Sigma/Foveon Questions
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: SI Facescape
Next: FF camera with mirrorless design
From: nospam on 17 Apr 2010 15:50 In article <29295e42-9297-4868-bbd6-43ba857791fc(a)u37g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, Bubba <digitalrube(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > red flare is not aliasing, however, the dp1/dp2 series have a red dot > > problem, although the latest versions have minimized it. > > If you're not yanking my chain and are serious when you use the term > "red flare"--which no one on the threads I've started has even > acknowledged exists-- this is the problem to which i refer: <http://www.testiweb.com/images/jpg/digital_cameras/Sigma%20dp1/Jpg%2095 0x%20or%20lower/foveon_flares_2_SDIM0025_950x.jpg> <http://www.testiweb.com/images/jpg/digital_cameras/Sigma%20dp1/Jpg%2095 0x%20or%20lower/foveon_flares_3_SDIM0043_950x.jpg> <http://raist3d.typepad.com/files/sigmanotoksunclouds.jpg> > In a $500-$600 range, is a camera available that will lessen or do > away with red flare without the purchase of additional lenses or > filters? plenty of them. > So if these wacky Sigma cameras have no zoom except digital, but if > their partisans swear by the cameras' sensors' ability to get rid of/ > diminish this flare, that makes me ask Why would these people not want > another P&S camera that *has* optical zoom (or at least the ability to > attach a lens) AND a CMOS sensor. they're delusional.
From: Bubba on 17 Apr 2010 16:14 On Apr 17, 3:50 pm, nospam <nos...(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: > > this is the problem to which i refer: > > <http://www.testiweb.com/images/jpg/digital_cameras/Sigma%20dp1/Jpg%2095 > 0x%20or%20lower/foveon_flares_2_SDIM0025_950x.jpg> > <http://www.testiweb.com/images/jpg/digital_cameras/Sigma%20dp1/Jpg%2095 > 0x%20or%20lower/foveon_flares_3_SDIM0043_950x.jpg> > <http://raist3d.typepad.com/files/sigmanotoksunclouds.jpg> Only the last link works, but I see what you mean. It looks like there are red polka dots in the sun's rays. > > In a $500-$600 range, is a camera available that will lessen or do > > away with red flare without the purchase of additional lenses or > > filters? > > plenty of them. I am familiar only with Canon products and do not understand this Third-Fourths or Fourth-Third thing (if the term refers to CMOS sensors). Canon offered me a "steady-date" discount on new equipment, and I want to get a SX S1. > > So if these wacky Sigma cameras have no zoom except digital, but if > > their partisans swear by the cameras' sensors' ability to get rid of/ > > diminish this flare, that makes me ask Why would these people not want > > another P&S camera that *has* optical zoom (or at least the ability to > > attach a lens) AND a CMOS sensor. > > they're delusional. Is that it? I read a lot of Leica reviews from people who said they paid $800 for a red dot (of another kind). Maybe I should have asked what's the dirt-cheapest point and shoot with a CMOS sensor. Anyway, thanks.
From: Bubba on 17 Apr 2010 17:51 On Apr 17, 4:22 pm, nospam <nos...(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: > > what else could it be, when someone buys a sub-5 megapixel camera that > has noise and other problems and claims it is as good or better than an > 18-24 megapixel camera? The tinyURLs worked, and the examples are stunningly bad. In any event, I was wrong about the term "red flare." It's "red channel flare."
From: Chris Malcolm on 17 Apr 2010 20:32 Ray Fischer <rfischer(a)sonic.net> wrote: > Chris Malcolm <cam(a)holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote: >>Ray Fischer <rfischer(a)sonic.net> wrote: >>> Bubba <digitalrube(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>I don't understand how a sensor can claim 14 pixels, and the photo >>>>itself be 4. >> >>> That's easy - Sigma lies. They pretend that you can take a single >>> pixel and split it up into three colors and have that be three pixels. >> >>They don't lie. It's a different kind of sensor with sufficiently >>different kinds of pixels and properties that the sensor megapixel > They lie. > When you measure the size of the image it produces you see that it is > 4.6 mega pixels. That is the cold, hard fact. No amount of sophisty, > lies, or self-serving bullshit will alter that fact. Of course it doesn't. But I was talking about the image implications of that fact. People are using image MP as a measure of image quality. Different kinds of image sensor technology buy you different amounts of image quality for the same number of pixels. If you look at the two different methods that have to be used in order to translate from sensor pixels to image pixels from the two kinds of sensor technology you'll see there is an inherent difference in luminance resolution, and a larger difference in chrominance resolution. -- Chris Malcolm
From: nospam on 17 Apr 2010 20:40
In article <82v291FugtU1(a)mid.individual.net>, Chris Malcolm <cam(a)holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote: > >>> That's easy - Sigma lies. They pretend that you can take a single > >>> pixel and split it up into three colors and have that be three pixels. > >> > >>They don't lie. It's a different kind of sensor with sufficiently > >>different kinds of pixels and properties that the sensor megapixel > > > They lie. > > > When you measure the size of the image it produces you see that it is > > 4.6 mega pixels. That is the cold, hard fact. No amount of sophisty, > > lies, or self-serving bullshit will alter that fact. > > Of course it doesn't. so you agree they lie. > But I was talking about the image implications > of that fact. People are using image MP as a measure of image > quality. it's a major factor but it's not the only one. > Different kinds of image sensor technology buy you different > amounts of image quality for the same number of pixels. If you look at > the two different methods that have to be used in order to translate > from sensor pixels to image pixels from the two kinds of sensor > technology you'll see there is an inherent difference in luminance > resolution, and a larger difference in chrominance resolution. the luminance resolution is about the same as another 4.6 megapixel sensor (alias artifacts is not resolution, it's false detail) and the eye can't see the extra chroma resolution. however, the point is that the number of pixels is still 4.6 million, no matter what kind of image the sensor produces. |