dp0 vs fp L

In this DPR review, on page 6

Sigma SD Quattro H Review: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

it seemed that the Quattro DNG and the SPP-processed X3F delivered different colors.

So, processing seems to matter.

Processing matters.
Processing matters.

Maybe we would all be better off shooting only black and white.
Excellent, Tom! At least someone cares ...

--
It's all in the numbers ...
 
Last edited:
With “color palette” of an image I wanted to say the number of different colours used in that image.

To be honest, I had not even tried that hyperlink. I think the linked site uses the term “color palette” for a somewhat arbitrary artistic collection of colour swatches which represents the overall impression of the image.
Key word here is "arbitrary".

I've wondered this about the colorcheckers:

Datacolor SpyderCHECKR 24 Color Chart SCK24 B&H Photo Video (bhphotovideo.com)

Somebody picked a bunch of color swatches there, too.

There might be a history behind these things, and it might go back to colorimetry research years ago; I don't know.

Maybe a creative selection of color swatches would give Foveon colors a big advantage over Bayer. Maybe the existing selection is based on old color TV science, and that goes back to red, green, and blue phosphors on a TV picture tube. If so, it's a perfect fit to Bayer technology.
I do not quite understand this.

Maybe we use the term differently. What I tried to say how I understand the term “colour palette” of an image is this:

The Foveon sensor has its data saved to three channels with 14 bits of information, i.e. a theoretical maximum color palette of 2^(3*14) or 4.398.046.511.104 different colours. And every real picture taken with the sensor contains a certain subset of those available colours.
It's theoretical maximum color palette would have to be limited to a different color for every pixel, or about 19.7 million colors, right? (25.5 million for the Quattro H)
Yes, that is exactly right. I forgot about that limitation in my explanation. :)

And of course once the Raw data has been transformed into a different picture format (e.g. an sRGB jpeg) the theoretical maximum color palette and also the subset that is really used in the image, changes.

So with “colour palette” I mean the subset of the theoretical available colour values that is in use in the file.
 
Maybe that's why Sigma decided to use a 1:1:1 design for the full-frame sensor they're working on. I'm really hoping it turns out to be the best sensor ever. I just wish it would offer more resolution than my SD Quattro H. Maybe it will, even though it will only have 20 MP per layer.
I thought Yamaki-san already told us the resolution, Scott - which was much less than that of the Quattro H? (about 80 lp/mm versus about 116 lp/mm).
In this case Ted, I'm using SPV terminology, and not the "correct" use of the term "resolution." I'm pretty sure you got that from the way I wrote it, but just in case you or someone else who is reading this thread doesn't understand, here is what I mean:

A typical Quattro sensor (APS-C size) makes 20 MP photos (more or less). The H (that's the SD Quattro H) makes photos that are about 25% more MP. The new, full-frame sensor Sigma is working on will make photos that are about 35% more MP than the Merrills.
No problem, Scott. So, with a Merrill being 14.75MP, you are still saying that the new sensor will be 14.75 x 1.35 = about 20MP.

Since we know that the aspect ratio (AR) will be about 36:24 we can calculate the pixel width count (W) from total pixel count i.e. W = sqrt(20x10^6x36/24) = 5447px. When we know that and the sensor width, say 35.5mm, the resolution in lp/mm will be 77, still not close to the H.

If they do a different aspect ratio e.g. 4:3, the pixel width would change.
Considering the fact that many Merrillians claim the Merrill captures as much detail as the standard Quattros, I think those same people will say the 20 MP photos from the new sensor [would] have more detail than what the H captures.
I think that would depend on what is meant by "detail". My money would put them almost even.
I expect many debates, and possibly even another war, with many battles, between the Merrillians and the Quattronians, based on the arguments that will accompany almost every comparison test between the new cameras and the H.
Hmmm ...
In fact, I wonder what side of the fence [Noël] will eventually fall on. He seems to have really embraced the Quattro.

;)

Resolution aside, I believe the new sensor will be sort of a new beginning for the world of Foveon-style sensors. It should be interesting.
--
It's all in the numbers ...
 
Last edited:
I went out this morning to Great Falls with a tripod and both cameras.

The fp L has a TTartisan 21mm F1.5 manual lens on it.

Both were set to F8. Color palettes are different, but is the fp L better?

Basically I made minimal adjustments to the dp0 image and spent time working the fp L image to get it close to the color balance of the dp0 image.

fp L version, downsized to nearly match the pixel count of dp0 lo-res. 5.6mb download. Developed from DNG using SPP.
fp L version, downsized to nearly match the pixel count of dp0 lo-res. 5.6mb download. Developed from DNG using SPP.

dp0 lo-res. 5.3mb download. Developed from X3F in SPP.
dp0 lo-res. 5.3mb download. Developed from X3F in SPP.

In my mind, the colors out of the fp L look better to me.
It's hard to choose between these two examples. I prefer the FP L sky. Regarding the rest of the image, a very slight preference for the quattro.

--
Paris - La Defense at 78.5Mpix:
 
This time it looks like the dp0 image is better.

fp L version, downsized to be nearly the same pixels as the dp0 Hi-Res. 19mb download.
fp L version, downsized to be nearly the same pixels as the dp0 Hi-Res. 19mb download.

dp0 Hi-Res. 21mb download.
dp0 Hi-Res. 21mb download.
I prefer the quattro. The FpL photo, there seems to be a slight cast.

While for the quattro, the colors are better differentiated, which gives slightly more relief to the photo. But the shadows are slightly darker, which also helps to give more relief. When viewing the photos at 100%, the sharpness is good on both examples.

--
Paris - La Defense at 78.5Mpix:
 
… Would love to see a third SD14/15 image in there. Perhaps one day…
Here are two images taken (X3F raw) this morning with the same lens, the first one with my sd Quattro H and the other one with my SD14:

sd Quattro H
sd Quattro H

SD14
SD14

If you want to play with them, here are links to the raw files:

http://www.lallement.com/images/SDIM1280.X3F

http://www.lallement.com/images/SDIM8279.X3F

Cheers!

Abbazz
When I download the SD14 raw, the photo does not appear, even with SPP.

--
Paris - La Defense at 78.5Mpix:
 
… Would love to see a third SD14/15 image in there. Perhaps one day…
Here are two images taken (X3F raw) this morning with the same lens, the first one with my sd Quattro H and the other one with my SD14:

sd Quattro H
sd Quattro H

SD14
SD14

If you want to play with them, here are links to the raw files:

http://www.lallement.com/images/SDIM1280.X3F

http://www.lallement.com/images/SDIM8279.X3F

Cheers!

Abbazz
When I download the SD14 raw, the photo does not appear, even with SPP.
With my settings for FireFox/Windows 7, the browser refuses to download either the SDqh or the SD14 X3F saying "potential security risk". Not saying there is anything wrong with either file ...

--
It's all in the numbers ...
 
Last edited:
I went out this morning to Great Falls with a tripod and both cameras.

The fp L has a TTartisan 21mm F1.5 manual lens on it.

Both were set to F8. Color palettes are different, but is the fp L better?

Basically I made minimal adjustments to the dp0 image and spent time working the fp L image to get it close to the color balance of the dp0 image.

fp L version, downsized to nearly match the pixel count of dp0 lo-res. 5.6mb download. Developed from DNG using SPP.
fp L version, downsized to nearly match the pixel count of dp0 lo-res. 5.6mb download. Developed from DNG using SPP.

dp0 lo-res. 5.3mb download. Developed from X3F in SPP.
dp0 lo-res. 5.3mb download. Developed from X3F in SPP.

In my mind, the colors out of the fp L look better to me.
It's hard to choose between these two examples. I prefer the FP L sky. Regarding the rest of the image, a very slight preference for the quattro.
Thank you very much for taking a look at these images! I prefer the fp L sky also.

--
Tom Schum
"Beware of taking advice from anonymous wise men." Quote from Anon.
 
… Would love to see a third SD14/15 image in there. Perhaps one day…
Here are two images taken (X3F raw) this morning with the same lens, the first one with my sd Quattro H and the other one with my SD14:

sd Quattro H
sd Quattro H

SD14
SD14

If you want to play with them, here are links to the raw files:

http://www.lallement.com/images/SDIM1280.X3F

http://www.lallement.com/images/SDIM8279.X3F

Cheers!

Abbazz
When I download the SD14 raw, the photo does not appear, even with SPP.
With my settings for FireFox/Windows 7, the browser refuses to download either the SDqh or the SD14 X3F saying "potential security risk". Not saying there is anything wrong with either file ...
I also had the same warning with the SD14 file. I downloaded it anyway, but I can't view it.

I then took the precaution of scanning my computer with my entivirus.

I downloaded the SDQ-H file some time ago (which I opened with SPP), I don't remember if I had the same warning or not.

--
Paris - La Defense at 78.5Mpix:
 
When I download the SD14 raw, the photo does not appear, even with SPP.
With my settings for FireFox/Windows 7, the browser refuses to download either the SDqh or the SD14 X3F saying "potential security risk". Not saying there is anything wrong with either file ...
You can safely ignore the security warning. It appears just because it's a shared file server hosting different domain names so you get a certificate name mismatch error.

You don't transmit any password or confidential data when you download this file so it won't compromise the security of your system.

Cheers!

Abbazz
 
When I download the SD14 raw, the photo does not appear, even with SPP.
With my settings for FireFox/Windows 7, the browser refuses to download either the SDqh or the SD14 X3F saying "potential security risk". Not saying there is anything wrong with either file ...
You can safely ignore the security warning. It appears just because it's a shared file server hosting different domain names so you get a certificate name mismatch error.
Thank you for the advice, Abbaz.
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top