SD15 Reviewed in the new Popular Photograpy magazine...

425i said:

That photo of the duckling is terrible
Its flat
lacking in detail and clarity
and exhibits the fine detail smudging that a good bayer sensor produces
If that came from a sigma camera then you had better send it in to service
It has a shallow depth of field but no 3d effect

The lack of detail of the feathers around the eye is a good example of low inter pixel DR and low inter pixel colour DR
Also what happened to the colour of the grass!
why is it so artificial and neon marker coloured

If thats the result you get off your Sigma camera no wonder you think there crap you really do need to have it looked at

Click to expand...

So you can see all that from a heavily downsized image (with unknown processing)? My god, you're a god!

And still you create your own terminology.

Pompous Moronox said:

So you can see all that from a heavily downsized image (with unknown processing)? My god, you're a god!

Click to expand...

Thanks!
seems my 15 years in prepress/reprographics wasnt wasted after all

425i said:

425i said:

So you can see all that from a heavily downsized image (with unknown processing)? My god, you're a god!

Click to expand...

Thanks!
seems my 15 years in prepress/reprographics wasnt wasted after all

Click to expand...

Well, I was being sarcastic

The graphic designers I work with talk absolute b*llocks when it comes to describing digital files. They still think there is such a thing as a 72dpi digital file. It doesn't surprise me that you might be inventing terminology if you have that background; the errors seem endemic in the industry.

--
Galleries and website: http://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/default.shtml

I have been demanding "proof" of the so-called 3D effect that Foveon proponents like to claim since 2003. All I ask is two shots, one from a bayer, one from a Foveon of the same subject that demonstrate the effect.

I have never once been presented with such evidence.

Plenty of individual shots, yes, but never a simple A-B comparison that is all that is required to settle the matter. I have also attempted to produce such comparisons myself without success. What I have collected is an awful lot of excuses why such a comparison ought not to be done and an even large set of extremely personal insults.

I'm not immune to the charms of the Foveon approach (I do have 3 Sigma cameras) but I don't believe in magic. If this effect is there it must be reliably demonstrable. The abject failure to produce this demonstration is inversely proportional to the advocacy of the positing the effect. Personally, I'm 95% sure it doesn't exist and that whole thing comes downs to psychology and perceptual flaws but I would be delighted to be proven wrong by some hard evidence. I'm pretty much bored with listening to unsubstantiated claims though, however passionate. It's all too religious for my tastes.

Pompous Moronox said:

Mostly Lurking said:

You need to address that comment to anyone who said or suggested that. Look before you leap, pompous
--
William Wilgus

Click to expand...

Earlier on [I] 425i said:

Not only does it explain the sharpness but also the almost 3D effect you can get.

Click to expand...

When the question was about Foveon sensors rendering. I then asked a question about this particular 3D effect and samples of it, or if it just a myth, as strongly suspect.

Then you brought the duck image. Naturally I must assume that you meant that to be an example of Foveon special 3D-look, right?

Click to expand...

--
Galleries and website: http://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/default.shtml [/I]

Excellent demonstration of DOF effects/perception.

I wonder how much discussion of this there will be? Not much, I imagine, people try and ignore things that contradict firmly held beliefs.

--
Galleries and website: http://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/default.shtml

As I wrote before, with communication there are 2 players involved.
The one that is suposed to explain and the one that is suposed to understand.

When there is a misunderstanding he problem can be situated with either 'explainer', the 'understander' or both.

I have been rereading my messages and see that the explanation could be much better.

Therefore I will prepare a new - hopefully better - explanation, which will take some time and when finished launch that in a new thread or threads because I want to separate the different topics that are discussed atthe same time.
DR - contrast - etc
To be continued ...

jef

the proof is in the pudding.

with canon I never got the colors that the sigma can capture

for example zoom in and see the color tone of my dads hat in this photo.

Pompous Moronox said:

Pompous Moronox said:

You're right about high ISO and technically may be right about DR, although the perceived DR is pretty impressive when you see it from your own shots. Possibly because the highlights are blown in a more subtle way than we're used to?

Click to expand...

But isn'ät the perceived DR about post processing for the chosen output device, and not at all about the capability of the sensor. The highlight of Foveon blow differently than on Bayer as there is a strong tendence of all the channels blowing at the same time (due to weak colour separation). On Bayer you will often get more information as some of the channels may still be quite far from being whitewashed...

Click to expand...

My experience doesn't match that, and actually, if you extract[1] the native channels from a Foveon RAW file you will see that the channels don't necessarily blow at the same time at all. With my DP2 it almost looks like the inner layer ("red") is less sensitive since it often blows last.

[1] http://www.proxel.se/x3f.html

No, I posted it because my Great-Great-Great Grandmother asked me to. :O
--
William Wilgus

Well, first of all, there isn't any grass in the photo: it's algae in the water that give it the green color. Since you didn't get that part of it right, I'll dismiss the rest of your rant as similarly erroneous.

Regards
--
William Wilgus

Give me an appropriate Bayer camera system and the tripod mount to accommodate similtaneous shooting of two cameras, and I'll try to give you what you want.
--
William Wilgus

What's there to discuss about it?
--
William Wilgus

Hi

So what do think is special about this? It looks fairly normal to me.

--
Galleries and website: http://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/default.shtml

Hi Jef

You are right of course, but as someone who might be said to be a professional communicator of sorts (I'm a web author/developer/content manager/webmaster/intranet manager type person) who does quite a bit of content authoring/information architecture/usability/accessibility testing plus writing manuals and doing training and editing other people's submissions, i have come around gradually to the modern idea that the onus is on the author to communicate far more than the reader to understand.

This is a big change from, say, the 19th century when an author would not dare to insult their readers' intelligence and learning by actually explaining references. These days readers expect it laid out on a plate.

In the case of your ideas, they seem unconventional to me and if you want others to follow your argument, you have an additional responsibility of clear explanation!

--
Galleries and website: http://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/default.shtml

The fact that it demonstrates that DOF and subject distance can combine to create a sharp forground against a soft background that is interpreted as "depth" or 3D to use the popular parlance.

This effect is present in any camera given the right circumstances (such as the duck shot that was supposed to be unique to foveon).

--
Galleries and website: http://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/default.shtml

I realize that and will do my best, wil take some time though.

jef

DMillier said:

Hi Jef

You are right of course, but as someone who might be said to be a professional communicator of sorts (I'm a web author/developer/content manager/webmaster/intranet manager type person) who does quite a bit of content authoring/information architecture/usability/accessibility testing plus writing manuals and doing training and editing other people's submissions, i have come around gradually to the modern idea that the onus is on the author to communicate far more than the reader to understand.

This is a big change from, say, the 19th century when an author would not dare to insult their readers' intelligence and learning by actually explaining references. These days readers expect it laid out on a plate.

In the case of your ideas, they seem unconventional to me and if you want others to follow your argument, you have an additional responsibility of clear explanation!

--
Galleries and website: http://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/default.shtml

Click to expand...

It doesn't have to be that sophisiticated I'll accept a 10 sec delay while the cameras are switched over. ;-)

I'm not that hopeful that you will though - I currently have 2 canon, 2 Nikon, a Fuji, a kodak, and an oly DSLRs as well as a SD9, 14 and DP1 and I haven't seen any magical properties yet in thousands and thousands of shots.

And to be blunt, why would expect to see any special qualities? Before bayer CFA there were monochrome CCDs and before that there was more than a 100 years of film that didn't show any 3D-ness without the aid of stereoscopic or holographic techniques. Foveon isn't doing anything particularly different. The only outlier is the bayer approach because of the CFA and the demosaic process.

Leica people will swear that leica lense make things 3D, Zeiss fans will tell the same thing even when the picture they thought was shot on their favourite glass turns out to be a lens baby or a CCTV lens. When the canon 5D came out you could read endless articles about its unique "look", it's special 3D quality unmatched by crop sensors. Deep debates about DOF differences, special qualities of the sensor were mused in the hundreds. I have a 5D and a 450D both 12MP and I can barely tell the pictures apart in most cases (and nor can anyone else). The mind plays powerful tricks, especially when the owner of the mind really wants something to be special...

Mostly Lurking said:

Give me an appropriate Bayer camera system and the tripod mount to accommodate similtaneous shooting of two cameras, and I'll try to give you what you want.
--
William Wilgus

Click to expand...

--
Galleries and website: http://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/default.shtml

Just imagine how Sigma could inflate the pixel count by adding a couple more sensing layers to improve colours. 75MP, no problem!

Colour accuracy can be very important in terms of consistency across the frame. For instance, I have discovered that my 28mm lens produces a noticiable italian flag effect on the SD14. The main error is a mere 3% shift from neutral to green/blue in the corners and short edges (measured with a grey card).

--
Galleries and website: http://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/default.shtml

Since you have so many suitable cameras, why don't you do the shooting and prove us wrong?
--
William Wilgus