If this is not false advertisement, what is?

[Paulo Abreu]

Andy and others,

Although I was not going to reply, here it goes my honest opinion and forgive me Sigma owners if it ofends any - I don´t think so since I can assure you I am no troll ...

Although one pixel position has 3 sensors (one for each color), that does little for resolution, if it´s intended to compare it with a 10Mp sensor ... as it is also true to say that a 6Mp bayer chip does some guessing for the extra two colors on each pixel site and "efective" resolution drops! - that´s why a 3.3Mp output image from a SD9 (interpolated) can be compared to a Canon 10D 6Mp, side by side. If they decide to put another layer with "Emerald" then it would be a 13.2 Mp? It would be funny to ask if they put 10 milion pixels stacked on a single row of 1 pixel, that would be still a 10Mp camera capable of printing a A4 ??? - I can tell a joke, can´t I ?

I think that most people will agree that SD10 10Mp doesn´t compete with an equivalent bayer interpolated 10Mp chip in terms of resolution (like Canon 1Ds as ex), but it would also be unfair to label SD10 as a 3.3 Mp camera (due to its sensor technology), knowing how much "megapixel" counts as a selling argument!

I (as I believe almost every digital camera owner) was very entusiastic about SD9 announcement - not because of the resolution that the camera was going to output (I think very few people "need" more that 3Mp), but because of the promised unmatched quality of X3 sensor - Imagine, no more demosaicing, no more guessing, moire would be zero, there would be no noise, colors would be fantastic and realistic ... expectations were too high - marketting was tough - Bill Gates was betting his neck on this project ... hey man, I can´t remember all that happened on those days.

I think Sigma disapointed - technology was there but the final product ... the images ... the images from users, not the lab ones ... were average, below average compared to Nikon D100, Canon D60/10D or Fuji S2 Pro (mine, btw). considering the Iso limitation, the only option of raw and a few other things, it was a not very attractive package for professionals and even for advanced amateurs.

I´ve been looking at SD10 and results seem promising - nice image quality, very low noise, some new features ... I really hope SD10 will mark a turning point to Sigma, for the benefict and enjoyment of its users!

Regards and happy shooting,

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!!!

--
Paulo Abreu,

'Buy a FujiFilm S2 Pro TODAY because ONE DAY you will be dead !'
http://www.mcscenter.net/~psergio/index.php

 

[BlackHawk]

The camera then has the possibility to detect color
information at each pixel. This increases the color depth,
but not the resolution.

This not only increases the color depth - it also increases the sharpness.

 

[Just Looking]

Mike, good analysis of different things that one might count as pixels. Your introduction of the term "Sensor Sites" is interesting, but differs from what Phil called a "photosite" when he said "the X3 sensor used in the SD9 would be called '10.3 million photosites'." http://www.dpreview.com/news/0203/02030602foveonx3notation.asp

By the way, have you noticed that Foveon and Sigma have over a year of experience trying to teach people the subtle distinctions about all this? It seems that maybe they're just about giving up and going with the flow in saying "10.2 MP" because it's the only way to keep people from trivializing their message to "3.4 MP". Pathetic.

j

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.

Ok, here's a subtle distinction that Andy doesn't get:
Number of Sensors is NOT the number of Pixels.
Let's define:
MS = Million Sensors
MSS = Million Sensor Sites (actual number of sensor locations --
Sensors like the Foveon and the Fuji SR have multiple sensors in
one site. The Fuji SR does it for dynamic range, whereas the Foveon
uses it for color)
MP = Million Output Pixels

I'm going to make a table here:
Camera Model MS MSS MP
SD9/SD10: 10.5 3.5 3.5
1Ds 11 11 11
1D 4 4 4
D60/10D/300D 6 6 6
S2Pro 6 6 12
Fuji SR Sensor 6 3 6

You decide how much interpolation goes on. Who is advertising
falsely? Fuji SuperCCD? Canon? Sigma? Obviously, some people don't
get the distinction between sensors, sensor sites, and pixels. Phil
Askey does, so you should read his reviews. Fuji makes great
sensors, so do Canon and Foveon.
-Mike

 

[jacques]

Dear Phil,

Your testing is accurate, your interpretations most of the time are very personal coloured.

Well your way of testing is too, very coloured. I bet you don't have a degree in sience, as you realy like to bend a lot of things in the direction of your sometimes preoccupied brain.

Still the best site and tester for digital camera's,

jacques.

 

[jacques]

This is what I realy like.

People telling the bended truth is the truth and especialy as they try to heat up another person,

jacques.

 

[tammons]

I too was looking for more MP, abd maybe some day soon, but in the mean time look at this crop. Taken with a 40 year old Russian (clean) manual lens.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1027&message=6478139

I feel like the realistic resolution of the SD9 compared to a bayer camera is more like 8 or 9 mp and thats after shooting a S2 and a 10D. It is super sharp and definatly a bit sharper than the S2. Most 1ds photos I have seen compared at the same size are slightly sharper.

Bayer cameras, except for the 14N,use a AA filter which softens things up.

Also bayer sensor cameras dont focus directly on the sensor surface, they focus slightly above it which also softens the photo. Microlens sensors might be different, I am not sure.

Just the two items mentioned above soften photos a lot.

I dont mean any of the above as a dig or anything and I also dont agree that it is a 10.2mp camera either but....

It is a 3.4 mp camera that carries 10.2 mp worth of actual color information and that color info of itself means a lot. That combined with the tack sharp non AA sensor is what gives it the incredible detail. I have actually done 40x60 crops, printed and they look great. Try something interesting. Find a tack sharp potrait from the 1DS and the SD9, download SPP and process the file double size to 16 bit tiff. Resize both to match. If you resize to actual print resolution, you need to do it with GF. Print the two out at 11x17, remember this is a crop, so it would be an actual size portion of a 40x60 and stand back about 2-3 feet. I think you will be suprised that 3.4 mp can carry so much detail. Its pretty amazing.

Although I was not going to reply, here it goes my honest opinion
and forgive me Sigma owners if it ofends any - I don´t think so
since I can assure you I am no troll ...

Although one pixel position has 3 sensors (one for each color),
that does little for resolution, if it´s intended to compare it
with a 10Mp sensor ... as it is also true to say that a 6Mp bayer
chip does some guessing for the extra two colors on each pixel site
and "efective" resolution drops! - that´s why a 3.3Mp output image
from a SD9 (interpolated) can be compared to a Canon 10D 6Mp, side
by side. If they decide to put another layer with "Emerald" then it
would be a 13.2 Mp? It would be funny to ask if they put 10 milion
pixels stacked on a single row of 1 pixel, that would be still a
10Mp camera capable of printing a A4 ??? - I can tell a joke, can´t
I ?
I think that most people will agree that SD10 10Mp doesn´t compete
with an equivalent bayer interpolated 10Mp chip in terms of
resolution (like Canon 1Ds as ex), but it would also be unfair to
label SD10 as a 3.3 Mp camera (due to its sensor technology),
knowing how much "megapixel" counts as a selling argument!
I (as I believe almost every digital camera owner) was very
entusiastic about SD9 announcement - not because of the resolution
that the camera was going to output (I think very few people "need"
more that 3Mp), but because of the promised unmatched quality of X3
sensor - Imagine, no more demosaicing, no more guessing, moire
would be zero, there would be no noise, colors would be fantastic
and realistic ... expectations were too high - marketting was tough

• Bill Gates was betting his neck on this project ... hey man, I

can´t remember all that happened on those days.
I think Sigma disapointed - technology was there but the final
product ... the images ... the images from users, not the lab ones
... were average, below average compared to Nikon D100, Canon
D60/10D or Fuji S2 Pro (mine, btw). considering the Iso limitation,
the only option of raw and a few other things, it was a not very
attractive package for professionals and even for advanced amateurs.
I´ve been looking at SD10 and results seem promising - nice image
quality, very low noise, some new features ... I really hope SD10
will mark a turning point to Sigma, for the benefict and enjoyment
of its users!

Regards and happy shooting,

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!!!

--
Paulo Abreu,

'Buy a FujiFilm S2 Pro TODAY because ONE DAY you will be dead !'
http://www.mcscenter.net/~psergio/index.php

 

[jacques]

Only the cour is interpolated, not the detail,

jacques.

 

[Paulo Abreu]

Hi,

Thanks for the link - those samples really look impressive. Well, I did another few searches and I found some really neat, crisp shots from SD9. I still don´t think megapixels are the most important - I can live with 6Mp for eternity, just give me better megapixels ! It looks like many people have proved (including Phil) that the 3.4Mp output of SD9 have enough "quality/image info" to be interpolated to 6Mp and rock ... can that be enlarged to 8Mp? 9Mp?

The concept of filter arrays, multi-layer CCD´s etc, is hard to explain to common people - showing a figure: "10Mp"! is simplier to understand and I am starting to agree, is more in line with SD10 image quality.

Regards,

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1027&message=6478139

I feel like the realistic resolution of the SD9 compared to a bayer
camera is more like 8 or 9 mp and thats after shooting a S2 and a
10D. It is super sharp and definatly a bit sharper than the S2.
Most 1ds photos I have seen compared at the same size are slightly
sharper.

Bayer cameras, except for the 14N,use a AA filter which softens
things up.
Also bayer sensor cameras dont focus directly on the sensor
surface, they focus slightly above it which also softens the photo.
Microlens sensors might be different, I am not sure.

Just the two items mentioned above soften photos a lot.

I dont mean any of the above as a dig or anything and I also dont
agree that it is a 10.2mp camera either but....

It is a 3.4 mp camera that carries 10.2 mp worth of actual color
information and that color info of itself means a lot. That
combined with the tack sharp non AA sensor is what gives it the
incredible detail. I have actually done 40x60 crops, printed and
they look great. Try something interesting. Find a tack sharp
potrait from the 1DS and the SD9, download SPP and process the file
double size to 16 bit tiff. Resize both to match. If you resize to
actual print resolution, you need to do it with GF. Print the two
out at 11x17, remember this is a crop, so it would be an actual
size portion of a 40x60 and stand back about 2-3 feet. I think you
will be suprised that 3.4 mp can carry so much detail. Its pretty
amazing.

Andy and others,

Although I was not going to reply, here it goes my honest opinion
and forgive me Sigma owners if it ofends any - I don´t think so
since I can assure you I am no troll ...

Although one pixel position has 3 sensors (one for each color),
that does little for resolution, if it´s intended to compare it
with a 10Mp sensor ... as it is also true to say that a 6Mp bayer
chip does some guessing for the extra two colors on each pixel site
and "efective" resolution drops! - that´s why a 3.3Mp output image
from a SD9 (interpolated) can be compared to a Canon 10D 6Mp, side
by side. If they decide to put another layer with "Emerald" then it
would be a 13.2 Mp? It would be funny to ask if they put 10 milion
pixels stacked on a single row of 1 pixel, that would be still a
10Mp camera capable of printing a A4 ??? - I can tell a joke, can´t
I ?
I think that most people will agree that SD10 10Mp doesn´t compete
with an equivalent bayer interpolated 10Mp chip in terms of
resolution (like Canon 1Ds as ex), but it would also be unfair to
label SD10 as a 3.3 Mp camera (due to its sensor technology),
knowing how much "megapixel" counts as a selling argument!
I (as I believe almost every digital camera owner) was very
entusiastic about SD9 announcement - not because of the resolution
that the camera was going to output (I think very few people "need"
more that 3Mp), but because of the promised unmatched quality of X3
sensor - Imagine, no more demosaicing, no more guessing, moire
would be zero, there would be no noise, colors would be fantastic
and realistic ... expectations were too high - marketting was tough

• Bill Gates was betting his neck on this project ... hey man, I

can´t remember all that happened on those days.
I think Sigma disapointed - technology was there but the final
product ... the images ... the images from users, not the lab ones
... were average, below average compared to Nikon D100, Canon
D60/10D or Fuji S2 Pro (mine, btw). considering the Iso limitation,
the only option of raw and a few other things, it was a not very
attractive package for professionals and even for advanced amateurs.
I´ve been looking at SD10 and results seem promising - nice image
quality, very low noise, some new features ... I really hope SD10
will mark a turning point to Sigma, for the benefict and enjoyment
of its users!

Regards and happy shooting,

--
Paulo Abreu,

'Buy a FujiFilm S2 Pro TODAY because ONE DAY you will be dead !'
http://www.mcscenter.net/~psergio/index.php

 

[Just Looking]

Joe,

Forgive me, I underestimated your depth. I had not realized that you had refined Mr. Bayer's concept to where you can measure luminance at every site in a Bayer-pattern color filter array, thereby getting as many measurements as you have pixel sensors, and then still get extra information about color out of those same measurements. That means that when your idea comes out, we can expect Bayer cameras to be as sharp per output pixel as the X3 cameras. When get I get one?

j

... Plain and simple. Luminance is an aspect of a pixel.

That's a new piece of definition I hadn't seen yet.

Are you talking pixels in files? Or on sensors? On a Bayer
sensor, doesn't this definition then only have half the count
that's usually given, since a Bayer filer array by definition (from
the original Bayer patent) has luminance sensors at only 50% of the
locations?

Not exactly. Since pure monochromatic light sources (or objects
that reflect monochromatic light) are pretty rare, just about any
color will excite all the cells of a Bayer array to some extent, so
you can theoretically derive luminance from any channel or
combination of channels. Bayer preferred to derive it from green
because tht's the strongest of the colors (highest amplitude
reflections and therefore the best SNR of all the colors) and being
in the middle of the spectrum, generally the sharpest for most
modern lenses. Since a uniformly spaced rectangular array of three
colors means you're going to have twice as many of one color as the
others, why not use green?

The Foveon sensor is actually similar. Red is noisy and blurry. Red
has 1/2 the sensitivity of the other channels (50% of visible light
penetrates deeper than the Foveon cells) and the sensitivity curve
means you need to use a differential gain of about four between the
red and green layers to get a true "red" signal. This means red
ends up 8 times as noisy as green, so it takes a lot of work using
the green and blue signals to fix red noise.

The blur comes from diffusion. Because red photons have to
penetrate deeply into the sensor (about 5um, if memory serves) they
have plenty of room to "drift" across the cell borders and leak
into sdjoining pixels.

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.

Fascinating. I'm sorry I'm impatient and keep bugging you, but I'm
looking forward to that definition of pixel in which each one has a
luminance and all these things don't matter. My mind is too feeble
to conceive it.

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.

Right. Unless you use a different definition. For camera sensors,
the thing counted as a "pixel" traditionally is a thing that Foveon
has re-arranged into the third dimension. Perhaps some definitions
say it can still be counted as a pixel? I haven't finished trying
to survey the definitions, but people seem to have a lot of them.

I wouldn't go with that definition. It will drive the folks who
buld displays crazy, and they predate camera builders.

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

6 million of what? Are half of its output pixels (or whatever you
call them) missing their luminances? Or are you switching
definitions again?

6 million photodiodes at 6 million discrete spatial locations. The
raw output is also 6 million cells, just skewed at a 45 degree
angle relative to a more conventional sensor.

--
Ciao!

Joe

http://www.swissarmyfork.com

 

[tammons]

Its a hard concept to comprehend, that 3.4mp can be that sharp. I really think the consumer bigger is better mentality is stuck on more and more MP but I would bet money that the SD9 will be sharper than the 8mp 828. After shooting a S2 with 12mp files for 8 months I can tell you, you better have a lot of storage and a fast computer, because those files are huge.

Well the net crop was double sized in SPP to 13.7 mp, which is almost up there to 14N resolution.

When Sigma comes out with a 6mp camera, that will about be the limit for me too.

If Sigma came out with a $3000 pro level 6mp camera tomorrow with a nikon and or canon lens mount, they would destroy Nikon and Canon.

Waiting on that one.

I have a bird crop coming up in about 10 minutes. Check it out.

Hi,

Thanks for the link - those samples really look impressive. Well, I
did another few searches and I found some really neat, crisp shots
from SD9. I still don´t think megapixels are the most important - I
can live with 6Mp for eternity, just give me better megapixels ! It
looks like many people have proved (including Phil) that the 3.4Mp
output of SD9 have enough "quality/image info" to be interpolated
to 6Mp and rock ... can that be enlarged to 8Mp? 9Mp?
The concept of filter arrays, multi-layer CCD´s etc, is hard to
explain to common people - showing a figure: "10Mp"! is simplier to
understand and I am starting to agree, is more in line with SD10
image quality.

Regards,

 

[David Hughes]

Thought that this was a pretty good assessment. That it is in the perception of numbers that people react to.... given that, perhaps Sigma should have named the camera the SD1000000 or some large number to give the sense of 'mo is betta.

You know the saying... "it ain't the size of the chip in the fight, it's the size of fight in the chip."

I agree with Roland tho. Am happy as a clam with the Foveon chip. The numbers that concern me more are the hours in the day I have to go shooting.

david

You mean THIS language?
http://www.x3f.info/technotes/x3pixel/pixelpage.html

This is a rather sad story. A new technology that does
it the "right way" have to fight the old technology that
does it "the wrong" way. Unfortunately, customers do
only understand numbers.

So, what do the new technology do? They invent new
ways ouf counting. They even write technically complicated
papers about it to make it more legitimate. They start to
talk about pixel sensors and then (without any problem),
calls the pixel sensors for pixels.

Clever. The only problem is that intelligent people that
understands what it is all about knows that this is all
the emperors new clothes. And the child said - but look
mom, he is all naked. And all understood - they had
been cheated.

Roland

--
http://david.oldcolo.com/gallery/sd9
http://www.pbase.com/sigmasd9

 

[Dominic Groß]

Trolls disguised as bearded men: Aah!

Laurence: Look, I took a lovely photo, and all I said to my wife was: "That Camera is better than 3.5 Megapixel".

Trolls disguised as bearded men: Oooh!

Priest: Blasphemy! He said it again!

Trolls disguised as bearded men: Yeah! Yes! Yes!

Priest: Did you hear him?!

Trolls disguised as bearded men: Yeah! Yes! Yes!

jacques: Really!

Priest: Are there any Trolls here today?

Trolls disguised as bearded men: Uh...ooh...no...

Priest: Very well. By virtue of the authority vested in me...

Rock thrown at Laurence: [Bladonk]

Trolls disguised as bearded men: Ooh...

Laurence: Oh, lay off! We haven't started yet!

Priest: Come on! Who threw that? Who threw that stone? Come on!

Trolls disguised as bearded men: She did! She did! He did! He did! He did!

dimage: Sorry, I thought we'd started.

Priest: Go to the back!

Priest: Always one, isn't there? Now, where were we?

Laurence: Look, I don't think it ought to be blasphemy, just saying "Megapixel"!

Trolls disguised as bearded men: Aiiih! He did!

Priest: You're only making it worse for yourself!

Laurence: Making it worse? How could it be worse? Megapixel, Megapixel, Megapixel!

Women disguised as bearded men: Aiiih!

Priest: I'm warning you! If you say MEGAPIXEL once more...

Rock thrown at Priest: [Bladonk]

Priest: Right! Who threw that?

Laurence: Hehehe...

Priest: Come on! Who threw that?

Trolls disguised as bearded men: She did! She did! She did! Him! Him! Him!

Priest: Was it you?

jacques: Yes.

Priest: Right...

dimage: Well, you did say Megapixel!

Trolls disguised as bearded men: Aiiih!

Rocks thrown at dimage: [Multiple Bladonks]

Priest: Stop! Stop! Will you stop that! Stop it! Now, look! No one is to stone anyone until I blow this whistle! Do you understand? Even, and I want to make this absolutely clear, even if they do say MEGAPIXEL!

Trolls disguised as bearded men: Aiiih!

Rocks thrown at Priest: [Multiple Bladonks]

Priest: Aaargh!

Large boulder crushing Priest: [Bladonk]

--
Regards from Old Europe,

Dominic

http://www.pbase.com/sigmasd9/dominic_gross

 

[Joseph S Wisniewski]

We can only hope that your quotes out of context won't be accepted
by everyone as ending the discussion...

I just didn't want to quote the entire page. You're welcome to do so, and show me an interpretation more valid than mine.

To live is to learn.

--
Ciao!

Joe

http://www.swissarmyfork.com

 

[Just Looking]

We can only hope that your quotes out of context won't be accepted
by everyone as ending the discussion...

I just didn't want to quote the entire page. You're welcome to do
so, and show me an interpretation more valid than mine.

Joe, I was thinking people should form their own interpretations, so I won't give one. But including just a little more context above and below what you quoted does seem to me to change the flavor of it quite a bit:
[open quote]

Pixel is not defined in JCIA GLA03, but we get clues to the intention from paragraphs such as this one:
b) For DSCs that use a plurality of image sensors, the number of
image sensors and the number of effective pixels corresponding
to each image sensor shall be noted. If the total number of
spatially sampled pixels is also noted, the description should
clearly state that the noted number is the total number of
effective pixels corresponding to all of the image sensors, to
avoid consumer misunderstanding.

This rule for three-chip cameras suggests that only pixel sensors on a single chip should be counted, so the "total number of spatially sampled pixels," or total number of photodetectors on an X3 sensor, could be used as the number of effective pixels.

On the other hand, the provided example for a three-chip camera, "Number of Effective Pixels 340k x 3," suggests that the "times 3" notation might also be useful for a camera with a single-chip three-layer sensor. Apparently, the total number of effective pixel sensors could then also be reported, as long as it was not confused.
[close quote]

Well, OK, some interpretation: that page is about as it says in the subtitle, "A discussion of the ambiguous meanings of pixel and megapixel," not a justification for a uniquely correct answer. If I can ever get a clear definition of "pixel" from you, I'd like to compare and contrast it to these, and see what shakes out.

j

 

[Richard Katris]

Give me the lens flexibility and I might buy the sigma!
--
Richard Katris aka Chanan

 

[jeffkrol]

If you have a beam-splitter camera w/ 3 6MP (one for each color) sensors how would you rate the resolving power of the camera? Would you just compare it to any Bayer 6MP camera? surely it would be a better image. You probably wouldn't call it a 18mp camera but you really would like to somehow differentiate it from your normal 6mp cameras.
Also are there really 5 mirrors in a Canon penta-mirror ?

 

[Just Looking]

Peter,

Look at what you claim to be quoting, and look at the page you quote.
"Sigma front page: First 10.2 Million Pixel camera..."
when that page actually counts pixel sensors, not pixels:
"WORLD'S FIRST / 10.2 Million Pixel Sensors / SD9 / Digital"
and it's referring to the SD9 as the world's first, not the SD10.

Why would you lie to us about what the page says? Do you get away with that?

The SD10 advertising may be different, and you're free to argue with either, but don't lie when you quote a source.

j

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

 

[Brett DiMichele]

To please the pixel counters perhaps Foveon should adopt a new revolutionary
name for their revolutionary Sensor.

I suggest the following..

"Foveon 3-CMOS Sensor Technology"
"3.5 Million Pixels X3"

Would that stop the whiners?

 

[Laurence Matson]

Among other things.

What's your case with me? If you and these other guys would scrounge around in there a while, click on a few of those links, and REALLY READ what Foveon wrote, you might not get into all of these arguments.

You mean THIS language?
http://www.x3f.info/technotes/x3pixel/pixelpage.html

Look, JL, there is enough BS around here about this stuff to make Webster blanch and Funk wag-all.

Thank goodness I know nothing about technology.

--
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]

of Martin Luther (the reformer and not the King) or at least his place of contemplation.

Now you know that's what we are here for...the place where those
biggg guys come to take a dump when they need to feel some sense of
security.

--
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)