 which can be increased to ISO 200, 400 and 800.
Laurence Matson said:
Brad Morris said:
That Site is still claiming ISO 800 for the camera as well
Click to expand...
Not true:

Entsprechend ISO 100, 200, 400

means that the ISO corresponds to 100, 200, 400

This from the data table.
Click to expand...
--
DCS-F707, Nikon CP 950
 
You can ask Sigma Photo Pro to output double size but one of these images is larger than that... Very weird. There are no notes about how these images were interpolated.
Ron Parr said:
Thanks for the link.

These are strange. The sizes are too big.

The detail is stunning as usual. There's appears to be some luma
noise in the tea. In the absense of Phil's more objective tests,
I'm trying to calibrate this with respect to other cameras. I'd
guess it's not worse than I'd expect from, say, a Nikon D100 at its
min. ISO of 200, but I think it's a bit worse than I'd expect from
a Canon D60 at its min ISO of 100.

Here's a D100 shot:

http://img.dpreview.com/reviews/NikonD100/Samples/Compared/d60_scene/d100_iso200.JPG

Notice the noise, for example, in the dark gray patch in the color
test chart to the right.

Here's a D60 shot for comparison:

http://img.dpreview.com/reviews/NikonD100/Samples/Compared/d60_scene/d60_iso100.JPG

--
Ron Parr
FAQ: http://www.cs.duke.edu/~parr/photography/faq.html
Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/parr/
Click to expand...
--
Phil Askey
Editor / Owner, dpreview.com
 
Phil,

do you know what interpolation the Photo Pro uses? would it be worth posting one of your samples at double size for comparison with PS Bicubic etc

Regards

Brad
Phil Askey said:
Ron Parr said:
Thanks for the link.

These are strange. The sizes are too big.

The detail is stunning as usual. There's appears to be some luma
noise in the tea. In the absense of Phil's more objective tests,
I'm trying to calibrate this with respect to other cameras. I'd
guess it's not worse than I'd expect from, say, a Nikon D100 at its
min. ISO of 200, but I think it's a bit worse than I'd expect from
a Canon D60 at its min ISO of 100.

Here's a D100 shot:

http://img.dpreview.com/reviews/NikonD100/Samples/Compared/d60_scene/d100_iso200.JPG

Notice the noise, for example, in the dark gray patch in the color
test chart to the right.

Here's a D60 shot for comparison:

http://img.dpreview.com/reviews/NikonD100/Samples/Compared/d60_scene/d60_iso100.JPG

--
Ron Parr
FAQ: http://www.cs.duke.edu/~parr/photography/faq.html
Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/parr/
Click to expand...
--
Phil Askey
Editor / Owner, dpreview.com
Click to expand...
--
DCS-F707, Nikon CP 950
 
You're right. That's the old PR bull from the initial propaganda. They haven't changed it since it first appeared. The text is very much the same as that in the Japanese site and the US site where they are referring to the Foveon concept. However, they did upgrade the table, which is easier and more apparent.
Brad Morris said:
http://www.sigma-foto.de/digital/digital_sd9_a.html

Der Sensor hat eine effektive Empfindlichkeit von ISO 100, die auf
ISO 200, 400 und 800 gesteigert werden kann.

Or the Google German translation at :

http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sigma-foto.de%2Fdigital%2Fdigital_sd9_a.html&langpair=de%7Cen&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&prev=%2Flanguage_tools

"the sensor has effective sensitivuity of ISO 100 which can be
increased to ISO 200, 400 and 800.
Laurence Matson said:
Brad Morris said:
That Site is still claiming ISO 800 for the camera as well
Click to expand...
Not true:

Entsprechend ISO 100, 200, 400

means that the ISO corresponds to 100, 200, 400

This from the data table.
Click to expand...
--
DCS-F707, Nikon CP 950
Click to expand...
 
Of course macro looks better pound for pound and in using for a test of detail. Phil's images from PK were not all macro and they still looked great when printed on A3 paper.
:
Leo said:
Kim,
Almost all Sigma sample images are shot from very close distance
almost macros. It looks as photographers are trying to put as many
pixels as they can for the better resolution results.
Leo
kim bomstad said:
2 more samples @ German Sigma web site, also TIFF

http://www.sigma-foto.de/
  • Produkte
  • Kameras
  • SD9
  • Beispielaufnahmen
( http://www.sigma-foto.de/digital/sample/sample.html )

--
Regards
KimB
Click to expand...
--
Click to expand...
 
Brian said:
tim martin said:
But there's something strange about this pictures. To start
with the first is 4408 pixels by 2940, and the second is
4724 by 3150.
Click to expand...
Yeah, the image dimensions are suspicious. Is there any indication
elsewhere on the site that the point of those samples was to
demonstrate how well X3 images can be interpolated bigger? Even
so, I'm examining the TIFF image and it doesn't look like it was
upsampled at all (certainly not to the extent of quadrupling the
number of pixels).

So either this image was not captured with the SD9, or someone has
done an amazing job of resampling a 3-megapixel image to a
12-megapixel one.
Click to expand...
I'm not surprised by the look of these upsampled SD9 images. As I've said before, in certain aspects, the SD9 image will match the resolution of a bayer image of 13.6Mp. They are actually slightly blurred when looked at 100% (they look similar to bayer images, don't they?!). When zooming in a little more, I also see typical signs of sharpening (USM) artifacts (in fact, they are quite heavy at some spots). Before the USM was applied, I guess they could have applied a slight amount of Gaussian (or similar) blur as well (to remove pixel aliases, which would not work well with USM). I've experimented quite a lot in PS upsampling SD9 images, and I've reached similar results.

Geir Rune
 
I have just upsampled one of Phil’s SD9 images to 4536 x 3024.

This image has not been sharpened, but is quite impressive in detail.

What are your thoughts?

http://www.pbase.com/colinwalker/sd9

Colin
Ladehaug said:
Brian said:
tim martin said:
But there's something strange about this pictures. To start
with the first is 4408 pixels by 2940, and the second is
4724 by 3150.
Click to expand...
Yeah, the image dimensions are suspicious. Is there any indication
elsewhere on the site that the point of those samples was to
demonstrate how well X3 images can be interpolated bigger? Even
so, I'm examining the TIFF image and it doesn't look like it was
upsampled at all (certainly not to the extent of quadrupling the
number of pixels).

So either this image was not captured with the SD9, or someone has
done an amazing job of resampling a 3-megapixel image to a
12-megapixel one.
Click to expand...
I'm not surprised by the look of these upsampled SD9 images. As
I've said before, in certain aspects, the SD9 image will match the
resolution of a bayer image of 13.6Mp. They are actually slightly
blurred when looked at 100% (they look similar to bayer images,
don't they?!). When zooming in a little more, I also see typical
signs of sharpening (USM) artifacts (in fact, they are quite heavy
at some spots). Before the USM was applied, I guess they could have
applied a slight amount of Gaussian (or similar) blur as well (to
remove pixel aliases, which would not work well with USM). I've
experimented quite a lot in PS upsampling SD9 images, and I've
reached similar results.

Geir Rune
Click to expand...
 
I have to say after looking at these images, the small black dots and smudges remind me of (as in they look a lot like) the marks you would see on an oil-mounted drum scanned transparency.

I worked in pre-press for several years and spent days on end removing those marks from images. If you asked me I would say that is what they are... if that is the case I am VERY disappointed in someone!
 
Why, oh why, does nearly every image I see have these spots. I assume they are dust spots, but the camera is supposed to have a dust protector isn't it???!!!.

I know too, that many of the images have been from the pre-production camera at Photokina, and the camera has passed thru many hands, but these two photos are on Sigmas own site (are they not). Wouldn't you think they would want prisitine images on show.

I absolutely love the potential this camera has, but whether the sample images have been from the Photkina camera, or the samples on the Japanese site, all I see is spots.
Phil, if you have time, could you address this issue.
Thanks.

Live, Laugh and Love
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top