From: grant kinsley on
On 13 Jun 2005 21:34:36 -0700, george_preddy(a)yahoo.com wrote:

>
>
>grant kinsley wrote:
>> On 13 Jun 2005 19:33:40 -0700, george_preddy(a)yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >KennyJr wrote:
>> >> I've spent the last several days reading up on the foveon image sensor
>> >> and I've got to say that I like the idea. One pixel site reading all
>> >> three colors. It's a good idea with a lot of promise.
>> >>
>> >> I've also spent the last several days looking at pictures from Sigma SD9
>> >> and SD10 cameras. So far I haven't been impressed.
>> >
>> >RAW only. While great for pros, this means amatures have to do what
>> >most aren't capable of doing--delving deeply into the digital domain.
>> >If you understand digital and are comfortable with the most advanced
>> >aspects, you've get stunning results. But there is definitely a time
>> >penalty for the quality increase.
>> >
>> >> I don't know if the
>> >> problem is with the sensor or with the firmware in the camera. Hopefully
>> >> Foveon and/or Sigma will work the bugs out of the technology.
>> >>
>> >> I think once they work the bugs out and start offering lower prices on
>> >> cameras with foveon sensors they'll start cutting into the market now
>> >> dominated by cameras using Bayer sensors. Until that time though I'll
>> >> stick with cameras that use the Bayer sensor.
>> >
>> >Their currently selling for about 1/4th the price of a similar MP count
>> >Bayer DSLR, although they used to be less than 1/10th the cost.
>>
>> a sensel is not a pixel.
>
>Pixel count is meaningless, Bayers upscales all images at least 400%.
>Fujis by 800%.

No, pixel count isn't meaningless, otherwise you wouldn't lie about it
all the time.

upscaling and interpolating are not the same thing. There are 8MP of
data in a 20D image. It is interpolated to produce a full colour
image, but there are 8MP of distinct data.
>
>> I don't think there are any current DSLRs that go down as low as the
>> Sigmas in pixel count, so your statement is ratehr meaningless
>
>13.72MP isn't that common. The Sigmas output 4536 x 3024 pixels images.

No a Sigma is 3.43 MP, everything else is upscaling. There is only
3.43 MP of Data in an SD9/10 image. producing any more MP is only
increased number of duplicate pixels.

GK

From: george_preddy on


JPS(a)no.komm wrote:
> In message <1118723676.491758.184380(a)o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
> george_preddy(a)yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >13.72MP isn't that common. The Sigmas output 4536 x 3024 pixels images.
>
> The Sigma software does; the camera images are only 3.43MP.

Canon's software records 8M pixels from only 2M full color samples,
assembled from purely monochrome photosites. My 1DMkII is a 2MP camera
by Sigma full color optical standard. The SD9 is a 13.72MP camera from
Canon's monochrome interpolated standard.

Did you fall for your scanners advertised INTERPOLATED resolution too?
Savvy digital users know better than to think interpolated = optical
resolutions. You are a Bayer maker's dream customer.

Why didn't you buy a "12MP" (interpolated for 1.5M optical full color
samples) Fuji S2, instead of your lowly 6MP-interpolated (from 1.5M
full color samples) Canon 10D?

From: Randall Ainsworth on
In article <1119185476.161727.307640(a)g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
<george_preddy(a)yahoo.com> wrote:

> Why didn't you buy a "12MP" (interpolated for 1.5M optical full color
> samples) Fuji S2, instead of your lowly 6MP-interpolated (from 1.5M
> full color samples) Canon 10D?

Why did you allegedly buy a 3.42MP kiddie toy?
From: george_preddy on


Randall Ainsworth wrote:
> In article <1119185476.161727.307640(a)g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> <george_preddy(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Why didn't you buy a "12MP" (interpolated for 1.5M optical full color
> > samples) Fuji S2, instead of your lowly 6MP-interpolated (from 1.5M
> > full color samples) Canon 10D?
>
> Why did you allegedly buy a 3.42MP kiddie toy?

What does that make the $10,000, but only 2.76MP (in color) 1Ds?

A ripoff kiddie toy.

From: george_preddy on


Randall Ainsworth wrote:
> In article <1119185476.161727.307640(a)g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> <george_preddy(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Why didn't you buy a "12MP" (interpolated for 1.5M optical full color
> > samples) Fuji S2, instead of your lowly 6MP-interpolated (from 1.5M
> > full color samples) Canon 10D?
>
> Why did you allegedly buy a 3.42MP kiddie toy?

What does that make the $10,000, but only 2.76MP (in color) 1Ds?

A ripoff kiddie toy.