I think we are seeing why there are no other manufacturers using the Foeon tech.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Future of Bayer?
- Thread starter *isteve
- Start date
It could, but it doesn't in the current incarnation, the files are bigger, since they are raw only (7 or 8 MB each). The camera is slower at most operations.
Most comparisons I see are $1800 SD9 with $2000 D100 or $2200 D60. And the Sigma doesn't come with batteries/charger, memory card, or flash. So hardly inexpensive vs top of the line pro gear.
Dont' own a digicam right, its down to the silliness of claims this blow everything away, when it fact it has one tiny advantage traded off against half dozen glaring deficiencies.
In theory a great idea. In practice it falls quite short of the mark. Predicting the death of bayer based on this is a bit premature.
Peter
Phil Flash
Senior Member
.
Seriously, here's how it will go in my opinion:
Bayer will be the dominant technology until everyone is cranking out full frame DSLRs at a good price.
Once full frame is achieved, sensor manufacturers will start working on ways to "make every pixel count" when it comes to color. Gradually the interpolation will go away, resulting in a 14mp camera that acts more like a 28mp camera when compared to the Bayer cameras of today.
But it will take time. Three years is my guess.
Seriously, here's how it will go in my opinion:
Bayer will be the dominant technology until everyone is cranking out full frame DSLRs at a good price.
Once full frame is achieved, sensor manufacturers will start working on ways to "make every pixel count" when it comes to color. Gradually the interpolation will go away, resulting in a 14mp camera that acts more like a 28mp camera when compared to the Bayer cameras of today.
But it will take time. Three years is my guess.
Well in 3 years they will probably have the bugs worked out of X3 at least. Full frame will remain expensive and rare.
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=3862331
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=3862331
Zkdaz
Active member
....because at the end of the day, all your images will be seen by a bayer sensor.
Two of them, your eyes. Your eyes have an array of cones each sensitive to only one colour and your brain interprets them.
So bayer has a long way to go to match the fidelity of our eyes. And should it ever get there, what would the point be in getting any better, we wouldn't be able to see the improvement.
Two of them, your eyes. Your eyes have an array of cones each sensitive to only one colour and your brain interprets them.
So bayer has a long way to go to match the fidelity of our eyes. And should it ever get there, what would the point be in getting any better, we wouldn't be able to see the improvement.
*isteve
Veteran Member
I think some of you are confusing the sensor with the camera, or at least attributing some of its failings to the technology rather than the housing.
Comparing images from a Contax N at ISO 100 to an SD9 and the SD9 comes out smiling.
Canon and Nikon have been making digicams for a long time and have developed a large number of tweaks and processing algorithms to reduce noise. Sigma has obviously yet to develop their own fully. Sigmas AF is also very suspect compared with the direct competition. Panasonic and some other manufacturers who have recently ventured into digital have also screwed up even using a conventional off the shelf sensor.
Yes on balance I would still rate a D60 as a better camera overall, but I was talking about potential not implementation. No CCD or CMOS camera produces noise free images at ISO800+ without some noise reduction. Without an anti-aliasing filter the SD9 is going to be in trouble from the start. I also suspect their lack of software expertise is behind their inability to produce decent quality JPEGs in the first release.
I give you all a year to eat your words
If Minolta/Olympus/Pentax make a foray into the X3 world I suspect the execution will be somewhat superior.
--
Steve
http://www.arnason.no/modules.php?set_albumName=album17&op=modload&name=gallery&file=index&include=view_album.php
Comparing images from a Contax N at ISO 100 to an SD9 and the SD9 comes out smiling.
Canon and Nikon have been making digicams for a long time and have developed a large number of tweaks and processing algorithms to reduce noise. Sigma has obviously yet to develop their own fully. Sigmas AF is also very suspect compared with the direct competition. Panasonic and some other manufacturers who have recently ventured into digital have also screwed up even using a conventional off the shelf sensor.
Yes on balance I would still rate a D60 as a better camera overall, but I was talking about potential not implementation. No CCD or CMOS camera produces noise free images at ISO800+ without some noise reduction. Without an anti-aliasing filter the SD9 is going to be in trouble from the start. I also suspect their lack of software expertise is behind their inability to produce decent quality JPEGs in the first release.
I give you all a year to eat your words
If Minolta/Olympus/Pentax make a foray into the X3 world I suspect the execution will be somewhat superior. --
Steve
http://www.arnason.no/modules.php?set_albumName=album17&op=modload&name=gallery&file=index&include=view_album.php
DavidMillier
Forum Pro
Tee hee
The way the eye works is so completely different from static film/sensor designs this is a spurious argument. It won't improve the eye's performance to introduce losses earlier in the chain...
The way the eye works is so completely different from static film/sensor designs this is a spurious argument. It won't improve the eye's performance to introduce losses earlier in the chain...
DavidMillier
Forum Pro
Steve
I don't really think there are any words to eat.
The foveon appears to do more or less what they said it would do i.e. produce image detail/sharpness similar to bayer sensors with about twice the pixel count. This is a giant leap forward. But it is not without its costs i.e. a number of new issues that will need to be addressed in future.
But for me there are some people who are not content with a 100% improvement pixel for pixel and somehow want to raise claims for the foveon to ridiculous heights. And they don't seem to be facing one fact either. If the bayer manufacturers can outpace foveon in improving pixel counts then most of the foveon advantages simply evaporate leaving just the drawbacks.
So we really now find ourselves in a fight over production process development - can foveon outpace the bayer manufacturers in the pixel count race and can they keep their chips cheap?
ps
Canon, kodak, foveon - cmos seems to be beating CCDs. Has everybody now given up this debate?
I don't really think there are any words to eat.
The foveon appears to do more or less what they said it would do i.e. produce image detail/sharpness similar to bayer sensors with about twice the pixel count. This is a giant leap forward. But it is not without its costs i.e. a number of new issues that will need to be addressed in future.
But for me there are some people who are not content with a 100% improvement pixel for pixel and somehow want to raise claims for the foveon to ridiculous heights. And they don't seem to be facing one fact either. If the bayer manufacturers can outpace foveon in improving pixel counts then most of the foveon advantages simply evaporate leaving just the drawbacks.
So we really now find ourselves in a fight over production process development - can foveon outpace the bayer manufacturers in the pixel count race and can they keep their chips cheap?
ps
Canon, kodak, foveon - cmos seems to be beating CCDs. Has everybody now given up this debate?
I think some of you are confusing the sensor with the camera, or at
least attributing some of its failings to the technology rather
than the housing.
Comparing images from a Contax N at ISO 100 to an SD9 and the SD9
comes out smiling.
Canon and Nikon have been making digicams for a long time and have
developed a large number of tweaks and processing algorithms to
reduce noise. Sigma has obviously yet to develop their own fully.
Sigmas AF is also very suspect compared with the direct
competition. Panasonic and some other manufacturers who have
recently ventured into digital have also screwed up even using a
conventional off the shelf sensor.
Yes on balance I would still rate a D60 as a better camera overall,
but I was talking about potential not implementation. No CCD or
CMOS camera produces noise free images at ISO800+ without some
noise reduction. Without an anti-aliasing filter the SD9 is going
to be in trouble from the start. I also suspect their lack of
software expertise is behind their inability to produce decent
quality JPEGs in the first release.
I give you all a year to eat your words
Minolta/Olympus/Pentax make a foray into the X3 world I suspect the
execution will be somewhat superior.
--
Steve
http://www.arnason.no/modules.php?set_albumName=album17&op=modload&name=gallery&file=index&include=view_album.php
Leon Wittwer
Forum Pro
There is also a good chance that the 4/3 system (or any system where the lenses and camera are designed around the sensor element and not the camera and sensor element designed around the legacy lenses) will eventually dominate the interchangeable lense systems. From the 4/3 point of view, full frame cameras are an attempt to keep expensive, oversize lenses in the market. Time will tell. In any event, the X3 certainly may be a good candidate for the newer systems.
JoePhoto
Veteran Member
It is not fair to compare the "first" generation attempt to a technology that has had 15 years to evolve. Give it time.
--
Thanks for reading .... JoePhoto
( Do You Ever STOP to THINK --- and FORGET to START Again ??? )
LOL! You're kidding, right?!?! Look at resolution charts and you'll see plenty of color moires in non-3X images! Reason you don't see color artifacts on D60 text is because they are blurred to the point that it's all black! If no interpolation was used, you'll see plenty of weird color artifacts. X3 doesn't do that.
-jeff
JoePhoto
Veteran Member
Notice that your own statments here are ... debatable if SD9 is "sharper and more detailed" than 6mps .... not "equal or almost equal" to 6mps.
Seems to me you have said something signifant right there.
Why should we even begin to expect it could compare to Medium Format ???
Personally, I would be happy if it "compared" to anything that is priced more than the SD-9.
The bottom line is price/vs/performance ... and I still think it will compare somewhat comparably to the 1Ds and Kodak 14mps .... (REMEMBER; that it takes 4X the number of pixels to produce "2X" the quality .... therefore the 14mps will/should indeed be "better" but not even 2X as good as current 6mps .... therefore if a determination is made that SD-9 is even "a-little" better than 6mps ... then I suggest that 14mps may also ONLY be "a-little" better than 6mps.
So I say do not expect "wonders" from the Kodak 14mps and certainly the SD-9 is still a better "value" by far.
BUT, that being said .. I do hope current results can be improved either through firmware or the "next" generation chip.
--
Thanks for reading .... JoePhoto
( Do You Ever STOP to THINK --- and FORGET to START Again ??? )
DavidMillier
Forum Pro
Possibly, but I seem to have missed your point asI have no idea what this means! Can you explain?
Bernie Ess
Veteran Member
While it is a very common practice to underline or most likely exaggerate the issues of the other technologies and - of course - not to talk about the isues of their own tech (did you ever see a company taling about the issues of their own tech? dream on, buddy...), the SD9 has shown samples on Phils site that I have never seen produced by a Bayer pattern sensor: Just look at Phil´s wife´s portraits: The detail in her face, the smallest wrinkles (sorry Phil, no bad intention here, everyone older than 20y has them!!) around the eyes, and all that with out this strange unsharpness of ordinary digicams, this is just amazing.
So one has to decide: DO I want something other cams cant give me and accept the negative sides that go along with it, or do I take the other technology. If there were a camera that has only strenths, everyone would have bought it already.
Bernie
Thomas Sapiano
Senior Member
True, assuming that all other things are equal - however one must also remember that Bayer sensors are a mature technology while X3 is not. Companies have worked out many of the little bugs in Bayer imager design and have developed sophisticated demosaicing algorithms to make it's estimations (the term guess would imply that they are just pulling the number out of their hat) more accurate.
As can be seen by the Foveon images, the X3 technology is far from perfect. While it may not seem to be a fair comparison, remember that manufacturers of Bayer chips aren't going to sit still - while Foveon takes its time perfecting their technology, companies like Sony, Kodak and Philips have their massive R&D departments improving the technologies that they currently have. While the X3 patent will help Foveon make money, it also makes it a proprietary technology held by a relatively tiny company and reduces the likelyhood of its widespread success.
As can be seen by the Foveon images, the X3 technology is far from perfect. While it may not seem to be a fair comparison, remember that manufacturers of Bayer chips aren't going to sit still - while Foveon takes its time perfecting their technology, companies like Sony, Kodak and Philips have their massive R&D departments improving the technologies that they currently have. While the X3 patent will help Foveon make money, it also makes it a proprietary technology held by a relatively tiny company and reduces the likelyhood of its widespread success.
David SL
Senior Member
--I don't really think there are any words to eat.
The foveon appears to do more or less what they said it would do
i.e. produce image detail/sharpness similar to bayer sensors with
about twice the pixel count. This is a giant leap forward. But it
is not without its costs i.e. a number of new issues that will need
to be addressed in future.
But for me there are some people who are not content with a 100%
improvement pixel for pixel and somehow want to raise claims for
the foveon to ridiculous heights. And they don't seem to be facing
one fact either. If the bayer manufacturers can outpace foveon in
improving pixel counts then most of the foveon advantages simply
evaporate leaving just the drawbacks.
So we really now find ourselves in a fight over production process
development - can foveon outpace the bayer manufacturers in the
pixel count race and can they keep their chips cheap?
ps
Canon, kodak, foveon - cmos seems to be beating CCDs. Has everybody
now given up this debate?
I think some of you are confusing the sensor with the camera, or at
least attributing some of its failings to the technology rather
than the housing.
Comparing images from a Contax N at ISO 100 to an SD9 and the SD9
comes out smiling.
Canon and Nikon have been making digicams for a long time and have
developed a large number of tweaks and processing algorithms to
reduce noise. Sigma has obviously yet to develop their own fully.
Sigmas AF is also very suspect compared with the direct
competition. Panasonic and some other manufacturers who have
recently ventured into digital have also screwed up even using a
conventional off the shelf sensor.
Yes on balance I would still rate a D60 as a better camera overall,
but I was talking about potential not implementation. No CCD or
CMOS camera produces noise free images at ISO800+ without some
noise reduction. Without an anti-aliasing filter the SD9 is going
to be in trouble from the start. I also suspect their lack of
software expertise is behind their inability to produce decent
quality JPEGs in the first release.
I give you all a year to eat your words
Minolta/Olympus/Pentax make a foray into the X3 world I suspect the
execution will be somewhat superior.
--
Steve
http://www.arnason.no/modules.php?set_albumName=album17&op=modload&name=gallery&file=index&include=view_album.php
JoePhoto
Veteran Member
Well, I guess what I was refering to is the fact that up to only a month ago 99% of the argument was centered on whether it was a "ONLY a 3mps" camera. And of course I made an a$$ of myself by injecting at every opportunity that it was a 3mps "X3". But there was many who said that it was "ONLY" a 3mps and could "NEVER-EVER-POSSIBLY" compete with anything more than a "3mps" camera.
I realize that i personally went "further" and stated that I felt that a more honest comparason would, (or should), be with a 10mps, (3.54 X 3 =10.62) ....
(and actually I admit that I even went further and said that I would not be surprised if it even compared with a 10.54 X 4 since the design does the same job as a bayer with R-B-G-G.)
SOOOO, I am only commenting on the fact that we are "past" the argument that it could never possibly offer more resolution than, "ONLY a 3mps camera"; and indeed are now arguing if it is "SHARPER and MORE DETAILED" than a 6mps camera. I was simply commenting on the fact that you used the terms "sharper and more detailed" rather than "close or equal" to a 6mps.
So without making any judgements myself, it seems that you have already agreed that it is at LEAST EQUAL ... and indeed "is it sharper and more detailed".
Will my "prediction" come true that the SD-9 can eventually compete with a Canon 11mps or Kodak 14mps ??? I still don't know ... but my feeling that it "may" has not changed.
Keep in mind that the SD-9 design will of course be "improved" ...
AND; it must also be kept in mind that it takes 4X pixels to get 2X improvement. Therefore I suggest that 11mps, (and even 14mps), will NOT equal as great an improvement it may at first seem without considering the "square" rule. A 2X pixel count increase will in fact only produce a 1.414X improvement, and an "improved" 3.54 X 3 may indeed "equal" that, (and WITHOUT ARTIFACTS so could possibly even be deemed "better").
--
Thanks for reading .... JoePhoto
( Do You Ever STOP to THINK --- and FORGET to START Again ??? )
better than the 1ds ??? , come on wake up the 1ds leaves the junor foveon technology, for that matter all current dslrs leave it for dead when it comes to accurate color ,the sigma is dismal to say the lease
yes it may do iso800 but my d100 can do 6400 but its hardly something i would use due to the noise as is the 800 of the sigma
one could only specilate what the next incaration of the foveon will be but
after the continual ""it will be out soon"" i guess we will have to wait till 2007 to find out
DavidMillier
Forum Pro
Well I believe foveon/sigma meant the camera to compete image quality wise with the D60/D100 class camera and this appears to be about right.
From the reviews I've seen of the 1DS it is simply in a different class from anything else. The 14n remains a mystery to date.
From the reviews I've seen of the 1DS it is simply in a different class from anything else. The 14n remains a mystery to date.
JoePhoto
Veteran Member
But there HAS been some people make comments that they thought the resolution of the SD-9 was "equal" to the 1Ds ... I am not making an evaluation either way ... I simply have not studied them closely.
And there was at least one image posted from the 1Ds that had "color-moire" or "aliasing". The SD-9 "should" not have color-aliasing under any circumstances. (But it could have "moire", albeit not "color"-moire.)
I would like to see more comparason tests with more extreme enlargements, (up to 40X - 60X and see how the quality, resolution/artifacting compares).
Most people seem to be concentrating on "color" fidelity, and of course I do NOT disagree that is a MOST IMPORTANT factor, BUT, I predict that will be vastly improved with firmware/software updates. At the present time, I am most interested in the "resolution/artifacting" with enlargements since that is where the X3 is so much "different" and "proves" itself.
Color fidelity, satuation, noise, etc ... may indeed be "problems" that need to be addressed, but I think they CAN be addressed. (And I would like to see that ISO range extended to at least 6400.)
--
Thanks for reading .... JoePhoto
( Do You Ever STOP to THINK --- and FORGET to START Again ??? )
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum