What would the FFF have to do in order to be competative?

Reading a recent post that included a 60M pixel Bayer sensor shot, the the discussion turned into a debate as to whether the FFF would ever arrive.

Looking at the Bayer photo what do you believe the FFF sensor would have to do better than the current generation of Bayer sensors? What are the design criteria the FFF design team have?

I don't know but given the physics of the design and the past Foveons, low light performance would most likely not be on par with the Bayer, agreed?

Historically, Sigmas have required extensive image processing both while taking the shot and afterwords (SPP). Will the FFF shoot at the frame rates of the current Bayers?  Again, given the history, this seems doubtful.

So with low light and speed out of the equation, whats left, detail and color rendition.

As for detail, how would the specs of the proposed FFF stack up against the 60M plus Bayer sensors? Would the advantage in detail make up for the shortcoming?

The remaining design criteria, is color.  Would Sigma's color rendition be enough for people to buy it?

I don't know and would like rational, opinions as just what will the FFF bring to the table, and why any non L mount people in 2023 would buy it when 100M pixel Bayers are on the horizon that take great low light picture at high frame rates.

At this point, fanboys aside, the fact that we are still discussing this seems a bit absurd to me, so why did I start this thread lol?.

dellaaa wrote:

Reading a recent post that included a 60M pixel Bayer sensor shot, the the discussion turned into a debate as to whether the FFF would ever arrive.

Looking at the Bayer photo what do you believe the FFF sensor would have to do better than the current generation of Bayer sensors? What are the design criteria the FFF design team have?

I don't know but given the physics of the design and the past Foveons, low light performance would most likely not be on par with the Bayer, agreed?

Historically, Sigmas have required extensive image processing both while taking the shot and afterwords (SPP). Will the FFF shoot at the frame rates of the current Bayers? Again, given the history, this seems doubtful.

So with low light and speed out of the equation, whats left, detail and color rendition.

As for detail, how would the specs of the proposed FFF stack up against the 60M plus Bayer sensors? Would the advantage in detail make up for the shortcoming?

Depends on what is meant by "detail", for which there are many definitions - mpstly subjective and vague.

Some time ago I compared my SD9 versus my G9. Based on MTF at Nyquist, the Foveon was quite superior ...

The remaining design [criterion], is color. Would Sigma's color rendition be enough for people to buy it?

I don't know and would like rational, opinions as just what will the FFF bring to the table, and why any non L mount people in 2023 would buy it when 100M pixel Bayers are on the horizon that take great low light picture at high frame rates.

At this point, fanboys aside, the fact that we are still discussing this seems a bit absurd to me, so why did I start this thread lol?.

dellaaa wrote:

Reading a recent post that included a 60M pixel Bayer sensor shot, the the discussion turned into a debate as to whether the FFF would ever arrive.

Looking at the Bayer photo what do you believe the FFF sensor would have to do better than the current generation of Bayer sensors? What are the design criteria the FFF design team have?

We don't know.

I don't know but given the physics of the design and the past Foveons, low light performance would most likely not be on par with the Bayer, agreed?

Agreed.

Historically, Sigmas have required extensive image processing both while taking the shot and afterwords (SPP).

Ummm . . . my Quattro made great OOC jpegs, so no . . . not afterwards - no more than CFA cameras require extensive image processing afterwards.

Will the FFF shoot at the frame rates of the current Bayers?

Probably not.

Again, given the history, this seems doubtful.

So with low light and speed out of the equation, whats left, detail and color rendition.

I'm very interested to see how the detail capture works out, when compared to Sigma's fp L . . . and I'm sure Sigma, being the company that makes the highest-resolution L mount camera, is well aware of the challenges the FFF faces.

As for detail, how would the specs of the proposed FFF stack up against the 60M plus Bayer sensors?

How do the 45 MP Bayer cameras stack up against the 60 MP plus Bayer sensors? Those cameras still sell, even though the Sony cameras outresolve them. Some people don't need or want more than 20 MP, believe it or not.

Would the advantage in detail make up for the shortcoming?

The remaining design criteria, is color. Would Sigma's color rendition be enough for people to buy it?

For some people, yes.

I don't know and would like rational, opinions as just what will the FFF bring to the table, and why any non L mount people in 2023 would buy it when 100M pixel Bayers are on the horizon that take great low light picture at high frame rates.

Where on the horizon? Sony just rehashed their 60 MP sensor into a new A7r V body. My guess is that they might create a stacked version of that sensor at some point, so they can make a camera that can do 8Kp60 video, but 60 MP is not 100 MP. Neither Nikon or Canon have stepped up past 45 MP to match Sony's 60 MP.

At this point, fanboys aside, the fact that we are still discussing this seems a bit absurd to me, so why did I start this thread lol?.

You're asking quite a lot of questions, and most of those could open a full can of worms.

Scottelly wrote:

dellaaa wrote:

Reading a recent post that included a 60M pixel Bayer sensor shot, the the discussion turned into a debate as to whether the FFF would ever arrive.

Looking at the Bayer photo what do you believe the FFF sensor would have to do better than the current generation of Bayer sensors? What are the design criteria the FFF design team have?

We don't know.

I don't know but given the physics of the design and the past Foveons, low light performance would most likely not be on par with the Bayer, agreed?

Agreed.

Historically, Sigmas have required extensive image processing both while taking the shot and afterwords (SPP).

Ummm . . . my Quattro made great OOC jpegs, so no . . . not afterwards - no more than CFA cameras require extensive image processing afterwards.

Will the FFF shoot at the frame rates of the current Bayers?

Probably not.

Again, given the history, this seems doubtful.

So with low light and speed out of the equation, whats left, detail and color rendition.

I'm very interested to see how the detail capture works out, when compared to Sigma's fp L . . . and I'm sure Sigma, being the company that makes the highest-resolution L mount camera, is well aware of the challenges the FFF faces.

As for detail, how would the specs of the proposed FFF stack up against the 60M plus Bayer sensors?

How do the 45 MP Bayer cameras stack up against the 60 MP plus Bayer sensors? Those cameras still sell, even though the Sony cameras outresolve them. Some people don't need or want more than 20 MP, believe it or not.

Would the advantage in detail make up for the shortcoming?

The remaining design criteria, is color. Would Sigma's color rendition be enough for people to buy it?

For some people, yes.

I don't know and would like rational, opinions as just what will the FFF bring to the table, and why any non L mount people in 2023 would buy it when 100M pixel Bayers are on the horizon that take great low light picture at high frame rates.

Where on the horizon? Sony just rehashed their 60 MP sensor into a new A7r V body. My guess is that they might create a stacked version of that sensor at some point, so they can make a camera that can do 8Kp60 video, but 60 MP is not 100 MP. Neither Nikon or Canon have stepped up past 45 MP to match Sony's 60 MP.

And the geometric resolution of 60MP is only 15% more than 45MP ...

xpatUSA wrote:

Scottelly wrote:

dellaaa wrote:

Reading a recent post that included a 60M pixel Bayer sensor shot, the the discussion turned into a debate as to whether the FFF would ever arrive.

Looking at the Bayer photo what do you believe the FFF sensor would have to do better than the current generation of Bayer sensors? What are the design criteria the FFF design team have?

We don't know.

I don't know but given the physics of the design and the past Foveons, low light performance would most likely not be on par with the Bayer, agreed?

Agreed.

Historically, Sigmas have required extensive image processing both while taking the shot and afterwords (SPP).

Ummm . . . my Quattro made great OOC jpegs, so no . . . not afterwards - no more than CFA cameras require extensive image processing afterwards.

Will the FFF shoot at the frame rates of the current Bayers?

Probably not.

Again, given the history, this seems doubtful.

So with low light and speed out of the equation, whats left, detail and color rendition.

I'm very interested to see how the detail capture works out, when compared to Sigma's fp L . . . and I'm sure Sigma, being the company that makes the highest-resolution L mount camera, is well aware of the challenges the FFF faces.

As for detail, how would the specs of the proposed FFF stack up against the 60M plus Bayer sensors?

How do the 45 MP Bayer cameras stack up against the 60 MP plus Bayer sensors? Those cameras still sell, even though the Sony cameras outresolve them. Some people don't need or want more than 20 MP, believe it or not.

Would the advantage in detail make up for the shortcoming?

The remaining design criteria, is color. Would Sigma's color rendition be enough for people to buy it?

For some people, yes.

I don't know and would like rational, opinions as just what will the FFF bring to the table, and why any non L mount people in 2023 would buy it when 100M pixel Bayers are on the horizon that take great low light picture at high frame rates.

Where on the horizon? Sony just rehashed their 60 MP sensor into a new A7r V body. My guess is that they might create a stacked version of that sensor at some point, so they can make a camera that can do 8Kp60 video, but 60 MP is not 100 MP. Neither Nikon or Canon have stepped up past 45 MP to match Sony's 60 MP.

And the geometric resolution of 60MP is only 15% more than 45MP ...

Well, I don't know what "geometric resolution" is Ted, but it really doesn't seem to me like there are a whole lot of people interested in more resolution than what the 60 MP Sony and Sigma cameras offer. Nikon and Canon don't seem to think there's much of a market there. I beg to differ. I believe wholeheartedly in my proposed future  "quatrification" of the 20 MP per layer FFF sensor, making a full-frame Quattro sensor that would have an 80 MP top layer. I think an L mount camera with such a sensor would make the ultimate Quattro camera, and I'm hoping it has IBIS, a fully-articulating rear screen, Wi-Fi, GPS, and can do 8Kp60 video too.

-- hide signature --

what you got is not what you saw ...

Scottelly wrote:

xpatUSA wrote:

Scottelly wrote:

dellaaa wrote:

Reading a recent post that included a 60M pixel Bayer sensor shot, the the discussion turned into a debate as to whether the FFF would ever arrive.

Looking at the Bayer photo what do you believe the FFF sensor would have to do better than the current generation of Bayer sensors? What are the design criteria the FFF design team have?

We don't know.

I don't know but given the physics of the design and the past Foveons, low light performance would most likely not be on par with the Bayer, agreed?

Agreed.

Historically, Sigmas have required extensive image processing both while taking the shot and afterwords (SPP).

Ummm . . . my Quattro made great OOC jpegs, so no . . . not afterwards - no more than CFA cameras require extensive image processing afterwards.

Will the FFF shoot at the frame rates of the current Bayers?

Probably not.

Again, given the history, this seems doubtful.

So with low light and speed out of the equation, whats left, detail and color rendition.

I'm very interested to see how the detail capture works out, when compared to Sigma's fp L . . . and I'm sure Sigma, being the company that makes the highest-resolution L mount camera, is well aware of the challenges the FFF faces.

As for detail, how would the specs of the proposed FFF stack up against the 60M plus Bayer sensors?

How do the 45 MP Bayer cameras stack up against the 60 MP plus Bayer sensors? Those cameras still sell, even though the Sony cameras outresolve them. Some people don't need or want more than 20 MP, believe it or not.

Would the advantage in detail make up for the shortcoming?

The remaining design criteria, is color. Would Sigma's color rendition be enough for people to buy it?

For some people, yes.

I don't know and would like rational, opinions as just what will the FFF bring to the table, and why any non L mount people in 2023 would buy it when 100M pixel Bayers are on the horizon that take great low light picture at high frame rates.

Where on the horizon? Sony just rehashed their 60 MP sensor into a new A7r V body. My guess is that they might create a stacked version of that sensor at some point, so they can make a camera that can do 8Kp60 video, but 60 MP is not 100 MP. Neither Nikon or Canon have stepped up past 45 MP to match Sony's 60 MP.

And the geometric resolution of 60MP is only 15% more than 45MP ...

Well, I don't know what "geometric resolution" is Ted, ...

Sorry, I meant lp/mm either horixontally or vertically, Scott.

but it really doesn't seem to me like there are a whole lot of people interested in more resolution than what the 60 MP Sony and Sigma cameras offer. Nikon and Canon don't seem to think there's much of a market there. I beg to differ. I believe wholeheartedly in my proposed future "quatrification" of the 20 MP per layer FFF sensor, making a full-frame Quattro sensor that would have an 80 MP top layer. I think an L mount camera with such a sensor would make the ultimate Quattro camera, and I'm hoping it has IBIS, a fully-articulating rear screen, Wi-Fi, GPS, and can do 8Kp60 video too.

Whatever Kazumi decides there would be quite loud dissatisfied group who would proclaim death of Foveon. Myself i am quite happy with sdqh (was total madness to buy considering my finances) of course i am salivating about FF but unless somebody buys me winning lottery ticket it is not happening for me

Just my 2 cents :-).

Long live Foveon!!

A BAYER type camera will never have such quality photos as FOVEON. The three-layer sensor cannot be fooled .. The 3D look and the details and colors that fall out of it are the best and most beautiful for me .. but cameras with FOVEON chip are difficult to use and image processing, it is necessary to learn how to work with them properly, including proper image processing. The reward is a wonderful photograph.

Peter

dellaaa wrote:

Reading a recent post that included a 60M pixel Bayer sensor shot, the the discussion turned into a debate as to whether the FFF would ever arrive.

Yes, that was my point, Yes, is it rational to still release such a camera, with such a large Bayer sensor competition?

Looking at the Bayer photo what do you believe the FFF sensor would have to do better than the current generation of Bayer sensors? What are the design criteria the FFF design team have?

For me personally, the FFF camera should have a usable iso1600, resolution is not that important, pricing is crucial though, is the camera too expensive then it is not going to sell.
Certainly not to me.

Jozef.

The only advantage the Foveon chip has over a Bayer chip is its ability to differentiate more colors (though this does not necessarily mean it's color is more accurate). Even using pixel shift the Bayer chip is still slightly inferior due to the limitation of its color filters.

Foveon will never be able to match Bayer in DR, speed of processing and high iso so the only other avenue to compete on is resolution. A 80mp Quattro Foveon would be able to match the resolution of a 100mp Bayer, which would appeal to some photographers who specialize in landscapes.

The question is price. Can a 80mp Quattro be produced at a price competitive to a 100mp Bayer and can Sigma sell enough of them to at least pay for its engineering costs?

It seems to be a difficult question to answer in these times with massively high resolution Bayer sensors in FF and MF cameras. People seem to have lost sight of the essential calling of the Foveon sensor -- rich, glorious colour and no colour moiré. This comes with the burden of poor low light performance at high ISO values and low-ish DR. Therefore you have to work hard to get the most out of your Foveon camera.

The following photo was shot on a 50MP medium format camera. I'm guessing you can spot a problem that simply wouldn't occur with a Sigma-Foveon camera.

Look at the waistcoat pattern.

The photo below was shot with a Sigma dp0 Quattro:

A SFD image made up of 7 frames shot at ISO 100 using ND, GND and CPL filters. This competes very well with the 102MP Fujifilm GFX 100S. I can't say it matches it but it comes very close indeed, and the colour is amazing.

The amount of work required to produce this type of image is quite demanding, but the results do make up for it in the end.

I really don't know enough about the technology to say how Sigma could produce a better Foveon sensor with a good DR, great colour and better ISO performance, but I do know that a solid and reliable full frame (or better still MF) camera would be a serious contender for landscape, studio and product photographers.

victorgv wrote:

Whatever Kazumi decides there would be quite loud dissatisfied group who would proclaim death of Foveon. Myself i am quite happy with sdqh (was total madness to buy considering my finances) of course i am salivating about FF but unless somebody buys me winning lottery ticket it is not happening for me

Just my 2 cents :-).

Long live Foveon!!

- Kazuto -

Very well said, Vitée .. that's how it is in my mind too.I am simply delighted with the FOVEON chip and (according to my 30 years of experience) nothing compares to its result, these are unnecessary polemics, as I wrote before, cameras with the FOVEON chip are more difficult to use and image processing, it is necessary to learn how to work with them correctly, including proper image processing (however, the noise is easily removed). The reward is a wonderful photograph. Who look for flaws in the FOVEON system will always find them, then you need to buy something else to take pictures, that's everyone's right. At the same time, you don't have to forget what an imperfect world we live in, there is nothing perfect here and never will be.

Peter

Without an end goal in site, i.e. better resolution at all costs, the FFF has no direction and no goal to achieve.  This point was missed by everyone.  Oh well.

There is just so far a logical discussion can go, after awhile, emotions take over as they always do.

An 80M FFF can't just match the resolution of a 100M Bayer because it looses on speed and low light, hence the point of my initial post.  Why buy a camera that only matches the resolution I get with a 100 M Bayer when it will be slower and have poorer low light performance?

dellaaa wrote:

An 80M FFF can't just match the resolution of a 100M Bayer because it looses on speed and low light, hence the point of my initial post. Why buy a camera that only matches the resolution I get with a 100 M Bayer when it will be slower and have poorer low light performance?

Because you'll still have the ability to differentiate more colors. Also Foveon has the 3D look that Bayer can't match. I'd buy one if I can afford it.