Reading mode: Light Dark

Not so happy with the sd Quattro H

Go to last post
Scottelly said:
Lin Evans said:
Scottelly said:
Scottelly said:
A digital image file has no physical size (the sensor does, but not the file).
Click to expand...
Huh? Yes it does. What do you think the number of megapixels means?

;)

--
Scott Barton Kennelly
http://www.bigprintphotos.com
Click to expand...
Hi Scott,

Actually, a digital image doesn't have physical size. You might think of the number of megapixels as "weight." As an example, think of a Blue Whale as a silly example. I listen to a funny ad for "Alexa" on TV where the question is asked: "Alexa, how big is a Blue Whale" and the answer is returned in the number of tons.. Of course this is wrong. That is the average Blue Whale's "weight" - the size (how big?) would be in meters, feet, inches, etc.

A digital file has a "density" which is determined by the distance between adjacent pixels and that comes from the sensor wells spacing on the chip.
Click to expand...
I thought it would have more density if it was put on one of those tiny micro-SD cards Lin.

;)
Scottelly said:
When the light captured is translated into numbers then via the electronic display medium into display pixels the "size" is entirely dependent on the display settings and capabilities. A 6000x4000 image could be displayed on a six by four inch display at full resolution (if there was such a display device available), or it could be displayed at full resolution on a 60 x 40 inch display.
Click to expand...
Well, a 35mm side (film) could be displayed on a small screen, a large screen, or on the side of a building using the same projector Lin. What does that tell us?
Click to expand...
35mm slide transparency has a size - it's 24mm x 36mm. A 40 megapixel digital file may be contained on a tiny chip which fits in a cell phone or on a so called full frame sensor, or even on a medium format sensor, etc.
Scottelly said:
Scottelly said:
So the "size" of the digital image is primarily dependent on the display device's physical configuration which determines the size and distance apart of display pixels not on the numbers (electronic output) represented in the file.
Click to expand...
. . . and it's basically the same for film.
Click to expand...
No the "size" of a film image depends on the type of film technology. 35mm 4x5, 8x10, etc. The printed image can be enlarged indefinitely as can a projected image but the actual film or transparency has a real size which is what a contact print is all about.
Scottelly said:
Scottelly said:
Of course the number of pixels contributes to the eventual dimensions, but does not determine the dimensions.
Click to expand...
Neither does the amount of "information" in the film, if you are shooting film.
Click to expand...
You're comparing apples to oranges here. The film has a real dimension, it's the dimension of the negative or transparency. A digital file has no size dimension. A digital sensor has a dimension, but the dimension of the sensor does not specifically determine the number of sensor wells or digital file matrix in terms of the number of pixels.

Best regards,

LIn
Scottelly said:
Scottelly said:
Best regards,

Lin
Click to expand...
:)

--
Scott Barton Kennelly
http://www.bigprintphotos.com
Click to expand...
 
FDecker said:
Maybe I have to learn a bit, But honestly, what can I do wrong? Both pictures with the same lens. OK, another day and a different flower, one @ISO 200 (sd Q) the other @ISO125 (SD M). But that shouldn't make a difference.

A screenshot from my desktop, both pictures at 100%. The SD1 on the right-handed side looks so smooth. The sd Quattro H on the left shows what I call sandyness or 4:1:1 artifacts.
Click to expand...
IMHO - this is the similar situation to one year ago firmware bug of DPQx. The better way is to wait for the new SD-H firmware/SPP update.

https://www.sigmaphoto.com/article/sigma-photo-pro-633-software-download-mar-2016/ "It corrects the phenomenon of black dot-like noise appearing in rare cases on developed RAW data (X3F file) when taken with dp Quattro cameras that are updated with the firmware (SIGMA dp0 Quattro (Ver.1.01), SIGMA dp1 Quattro(Ver.1.04), SIGMA dp2 Quattro (Ver.1.08), SIGMA dp3 Quattro (Ver.1.03)) released on February 19th, 2016, and also on JPEG and TIFF data which are developed and saved by SIGMA Photo Pro and are displayed on the Review Window."

---------------------------------
https://500px.com/my-shots and etc.
http://lightinspired.deviantart.com/ > Founder
http://lightinspired.deviantart.com/gallery/
 
Last edited:
Scottelly said:
To a degree I agree with your points, but there are significant differences between the Merrill sensor and the Quattro sensor, and I think that if Sigma were to just make a Merrill version of the SD Quattro, which is really what a few people have been asking for Sigma to do for years, then Sigma could solve the dilemma or at least bring a kind of peace between the two factions.
Click to expand...
You are forgetting a piece of important information. One that have been said again and again in this forum.

The Merrill sensor is very problematic colorwise. It needs careful calibration and you cannot really expect to use a legacy lens without doing your own calibration. The Quattro sensor, on the other hand seems very forgiving. Much easier to get useful colors. Legacy lenses seems to be a breeze, and the Kalpanika converter do not even do any color correction for Quattro.

The Merrill also have two very noisy lower layers that forces you to use advanced noise reduction before doing the conversion.

All in all, the Quattro is a technically much better sensor that probably gives Sigma much less to do when calibrating the cameras.

Therefore, I doubt that they have any intentions whatsoever to go back.
 
Last edited:
I'm interested in buying an SDQ so after reading your message I started to do a little research, looked at many pictures on the internet and found a lot of "sandiness". I didn't like what I was seeing and was getting a little worried. To find out more I downloaded a few raw files and played with them in SPP. With standard settings I would see the sandy structures as well, but with the following changes they would disappear:

Set Detail all the way to smooth

Sharpness -1

Color mode Portrait (my favourite though is vivid)

Chroma noise setting medium

Luminance noise setting minimum
 
Roland Karlsson said:
Scottelly said:
To a degree I agree with your points, but there are significant differences between the Merrill sensor and the Quattro sensor, and I think that if Sigma were to just make a Merrill version of the SD Quattro, which is really what a few people have been asking for Sigma to do for years, then Sigma could solve the dilemma or at least bring a kind of peace between the two factions.
Click to expand...
You are forgetting a piece of important information. One that have been said again and again in this forum.

The Merrill sensor is very problematic colorwise. It needs careful calibration and you cannot really expect to use a legacy lens without doing your own calibration. The Quattro sensor, on the other hand seems very forgiving. Much easier to get useful colors. Legacy lenses seems to be a breeze, and the Kalpanika converter do not even do any color correction for Quattro.

The Merrill also have two very noisy lower layers that forces you to use advanced noise reduction before doing the conversion.

All in all, the Quattro is a technically much better sensor that probably gives Sigma much less to do when calibrating the cameras.

Therefore, I doubt that they have any intentions whatsoever to go back.
Click to expand...
Despite having his name immortalised on the Merrill cameras, Richard Billings Merrill was the co-inventer of the Quattro and a relentless pursuer of advancement. I think he would see the irony if Sigma went backwards and his namesake instead of his latter inventions became the future of the company.
 
Last edited:
TN Args said:
Roland Karlsson said:
Scottelly said:
To a degree I agree with your points, but there are significant differences between the Merrill sensor and the Quattro sensor, and I think that if Sigma were to just make a Merrill version of the SD Quattro, which is really what a few people have been asking for Sigma to do for years, then Sigma could solve the dilemma or at least bring a kind of peace between the two factions.
Click to expand...
You are forgetting a piece of important information. One that have been said again and again in this forum.

The Merrill sensor is very problematic colorwise. It needs careful calibration and you cannot really expect to use a legacy lens without doing your own calibration. The Quattro sensor, on the other hand seems very forgiving. Much easier to get useful colors. Legacy lenses seems to be a breeze, and the Kalpanika converter do not even do any color correction for Quattro.

The Merrill also have two very noisy lower layers that forces you to use advanced noise reduction before doing the conversion.

All in all, the Quattro is a technically much better sensor that probably gives Sigma much less to do when calibrating the cameras.

Therefore, I doubt that they have any intentions whatsoever to go back.
Click to expand...
Despite having his name immortalised on the Merrill cameras, Richard Billings Merrill was the co-inventer of the Quattro and a relentless pursuer of advancement. I think he would see the irony if Sigma went backwards and his namesake instead of his latter inventions became the future of the company.
Click to expand...
Now we are reaching back and channeling the deceased, eh. Can you please supply evidence of your claim. Sometimes a new idea just doesn't work out. Merrill was not around to be able to analyze the results and make his assessment. So it seems you feel qualified to speak for him.
 
Truman Prevatt said:
TN Args said:
Roland Karlsson said:
Scottelly said:
To a degree I agree with your points, but there are significant differences between the Merrill sensor and the Quattro sensor, and I think that if Sigma were to just make a Merrill version of the SD Quattro, which is really what a few people have been asking for Sigma to do for years, then Sigma could solve the dilemma or at least bring a kind of peace between the two factions.
Click to expand...
You are forgetting a piece of important information. One that have been said again and again in this forum.

The Merrill sensor is very problematic colorwise. It needs careful calibration and you cannot really expect to use a legacy lens without doing your own calibration. The Quattro sensor, on the other hand seems very forgiving. Much easier to get useful colors. Legacy lenses seems to be a breeze, and the Kalpanika converter do not even do any color correction for Quattro.

The Merrill also have two very noisy lower layers that forces you to use advanced noise reduction before doing the conversion.

All in all, the Quattro is a technically much better sensor that probably gives Sigma much less to do when calibrating the cameras.

Therefore, I doubt that they have any intentions whatsoever to go back.
Click to expand...
Despite having his name immortalised on the Merrill cameras, Richard Billings Merrill was the co-inventer of the Quattro and a relentless pursuer of advancement. I think he would see the irony if Sigma went backwards and his namesake instead of his latter inventions became the future of the company.
Click to expand...
Now we are reaching back and channeling the deceased, eh. Can you please supply evidence of your claim. Sometimes a new idea just doesn't work out. Merrill was not around to be able to analyze the results and make his assessment. So it seems you feel qualified to speak for him.
Click to expand...
You think he would be unable to see the irony? 'Cos that is all I claimed on his behalf. Please read more carefully in the future before jumping in half-baked. Lift your game.
 
TN Args said:
Despite having his name immortalised on the Merrill cameras, Richard Billings Merrill was the co-inventer of the Quattro and a relentless pursuer of advancement. I think he would see the irony if Sigma went backwards and his namesake instead of his latter inventions became the future of the company.
Click to expand...
Yes, that is also true.

The main problem with the Merrill design is that it tries to push the boundaries too far. It is working on the edge on what is possible with current state of the art Foveon technology. The lower detectors are too small and get too little light.

I do not know who remember the days when SD1 (you know the one without an M and at an outrageous price) arrived well. But, it was a great confusion. Not only because of the high price, but also regarding the state of the quality and yield and calibration needs etc. One can only speculate, but it sure looked like the high price was coupled to the huge problems with consistency in manufacturing, even though Sigma claimed it was because of its outstanding qualities rivaling medium format.

The SD1 was released in 2010, and without NLM (*) noise reduction (invented 2005) it might never have been a product. A very lucky coincidence IMHO.

The Quattro is a fix for that problem.

(*) NLM gives a huge improvement of noise, without smoothing the image. Seems impossible at first, But it can do it ... because it is cheating. It takes the mean of the current position and other similar parts in the neighborhood. And, as you do deliberately choose other positions that are similar, you will not blur the image. It will still be sharp. There is always a cost though. And in this case the cost is "alternative truth". All pixels are made up with a clever algorithm. So, I would hesitate in using NLM for any scientific purpose. You might get things that are not there, which would be very annoying for e.g. medical images.
 
TN Args said:
Truman Prevatt said:
TN Args said:
Roland Karlsson said:
Scottelly said:
To a degree I agree with your points, but there are significant differences between the Merrill sensor and the Quattro sensor, and I think that if Sigma were to just make a Merrill version of the SD Quattro, which is really what a few people have been asking for Sigma to do for years, then Sigma could solve the dilemma or at least bring a kind of peace between the two factions.
Click to expand...
You are forgetting a piece of important information. One that have been said again and again in this forum.

The Merrill sensor is very problematic colorwise. It needs careful calibration and you cannot really expect to use a legacy lens without doing your own calibration. The Quattro sensor, on the other hand seems very forgiving. Much easier to get useful colors. Legacy lenses seems to be a breeze, and the Kalpanika converter do not even do any color correction for Quattro.

The Merrill also have two very noisy lower layers that forces you to use advanced noise reduction before doing the conversion.

All in all, the Quattro is a technically much better sensor that probably gives Sigma much less to do when calibrating the cameras.

Therefore, I doubt that they have any intentions whatsoever to go back.
Click to expand...
Despite having his name immortalised on the Merrill cameras, Richard Billings Merrill was the co-inventer of the Quattro and a relentless pursuer of advancement. I think he would see the irony if Sigma went backwards and his namesake instead of his latter inventions became the future of the company.
Click to expand...
Now we are reaching back and channeling the deceased, eh. Can you please supply evidence of your claim. Sometimes a new idea just doesn't work out. Merrill was not around to be able to analyze the results and make his assessment. So it seems you feel qualified to speak for him.
Click to expand...
You think he would be unable to see the irony? 'Cos that is all I claimed on his behalf. Please read more carefully in the future before jumping in half-baked. Lift your game.
Click to expand...
Couple of things:

- does anybody remember that back before the Sd1 there was a lot of debate about what form the sensor would take around here. Someone dug out a patent that appeared to show unequal pixel counts on the different layers. It created a bit of a storm. Could that have actually been the patent for the then-as-unrealised future Quattro sensor?

- Eric Fossum said that Foveon fans would be very happy with the Quattro. And if anyone should know, he should.

--
Galleries and website: http://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidmillier/
 
Last edited:
Roland Karlsson said:
TN Args said:
Despite having his name immortalised on the Merrill cameras, Richard Billings Merrill was the co-inventer of the Quattro and a relentless pursuer of advancement. I think he would see the irony if Sigma went backwards and his namesake instead of his latter inventions became the future of the company.
Click to expand...
Yes, that is also true.

The main problem with the Merrill design is that it tries to push the boundaries too far. It is working on the edge on what is possible with current state of the art Foveon technology. The lower detectors are too small and get too little light.

I do not know who remember the days when SD1 (you know the one without an M and at an outrageous price) arrived well. But, it was a great confusion. Not only because of the high price, but also regarding the state of the quality and yield and calibration needs etc. One can only speculate, but it sure looked like the high price was coupled to the huge problems with consistency in manufacturing, even though Sigma claimed it was because of its outstanding qualities rivaling medium format.

The SD1 was released in 2010, and without NLM (*) noise reduction (invented 2005) it might never have been a product. A very lucky coincidence IMHO.

The Quattro is a fix for that problem.

(*) NLM gives a huge improvement of noise, without smoothing the image. Seems impossible at first, But it can do it ... because it is cheating. It takes the mean of the current position and other similar parts in the neighborhood. And, as you do deliberately choose other positions that are similar, you will not blur the image. It will still be sharp. There is always a cost though. And in this case the cost is "alternative truth". All pixels are made up with a clever algorithm. So, I would hesitate in using NLM for any scientific purpose. You might get things that are not there, which would be very annoying for e.g. medical images.
Click to expand...
 
Roland Karlsson said:
TN Args said:
Despite having his name immortalised on the Merrill cameras, Richard Billings Merrill was the co-inventer of the Quattro and a relentless pursuer of advancement. I think he would see the irony if Sigma went backwards and his namesake instead of his latter inventions became the future of the company.
Click to expand...
Yes, that is also true.

The main problem with the Merrill design is that it tries to push the boundaries too far. It is working on the edge on what is possible with current state of the art Foveon technology. The lower detectors are too small and get too little light.
Click to expand...
It's strange that it can give such superb image quality when you keep saying it can't.
Roland Karlsson said:
I do not know who remember the days when SD1 (you know the one without an M and at an outrageous price) arrived well. But, it was a great confusion. Not only because of the high price, but also regarding the state of the quality and yield and calibration needs etc. One can only speculate, but it sure looked like the high price was coupled to the huge problems with consistency in manufacturing, even though Sigma claimed it was because of its outstanding qualities rivaling medium format.

The SD1 was released in 2010, and without NLM (*) noise reduction (invented 2005) it might never have been a product. A very lucky coincidence IMHO.

The Quattro is a fix for that problem.
Click to expand...
The Quattro can also give outstanding image quality, once you have found the best settings in SPP for the style of image you want.
 
gw24 said:
Again you completely missed his point:

'but this is what I see in a lot of pictures'
Click to expand...
That is an anecdotal opinion. It might be right, it might be not, but the most important thing is that this is impossible for the reader to know. No disrespect to the poster - this is just how things are. Someone else might say - "I own the camera and I have taken lots of images and do not see it at all". What do we then stand?

And - the Quattro vs Merrill discussions are not without any history. It has been discussed and analyzed since the first Quattro camera arrived. Some do not like it. That is for sure. But, there is absolutely no consensus on the matter.

The most important question now is if sd QH is substantially better than sd Q. The Merrill vs Quattro fight will never be resolved.
 
DMillier said:
My goodness, Roland! You are saying that Merrill images "are made up"!!!
Click to expand...
Yes, I do, and I have seen it in the images the Kalpanika converter makes, and ... as a proof that Sigma uses NLM, the same things show up from SPP.
DavidMillier said:
Worse than Bayer interpolation :-) :-) :-)
Click to expand...
Not worse - different. NLM actually do not create bad images, just false :)
 
D Cox said:
It's strange that it can give such superb image quality when you keep saying it can't.
Click to expand...
I never said it can't. It do - and that is a proof it can. But - it needs a huge help from NLM. Try to turn it off in the Kalpanika converter and see what happens.

My main point here really is that Sigma probably do hesitate to use a technology that needs advance image manipulation (and camera calibration) in order to get the image.
D Cox said:
The Quattro can also give outstanding image quality, once you have found the best settings in SPP for the style of image you want.
Click to expand...
That is the main thing. Outstanding images is a craft and skills and a good eye. Looking at actual images to evaluate cameras is very difficult.
 
Last edited:
Roland Karlsson said:
gw24 said:
Again you completely missed his point:

'but this is what I see in a lot of pictures'
Click to expand...
That is an anecdotal opinion. It might be right, it might be not, but the most important thing is that this is impossible for the reader to know. No disrespect to the poster - this is just how things are. Someone else might say - "I own the camera and I have taken lots of images and do not see it at all". What do we then stand?

And - the Quattro vs Merrill discussions are not without any history. It has been discussed and analyzed since the first Quattro camera arrived. Some do not like it. That is for sure. But, there is absolutely no consensus on the matter.

The most important question now is if sd QH is substantially better than sd Q. The Merrill vs Quattro fight will never be resolved.
Click to expand...
 
D Cox said:
Roland Karlsson said:
TN Args said:
Despite having his name immortalised on the Merrill cameras, Richard Billings Merrill was the co-inventer of the Quattro and a relentless pursuer of advancement. I think he would see the irony if Sigma went backwards and his namesake instead of his latter inventions became the future of the company.
Click to expand...
Yes, that is also true.

The main problem with the Merrill design is that it tries to push the boundaries too far. It is working on the edge on what is possible with current state of the art Foveon technology. The lower detectors are too small and get too little light.
Click to expand...
It's strange that it can give such superb image quality when you keep saying it can't.
D Cox said:
I do not know who remember the days when SD1 (you know the one without an M and at an outrageous price) arrived well. But, it was a great confusion. Not only because of the high price, but also regarding the state of the quality and yield and calibration needs etc. One can only speculate, but it sure looked like the high price was coupled to the huge problems with consistency in manufacturing, even though Sigma claimed it was because of its outstanding qualities rivaling medium format.

The SD1 was released in 2010, and without NLM (*) noise reduction (invented 2005) it might never have been a product. A very lucky coincidence IMHO.

The Quattro is a fix for that problem.
Click to expand...
The Quattro can also give outstanding image quality, once you have found the best settings in SPP for the style of image you want.
Click to expand...
Any camera can. We are not lacking for adequate technology.
 
Roland Karlsson said:
Roland Karlsson wrote

The most important question now is if sd QH is substantially better than sd Q.
Click to expand...
If there is a difference, then there are changes to the sensor design or internal processing or both.

I suppose it can be possible that firmware differences between the H and Q can be equalized, as long as there are no differences in the sensors or other hard components/processors.

It will be interesting.

There is a part of me that hopes that there is a difference between the sd Q and sd H models at the sensor and processing level, much like the Canon 5D and 1D series cameras. If not, then getting the sd H is more uncertain for me.
 
Last edited:
DMillier said:
TN Args said:
Truman Prevatt said:
TN Args said:
Roland Karlsson said:
Scottelly said:
To a degree I agree with your points, but there are significant differences between the Merrill sensor and the Quattro sensor, and I think that if Sigma were to just make a Merrill version of the SD Quattro, which is really what a few people have been asking for Sigma to do for years, then Sigma could solve the dilemma or at least bring a kind of peace between the two factions.
Click to expand...
You are forgetting a piece of important information. One that have been said again and again in this forum.

The Merrill sensor is very problematic colorwise. It needs careful calibration and you cannot really expect to use a legacy lens without doing your own calibration. The Quattro sensor, on the other hand seems very forgiving. Much easier to get useful colors. Legacy lenses seems to be a breeze, and the Kalpanika converter do not even do any color correction for Quattro.

The Merrill also have two very noisy lower layers that forces you to use advanced noise reduction before doing the conversion.

All in all, the Quattro is a technically much better sensor that probably gives Sigma much less to do when calibrating the cameras.

Therefore, I doubt that they have any intentions whatsoever to go back.
Click to expand...
Despite having his name immortalised on the Merrill cameras, Richard Billings Merrill was the co-inventer of the Quattro and a relentless pursuer of advancement. I think he would see the irony if Sigma went backwards and his namesake instead of his latter inventions became the future of the company.
Click to expand...
Now we are reaching back and channeling the deceased, eh. Can you please supply evidence of your claim. Sometimes a new idea just doesn't work out. Merrill was not around to be able to analyze the results and make his assessment. So it seems you feel qualified to speak for him.
Click to expand...
You think he would be unable to see the irony? 'Cos that is all I claimed on his behalf. Please read more carefully in the future before jumping in half-baked. Lift your game.
Click to expand...
Couple of things:

- does anybody remember that back before the Sd1 there was a lot of debate about what form the sensor would take around here. Someone dug out a patent that appeared to show unequal pixel counts on the different layers. It created a bit of a storm. Could that have actually been the patent for the then-as-unrealised future Quattro sensor?
Click to expand...
I remember.
DavidMillier said:
- Eric Fossum said that Foveon fans would be very happy with the Quattro. And if anyone should know, he should.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

WilyKit
sd Quattro (H) settings in Sigma Photo Pro for accurate colors and overall high fidelity images
Replies
8
Views
6K
xpatUSA2
xpatUSA2
SRT201
Sd Quattro, higher ISO noise than dp Quattro?
2 3
Replies
56
Views
11K
SRT201
SRT201
H
Slower SA mount wide angle primes that work well on a sd Quattro?
2
Replies
31
Views
3K
HeavyDuty
H
Scottelly
fp H Quattro (Do you think there is such a prototype at Sigma?)
2
Replies
23
Views
4K
xpatUSA
xpatUSA
Scottelly
Prices For Used SD Quattro H Cameras Are Going Up
Replies
16
Views
4K
Tirpitz666
T

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