Reading mode: Light Dark

Maybe I'm Blind

Go to last post
yes that appears to be the one.

I'll have another look at it when I get home tonight.
Geir R said:
DMillier said:
This is very interesting! I've just compared my copy of the
original to my post processed version and although you are correct
in that I have exaggerated the effect slightly, my copy of the
original looks quite different from yours (which doesn't display
the effect).

Is there more than one file on the IR site? Mine is called
YIMG00731.jpg...
Click to expand...
Here is the link to the page I've found my version:

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/SD9/FULLRES/YIMG00731.HTM

Geir Rune
Click to expand...
 
Michael OHara said:
Geir R said:
This is a crop from the original:



The red channel is over exponated in several spots. This is an
issue that can be fixed if you have had the RAW file available.

Geir Rune
Click to expand...
[;)

Thought there was too much post processing on this sample.
Click to expand...
Yes, and now that we know about the posterization problem with JPG export from the RAW converter as well, its sort of useless to compare the red textures on an upsized SD9 image. Upsizing the SD9 image will only make the posterized areas look considerably worse.

Geir Rune
 
Hi Eric

I agree, it's absurd to make a comparison between RAW and JPEG. As I've posted, I'm very impressed with the Foveon technology but if you're going to do a comparison variables cannot be part of the equation.

Dave
Erik Magnuson said:
Michael OHara said:
What other factors?
Click to expand...
Size and amount of sharpening.
Member said:
Why are you altering the images as posted?
Click to expand...
Because you cannot easily compare images of different sizes?
Different sources use may different settings for the amount of
sharpening. Are you suggesting that I just ignore this?
Member said:
Don't you ever trust your
eyes? I must admit that people like you are alien to me.
Click to expand...
What people who try and be objective and reduce the number of
uncontrolled variables?

--
Erik
Click to expand...
 
Mike Ditta said:
eric noack said:
i have read Dave Etchells review of the sd9 and
along with all his apologizies for not doing this and not doing that.
But the two things that stand out in my mind is this.
1. This camera needs some attention to detail , such as faster shot
to shot times and needs a bigger buffer to handle the size of the
pics in burst mode.
2. Besides daves review I have seen shots taken by this camera on
other sites and I must admit , I must be totally stupid, because
all I have seen are shots which make other cameras such as the
Fuji, Canon, and Nikon look no better than my humble Sony 707.
--
http://www.fototime.com/inv/757AE7C15569148
You only live once ,and always suck the lemon.
don't loose your head,or your sense of humour, and never take
anybody too seriously, especially yourself and those that try to
walk over you.
Click to expand...
--
Mike
Click to expand...
All that I believe is what I can see. Not words, not enlightened opinions, not even pseudo-scientific doctrines. What I see, dear friends, is that a new era is started in digital photography. This brave new era is the foveon-era. I must admit that it is hard to abandon our inner opinions, like old dusty objects of our infancy, which we do continue to love, even when they become useless. But new things have come on the scene, good bye dear old bayer interpolation, thanks for the emotions you gave us, it's now time for you to step down and give way, a new king is born.

teo
 
teodoro musacchio said:
All that I believe is what I can see. Not words, not enlightened
opinions, not even pseudo-scientific doctrines. What I see, dear
friends, is that a new era is started in digital photography. This
brave new era is the foveon-era. I must admit that it is hard to
abandon our inner opinions, like old dusty objects of our infancy,
which we do continue to love, even when they become useless. But
new things have come on the scene, good bye dear old bayer
interpolation, thanks for the emotions you gave us, it's now time
for you to step down and give way, a new king is born.

teo
Click to expand...
I think you have Foeveon-itis. I'm not "bashing" you. But I think to say that you are overlooking what I think are some pretty serious flaws with the sensor. (i.e I think Karl Guttag know what he is talking about) I would honestly love to have this sensor in the consumer-level camera, flaws and all(I'm dirt poor what can I say). When I bought my 3 mega-pixel camera I had no idea I was actually getting a Interpolated 3MP image, and I've been miffed ever since, so I'm no big fan of the bayer interpolation system, but I don't think this sensor belongs in a professional level D-SLR like the SD-9 is trying to be.

Regards,
Tim
 
timl2k3 said:
but I don't think this sensor belongs in a professional level D-SLR
like the SD-9 is trying to be.
Click to expand...
Tim,

And who is claiming the SD9 is a professional level DSLR? I know I am looking into this camera, but I know I am far from bring an advanced photographer, never mind a professional.

This camera is based on a sub $500 SLR body, why is it that everyone always tag the word "professional" in front of a DSLR when the same SLR body is clearly not?

--
jc
Sony F707
http://www.reefkeepers.org/gallery/f707
http://www.reeftec.com/gallery
 
Sorry, I should have said just Digital SLR. But still the kind of camera that one would invest over $2000 in and would probably expect near professional level results.
Jimmy Chen said:
Tim,

And who is claiming the SD9 is a professional level DSLR? I know I
am looking into this camera, but I know I am far from bring an
advanced photographer, never mind a professional.

This camera is based on a sub $500 SLR body, why is it that
everyone always tag the word "professional" in front of a DSLR when
the same SLR body is clearly not?
Click to expand...
 
Jimmy Chen said:
This camera is based on a sub $500 SLR body, why is it that
everyone always tag the word "professional" in front of a DSLR when
the same SLR body is clearly not?
Click to expand...
Pantene Pro V, Pro Vitamin B, Digital Pro or whatever.. does it really matter?

I'm quite sure that many professionals are going to invest in a Sigma SD9 to use in their work and profession. But I am also sure that it won't be the only camera that he/she has in his/her sortiment... At last, and not the least, they are going to take some outstanding pictures with the SD9.

For the amateur photographer who cannot afford to have the closet full of cameras.. well, he/she will have to make a choice from what is currently available on the marked. It should be a personal choice based upon their needs and desires. People who is indicating that the SD9 has so many disadvantages and flaws that it shouldn't have hit the marked in the first place, well those people have gone too far - it is plain stupidity!

We're still waiting for a real review. We've seen a few galleries with various results. We've seen ugly pictures, we've seen outstanding pictures. We've seen a few comparisons. As Phil has been saying, "The SD9 is a different beast" - and it certainly is.

Geir Rune
 
Much worse than what I saw in the SD9 images. The D100 Fuzzed out
to soon to see if it was a lens issue. The couple of SD9 shots I
looked at (on the edges) were razor sharp and showed no CA.

Steven
Karl Guttag said:
I don't see how people can say the colors look so great and
accurate with the SD9 when all these pictures have severe chroma
aberrations. The ONLY debates is whether the aberrations are
caused by the sensor or the lens. But EVERY shot has about 1 pixel
of aberration about 1/2 of the way from the center and 2 to 3
pixels of aberrations to the outside.

How can the colors be "accurate" if they don't even go with the
right pixels?

For example consider the window comparison in the shootout below.
The same chroma aberrations are in the SD9 pictures as is in the
Dome pictures. Remember also that these are taken at F8 which is
generally about the peak in sharpness for any lens.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/SHOOTOUT/SHOOTOUT.HTM?photo=49
DMillier said:
Can you give a fuller description of what you mean by "depth" and
"realism" in this context. I assume your are using these adjectives
in a personal way.

I'm struggling to see these special foveon qualities and I need
them pointed out to me unambiguously by those that can see them...
Brendan H said:
The biggest difference I see is that the Foveon pics CAN have more
depth and realism in the lightiing and shadows. This is quite
apprent on a professional level monitor setup or in prints.

bh
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Karl
Click to expand...
--
---
My really bad Fall Adventures:
http://www.pbase.com/snoyes/fall_adventures_2002
 
timl2k3 said:
Sorry, I should have said just Digital SLR. But still the kind of
camera that one would invest over $2000 in and would probably
expect near professional level results.
Click to expand...
Not a fault of yours, Tim. I would place the blame on this industry more then anything else. Too many sites tags the current generations of DSLR as "professionals", but there are many sub-par older DSLR such as the Kodaks and other brands that askes for an even higher price range.

Why are these F80/SA9 based body cameras demanding prices that is 3~4x over their SLR counter parts? The body the 1Ds is based on demands 2k, but yet the 1Ds is asking for 9k. Does the digital difference really calls for that much of a price difference? Or is it company greed? Who the heck knows. Your guess is as good as mine.

--
jc
Sony F707
http://www.reefkeepers.org/gallery/f707
http://www.reeftec.com/gallery
 
Actaully teodoro, kings are not born, but rather princes who grow up to be kings. I see this as a fitting example .... still some growing up to do, but definitely on the right track. Your words are what I speak of, not technical, but the observation of my eyes.
Good luck.
teodoro musacchio said:
All that I believe is what I can see. Not words, not enlightened
opinions, not even pseudo-scientific doctrines. What I see, dear
friends, is that a new era is started in digital photography. This
brave new era is the foveon-era. I must admit that it is hard to
abandon our inner opinions, like old dusty objects of our infancy,
which we do continue to love, even when they become useless. But
new things have come on the scene, good bye dear old bayer
interpolation, thanks for the emotions you gave us, it's now time
for you to step down and give way, a new king is born.

teo
Click to expand...
--
Mike
 
You are discussing technical subject based on emotions and on not on data. It is bad enough because the data may be manipulated and used to advantage/disadvantage of one or another camera. It is not easy task for Phil to write a review for the SD9 camera and you all know that. Now if the SD9 will be just pure and simple better than anything else then we would have this report published and red.

my Question?????????

I have a simple question - Why SD9 3Mp image is smaller in size (number of bytes) than an image of any other 3Mp camera. With 24 bits (3 bytes) per pixel a non compressed file for 3Mp should be = 3,000,000x3 or 9Mp.Please correct me. The SD9 images are approx. 1,300,000 bytes.
Thanks
Leo
eric noack said:
i have read Dave Etchells review of the sd9 and
along with all his apologizies for not doing this and not doing that.
But the two things that stand out in my mind is this.
1. This camera needs some attention to detail , such as faster shot
to shot times and needs a bigger buffer to handle the size of the
pics in burst mode.
2. Besides daves review I have seen shots taken by this camera on
other sites and I must admit , I must be totally stupid, because
all I have seen are shots which make other cameras such as the
Fuji, Canon, and Nikon look no better than my humble Sony 707.
--
http://www.fototime.com/inv/757AE7C15569148
You only live once ,and always suck the lemon.
don't loose your head,or your sense of humour, and never take
anybody too seriously, especially yourself and those that try to
walk over you.
Click to expand...
 
Mike Ditta said:
I understand about learning the camera, understanding the
limitations and working within the constraints.
Click to expand...
I think this is a crock of s* . I do not want to remain within the limits of the camera. I want the camera to take the pictures I want to take. i can do this with film and can not do this with digital. The current digitals just do not have the dynamic range to take pictures in most situations, and when they do, the picture does not have the impact. you do not notice this unless you do a side by side comparison. Just like 35mm film is inferior to medium format, digital is inferior to 35mm film. I was hoping the SD-9 would change that.

My friend and I ran a test last weekend. Comparing kodak Royal gold and the D7. The D7 pictures sucked compared to the Kodak.

I am thinking about getting the SD-9 for studio work, mainly because of the quick display ability for the clients. Otherwise I would stick with film. the only question I am asking now is should I get the SD9 or the D60. This is the reason I am waiting for Phil's review.

I have already given up on digital replacing my film camera, I just want it to complement my film camera at this time.
 
In RAW format most camera manufacturers use lossless compression to reduct the image size. This is the reason the size varies depending on the image content in SD9.
Leo Sheikman said:
my Question?????????
I have a simple question - Why SD9 3Mp image is smaller in size
(number of bytes) than an image of any other 3Mp camera. With 24
bits (3 bytes) per pixel a non compressed file for 3Mp should be =
3,000,000x3 or 9Mp.Please correct me. The SD9 images are approx.
1,300,000 bytes.
Thanks
Leo
eric noack said:
i have read Dave Etchells review of the sd9 and
along with all his apologizies for not doing this and not doing that.
But the two things that stand out in my mind is this.
1. This camera needs some attention to detail , such as faster shot
to shot times and needs a bigger buffer to handle the size of the
pics in burst mode.
2. Besides daves review I have seen shots taken by this camera on
other sites and I must admit , I must be totally stupid, because
all I have seen are shots which make other cameras such as the
Fuji, Canon, and Nikon look no better than my humble Sony 707.
--
http://www.fototime.com/inv/757AE7C15569148
You only live once ,and always suck the lemon.
don't loose your head,or your sense of humour, and never take
anybody too seriously, especially yourself and those that try to
walk over you.
Click to expand...
--
Click to expand...
 
I agree to some extent. I wish I could remove the bayer filter off my D7 and get a good quality B&W camera, instead of a crappy color camera.
timl2k3 said:
teodoro musacchio said:
All that I believe is what I can see. Not words, not enlightened
opinions, not even pseudo-scientific doctrines. What I see, dear
friends, is that a new era is started in digital photography. This
brave new era is the foveon-era. I must admit that it is hard to
abandon our inner opinions, like old dusty objects of our infancy,
which we do continue to love, even when they become useless. But
new things have come on the scene, good bye dear old bayer
interpolation, thanks for the emotions you gave us, it's now time
for you to step down and give way, a new king is born.

teo
Click to expand...
I think you have Foeveon-itis. I'm not "bashing" you. But I think
to say that you are overlooking what I think are some pretty
serious flaws with the sensor. (i.e I think Karl Guttag know what
he is talking about) I would honestly love to have this sensor in
the consumer-level camera, flaws and all(I'm dirt poor what can I
say). When I bought my 3 mega-pixel camera I had no idea I was
actually getting a Interpolated 3MP image, and I've been miffed
ever since, so I'm no big fan of the bayer interpolation system,
but I don't think this sensor belongs in a professional level D-SLR
like the SD-9 is trying to be.

Regards,
Tim
Click to expand...
 
kalahari said:
In RAW format most camera manufacturers use lossless compression to
reduct the image size. This is the reason the size varies
depending on the image content in SD9.
Click to expand...
kalahari said:
kalahari said:
my Question?????????
I have a simple question - Why SD9 3Mp image is smaller in size
(number of bytes) than an image of any other 3Mp camera. With 24
bits (3 bytes) per pixel a non compressed file for 3Mp should be =
3,000,000x3 or 9Mp.Please correct me. The SD9 images are approx.
1,300,000 bytes.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Currently I have 59 RAW (X3F) files:

1 is more than 10Mb (> 10,000,000 bytes)
3 is between 9 and 10Mb
9 is between 8 and 9Mb
16 is between 7 and 8Mb
21 is between 6 and 7Mb
8 is between 5 and 6Mb
1 is 2,6Mb

They produce uncompressed TIF files of 10,342,376 bytes.

Geir Rune
 
Thanks
now it is clear.
Leo
Leo Sheikman said:
my Question?????????
I have a simple question - Why SD9 3Mp image is smaller in size
(number of bytes) than an image of any other 3Mp camera. With 24
bits (3 bytes) per pixel a non compressed file for 3Mp should be =
3,000,000x3 or 9Mp.Please correct me. The SD9 images are approx.
1,300,000 bytes.
Thanks
Leo
eric noack said:
i have read Dave Etchells review of the sd9 and
along with all his apologizies for not doing this and not doing that.
But the two things that stand out in my mind is this.
1. This camera needs some attention to detail , such as faster shot
to shot times and needs a bigger buffer to handle the size of the
pics in burst mode.
2. Besides daves review I have seen shots taken by this camera on
other sites and I must admit , I must be totally stupid, because
all I have seen are shots which make other cameras such as the
Fuji, Canon, and Nikon look no better than my humble Sony 707.
--
http://www.fototime.com/inv/757AE7C15569148
You only live once ,and always suck the lemon.
don't loose your head,or your sense of humour, and never take
anybody too seriously, especially yourself and those that try to
walk over you.
Click to expand...
--
Click to expand...
 
Hi Mike

I think Teo's hymn to Foveon is so enthusiatic that his message is not being understood.

Basically what he's saying is that he see's the handwriting on the wall - And it's telling him that Foveon is the future. I agree 100 percent. This does not mean that the Sigma camera is the thing to run out and buy, but rather bayer is dead if not exactely now, soon.

Dave
Mike Ditta said:
teodoro musacchio said:
All that I believe is what I can see. Not words, not enlightened
opinions, not even pseudo-scientific doctrines. What I see, dear
friends, is that a new era is started in digital photography. This
brave new era is the foveon-era. I must admit that it is hard to
abandon our inner opinions, like old dusty objects of our infancy,
which we do continue to love, even when they become useless. But
new things have come on the scene, good bye dear old bayer
interpolation, thanks for the emotions you gave us, it's now time
for you to step down and give way, a new king is born.

teo
Click to expand...
--
Mike
Click to expand...
 
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