If this is not false advertisement, what is?

[Joseph S Wisniewski]

We do. The image processing industry has had such a standard for
years. It's quite simple. By any accepted definition, the Foveon
sensor is 3.5 megapixels. Any departure from this is marketing, not
science.

And the Fuji S2 is 12 MP by the same definition.

Nope. Just 6mp, in a grid rotated 45 degrees.

Oh, I see, you want to use the definition of only counting the
actual pixel sensors, not the pixels in the output file. In that
case, the 10.2 million for the SD9/10 was correct.

No, it is not. It has 3.5 million spatial locations. 3.5 million pixels. Plain and simple. Luminance is an aspect of a pixel. Weather it's a single scalar value (the luminance of a monochrome pixel), a three dimensional vector of the three Foveon layers, or a 61 dimensional vector of luminance produced by a scientific camera with a rotating wheel of 61 narrowband 5nm filters).

It doesn't matter if the single luminance value per pixel is the result of a pure monochrome sensor, or weather there is a CFA (color filter array) in front of the sensor. Nor does it matter if said CFA is a 3 color Bayer pattern, the 4 color Sony pattern, the 6 color Kodak pattern, a 3 color pseudorandom pattern. A pixel is a pixel.

Pixels have 2 dimensional spatial properties: frequency, bandwidth, etc. They are not voxels (three dimensional pieces of a solid object) and cannot be treated mathematically as such.

And yes, a Fuji S2 sensor has 6 million of them. Not 12 million.

--
Ciao!

Joe

http://www.swissarmyfork.com

 

[Bruce Oudekerk]

Ouch

I should have read Phils review fully instead of skipping the parts I "already knew"

Thanks

Bruce

If I understand what you are saying; when Canon (for instance) says
the 300D has 6 MP they really mean there are 6 million discrete
photo sensors (made up of an unequal numbered assortment of RGB
sensors...Also that each one of these one-hue sensors is
reinterpolated to provide "true” color depth information? ...Am I
understanding you correctly???

Yes, this is correct. A normal Bayer 6MP sensor has 1.5M red
sensors, 3.0M green and 1.5M blue. They are arranged in an R-G-B-G
pattern (see Phil's review). All the sensors are in different
locations so they call it a 6MP sensor.

Since a 6MP colour bitmap contains 18M values, getting such an
image from a 6MP Bayer sensor, 67% of the values in the image have
to be calculated, and only 33% are actual measurements.

 

[Thomas Ko]

Question 1:
Does a 11M Bayer sensor resolve 11M resolution?

Question 2:
Does a 3.4M X3 sensor resolve 3.4M resolution?

While 11M Bayer is lying that it cannot solve 11M resolution, how can a general audience know that a 3.4M X3 can solve 3.4M resolution?

The Bayer pattern sensor give a "false" resolution benchmark (MP) in the first place and the producers are not willing to "correct" it. In order to survive, Sigma just follow the game rule: Tell the customer what they like to hear.

Unless some standard had been setup to measure the "resolution" correctly, otherwise saying someone is lying is useless.

Anyways, 1Ds and SD9 are 2 different classes of camera. If u like to compare apple to orange, I prefer u use some scientific method.

BTW, just for fun: if you calculate a X3 sensor in a full frame (3.4M x1.7x1.7) -> around 10M -> for sure it can kill 1Ds's resolution. Of course, there is no such thing yet and the file size, fps will be horriable.

Meanwhile, i suggest to take a look on SD9's gallery http://www.pbase.com/sigmasd9 and download a SSP 2.0 and play around. It will explain how well an SD9 (and SD10) against it's competitor. 1Ds is a state of art camera, but the extra $6000 is not for everybody. 14N is another class. So far, no competitor in that resolution and price range.

Anyways, just my 2 cents.

--
Thomas the C.Wolf 8^)
Gallery:
http://www.pbase.com/sigmasd9/c_wolf
http://www.pbase.com/c_wolf

 

[dabadger]

With Scanners, DPI does not make the scanner better. The Scan Density is the thing to look for. Most Drum scanners start at 4.0 and go up. Desktop scanners are usually between 2.5 and 3.5 with the latter being better. Why can't they do the same thing with cameras. It would eliminate a lot of confusion.

Question 1:
Does a 11M Bayer sensor resolve 11M resolution?

Question 2:
Does a 3.4M X3 sensor resolve 3.4M resolution?

 

[Laurence Matson]

. . . before you call it false.

Has anyone bothered to really read what Foveon are writing:

http://www.x3f.info/

As much of this argument is semantical as factual because the technological approach taken by Foveon is different.

Phil is very careful to differentiate as well:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Sigma/sigma_sd10.asp

He is careful to differentiate between effective pixels and sensor photodetectors.

Check out other cameras too. This differentiation is all over the place.

What this says is that the information per pixel is considerably higher (3x). Some would argue that it is acutually much higher, at least in the color area. They would not be wrong given the way the Bayer process works.

--
Laurence Φ€ 08 LL

http://www.pbase.com/lmatson/sd9_images
http://www.pbase.com/sigmasd9/root
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/sd9
http://www.beachbriss.com (eternal test site)

 

[Laurence Matson]

. . . should come as no surprise.

I’m still not completely convinced I
understand it yet. Language is such an imprecise form of
communication, even under ideal circumstances.

Bruce,

Nevertheless, I would urge you to read what Foveon are really saying.

http://www.x3f.info

As strange as the concept may seem, I think language is a pretty precise form of communication as I do photography. I use both but live just from the former.

I am not really sure there is a simple solution to this one, because the jargon of this industry was being misused long before the SD9 appeared. Trying to dance through this minefield lingusitically require Solomonic footwork.

As I read it, Foveon are trying very hard to get "right" terms while still finding a way to survive in a market populated by sharks. And this is not about the present. Something like 90% of all images currently CAPTURED are on film still. The potential here is tremendous.

When you are done reading, do the comparison with the 1Ds if you like. Any other camera. That is the best way to figure out what is right for you.

--
Laurence Φ€ 08 LL

http://www.pbase.com/lmatson/sd9_images
http://www.pbase.com/sigmasd9/root
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/sd9
http://www.beachbriss.com (eternal test site)

 

[Roland Karlsson]

. . . before you call it false.

I think that people refere to the press release:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0310/03102704sigmasd10.asp

As far as I can see it calls it a 10 Mpixel camera.

Roland

 

[Laurence Matson]

Roland, I cannot find the word megapixel in that text. What am I missing? I did two searches. Clue me in please.

L

. . . before you call it false.

I think that people refere to the press release:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0310/03102704sigmasd10.asp

As far as I can see it calls it a 10 Mpixel camera.

Roland

--
Laurence Φ€ 08 LL

http://www.pbase.com/lmatson/sd9_images
http://www.pbase.com/sigmasd9/root
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/sd9
http://www.beachbriss.com (eternal test site)

 

[Peter G]

http://www.sigma-photo.com/
No mention of 3.4mp x3. You have to dig for that.

But IMO, no one has come up with an easy way to cleanly highlight the difference in a number. 3.4MP underrepresents the SD9-10 and 10MP over-represents.

Really it is closer to a the 6MP bayer cameras, but it would be pretty hard to call it 6MP since there is no really correspondence to 6MP.

Personally I would have stuck with the 3.4MP X3 setup as it is more accurate and it is taking the high-road.

. . . before you call it false.

Has anyone bothered to really read what Foveon are writing:

http://www.x3f.info/

As much of this argument is semantical as factual because the
technological approach taken by Foveon is different.

Phil is very careful to differentiate as well:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Sigma/sigma_sd10.asp

He is careful to differentiate between effective pixels and sensor
photodetectors.

Check out other cameras too. This differentiation is all over the
place.

What this says is that the information per pixel is considerably
higher (3x). Some would argue that it is acutually much higher, at
least in the color area. They would not be wrong given the way the
Bayer process works.

--
Laurence ?? 08 LL

http://www.pbase.com/lmatson/sd9_images
http://www.pbase.com/sigmasd9/root
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/sd9
http://www.beachbriss.com (eternal test site)

--
http://www.trytel.com/~pguidry/vacation.html

 

[jeffkrol]

There are "10.2 million pixel sensors" in a 3d space. 10.2 million sample points.
I fail to see whats so hard to understand.

 

[Alatar]

It's in the title, just above the picture, and just below the test "Press Release:"

L

. . . before you call it false.

I think that people refere to the press release:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0310/03102704sigmasd10.asp

As far as I can see it calls it a 10 Mpixel camera.

Roland

--
Laurence Φ€ 08 LL

http://www.pbase.com/lmatson/sd9_images
http://www.pbase.com/sigmasd9/root
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/sd9
http://www.beachbriss.com (eternal test site)

 

[Alatar]

Sorry, as you can probably imagine, I meant "text", not "test". IMHO it is a bit unfortunate, as I have to agree with those who take the position that the X3 has three sensors per pixel, not three pixels per picture element, which is a bit of an oxymoron (the word pixel originated as an abbreviation for picture element).

L

. . . before you call it false.

I think that people refere to the press release:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0310/03102704sigmasd10.asp

As far as I can see it calls it a 10 Mpixel camera.

Roland

--
Laurence Φ€ 08 LL

http://www.pbase.com/lmatson/sd9_images
http://www.pbase.com/sigmasd9/root
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/sd9
http://www.beachbriss.com (eternal test site)

 

[Laurence Matson]

Peter and others,

I fail to see 10.2 Megapixels there. 10.2 million pixels are a different thing, although we have been down this road a few times.

The 1Ds is advertised as a xx.x megapixel camera, the D60 as a x.x megapixel camera, etc. Foveon and Sigma are trying to avoid this because they are not comparable in this sense. Look at Phil's spec charts to see how he handles this.

The only real point to all of this is to try and make some people aware of the contortions that Foveon and Sigma are going through to try to 1) get their point across while 2) not misleading people. Obviously, within these organizations there are different voices as well. However, if you read http://www.x3f.info carefully, you will find what I regard as an honest effort to get this right. Of course, if you have your bias filter turned off, it is easier.

None of us are naive enough to believe all marketing copy. However, at times, people do try to state it as close to the truth as the market allows.

And frankly, I agree, it might have been better to leave it at 10M and 3.34 x3 sort of things.

How's that for forked tongue?

--
Laurence Φ€ 08 LL

http://www.pbase.com/lmatson/sd9_images
http://www.pbase.com/sigmasd9/root
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/sd9
http://www.beachbriss.com (eternal test site)

 

[rick decker]

Ugh...now we are getting into triple-speak!!!!!!!

Maybe the new camera should have been coined the SD9x3..remember when some argued it would never be the "SD10" because of "SA10" and " Satin"? They are quiet now!! Better to apologize and go on making posts and mistakes than to be shut up!!

I see your are still fighting for truth justice and the Sigma/Foveon way!!

Rick

Peter and others,

I fail to see 10.2 Megapixels there. 10.2 million pixels are a
different thing, although we have been down this road a few times.

The 1Ds is advertised as a xx.x megapixel camera, the D60 as a x.x
megapixel camera, etc. Foveon and Sigma are trying to avoid this
because they are not comparable in this sense. Look at Phil's spec
charts to see how he handles this.

The only real point to all of this is to try and make some people
aware of the contortions that Foveon and Sigma are going through to
try to 1) get their point across while 2) not misleading people.
Obviously, within these organizations there are different voices as
well. However, if you read http://www.x3f.info carefully, you will find
what I regard as an honest effort to get this right. Of course, if
you have your bias filter turned off, it is easier.

None of us are naive enough to believe all marketing copy. However,
at times, people do try to state it as close to the truth as the
market allows.

And frankly, I agree, it might have been better to leave it at 10M
and 3.34 x3 sort of things.

How's that for forked tongue?

--
Laurence Φ€ 08 LL

http://www.pbase.com/lmatson/sd9_images
http://www.pbase.com/sigmasd9/root
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/sd9
http://www.beachbriss.com (eternal test site)

--
It's a tough job, living in Hawaii, but someone has to do it!!!

.......Feel The Power.........Sigma.....SD9..........

http://www.lightreflection.com
http://www.silveroaksranch.com
http://www.pbase.com/rickdecker
http://www.pbase.com/sigmasd9/user_home

 

[Joseph S Wisniewski]

Peter and others,

I fail to see 10.2 Megapixels there. 10.2 million pixels are a
different thing, although we have been down this road a few times.

Mega = one million. This has been true for the last four centuries.

http://www.essex1.com/people/speer/large.html

There is often a 4.8% error, because computer folk often use "mega" to mean 1048576 instead of 1000000.

There is never a 300% error.

The 1Ds is advertised as a xx.x megapixel camera, the D60 as a x.x
megapixel camera, etc. Foveon and Sigma are trying to avoid this
because they are not comparable in this sense.

Sigma was going on about 10.2 megapixels months ago, they're only recently stopped doing it. Foveon still does talk about megapixels, like in the reference in the other thread.

Look at Phil's spec
charts to see how he handles this.

The only real point to all of this is to try and make some people
aware of the contortions that Foveon and Sigma are going through to
try to 1) get their point across while 2) not misleading people.
Obviously, within these organizations there are different voices as
well. However, if you read http://www.x3f.info carefully, you will find
what I regard as an honest effort to get this right. Of course, if
you have your bias filter turned off, it is easier.

None of us are naive enough to believe all marketing copy. However,
at times, people do try to state it as close to the truth as the
market allows.

And frankly, I agree, it might have been better to leave it at 10M
and 3.34 x3 sort of things.

How's that for forked tongue?

Messy. And don't forget, forks are positive symbols. They stand for virtue and creativity. One should be proud to have a forked tongue.

--
Ciao!

Joe

http://www.swissarmyfork.com

 

[Joseph S Wisniewski]

Ugh...now we are getting into triple-speak!!!!!!!

Maybe the new camera should have been coined the SD9x3..remember
when some argued it would never be the "SD10" because of "SA10" and
" Satin"?

SD10 and satin? Are you shooting boudior now? What's next, silk sheets? You satinist, you...

They are quiet now!!

Me? Quiet? Like that will ever happen...

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1027&message=6491989

A short excerpt:

Hold this digital camera, it takes your right hand in its evil embrace, wth a computer control or button for every finger. When you take a picture, you press the pentaprism to your forehead. Yes, brethern, the pentaprism, the brother of Satan's pentagram!

As the Lord told St. John in Revelations 13:16 "And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads". Cast aside this SA-TEN camera, do not bring the foul graven images to your forehead or right hand.

Better to apologize and go on
making posts and mistakes than to be shut up!!

I see your are still fighting for truth justice and the
Sigma/Foveon way!!

That fight is over, and I've got the actual photographs of Supergirl lying dead to prove it! I took them Sunday. Superman is already dead (sevveral times). Steel is dead. The last three Supergirls are dead.

--
Ciao!

Joe

http://www.swissarmyfork.com

 

[rnimos]

Pixels do not equal sensors. A pixel is the smallest unit of a final image, regardless of how it was made. My monitor has 2 Mega pixels, not 6 (2M red + 2M green + 2M blue). The Foveon puts out 3.4 Mega pixels, period, however the quality of those pixels is twice as good as those from other DSLR's which makes the final image look as good as a standard 7Mpixel image would.

 

[Joseph S Wisniewski]

There are "10.2 million pixel sensors" in a 3d space. 10.2 million
sample points.
I fail to see whats so hard to understand.

Do you print or view them in 3D?

See, it really is simple. 3.4 million pixels (a.k.a. Megapixels) each of which is a three element vector). Just like the pixels on your monitor. Just like the pixels that come from a scanner.

--
Ciao!

Joe

http://www.swissarmyfork.com

 

[Just Looking]

Joe,

I hope some day I can get to be as smart as you are, but it's hard when you don't reveal your sources of learning. Maybe you can throw me a bone here...

What's the definition of "pixel" that you're using and arguing about, and where can I find it in words others than yours?

And where is Foveon's admission that the X3 sensor needs an AA filter that you're referring to here? (or did I mis-interpret your dangling "this" in "And it's nice to see Foveon finally admitting this."?)

j

Now - to be fair - both Foveon and Bayer needs anti alias
filters. If you don't have it, your pictures will look sharp
but weird at pixel level. There has been a lengthy discussion
about this in news:rec.photo.digital. A discussion where
some Foveon fan has shown weird photos of the moon and
other stuff, full of aliasing artefacts.

And it's nice to see Foveon finally admitting this. Apparently, the
new SD-10 has an AA filter.

--
Ciao!

Joe

http://www.swissarmyfork.com

 

[tammons]

dropped by from the Canon forum just to take a dump and hasn't been back to clean it up.

I think Sigma is pathetic. If this is not deceiving, what is? They
make 3.3 MP sensor to look like 10 MP by counting 3 pixels (red,
green, blue) for each final image's pixel. Since Canon uses 4
elements for each pixel (2 greens, red, blue), here are the true
pixel counts: 10D = 24 MP (6x4), 1D = 16MP, 1Ds = 44 MP. Is'n that
sweet.
The next step will be counting hard drive capacities in bits, not
bytes. It's 8 times more space!
Yes, you can call this post wahtever you want. I'm just sick and
tired of this 'marketing'. I just baught a DVD, capable of
wrighting 4.7G of data. And guess what, I can only take 4.5
Gigabytes of data. Oh, I didn't know that 1G is not 1 Gigabyte,
it's just G, which means nothing.
If I had more time and cared more I'd sue Sigma. It plain SUX.
People will turn away from very good cameras only to find out that
they get only a third of image data in the end.
People!!! Beware of Sigma!!! It's a scam!!!