Improving Digital Photography 401
Milican writes "'It's easy to have a complicated idea," Carver Mead used to tell his students at Caltech. "It's very, very hard to have a simple idea...And now one of Mead's simplest ideas--a digital camera should see color the way the human eye does--is poised to change everything about photography. Its first embodiment is a sensor - called the X3 - that produces images as good as or better than what can be achieved with film.'" We had a previous story about Foveon last February.
Sadly... (Score:2, Insightful)
I've talked to a few people who have used the Foveon Sigma and while they rave about the technology, the can't stand the camera for handling, feature set, etc.
What Mead needs to do is play whatever game Canon/Nikon/Minolta/Olympus wants him to play to get his chip in their cameras. Then it'll really take off.
Re:Pixel Noise (Score:2, Insightful)
The comparisons stink (Score:5, Insightful)
The tech is cool, but the comparison makes it seem like biased reporting.
Diminishing Returns (Score:2, Insightful)
While I'm sure at the professional photography level this is a tremendous advancement, I think to the consumer this is just another step to making their digital photos take up even more space on the memory card/stick/etc.
May not be such a big deal... (Score:5, Insightful)
Second, there is an active discussion of Foveon advantaged/disadvantages on sites like www.dpreview.com and it seems that the general consensus is that it's a promising technology, but needs more work. Yes, it's good in some areas, but the current implementation is lacking in some others.
Third, a sensor is not the only important part in digital photography. Basically, the advantage of Foveon is that its images do not suffer from certain artifacts that the conventions Bayerian sensors have to deal with. That's not such a huge deal.
All in all, a Foveon sensor is technically better, but that doesn't necessarily mean it'll be more successful in the marketplace... So far it's only available on a Sigma platform and no serious photographer is interested in building his photo system out of Sigma cameras and Sigma optics.
Reviews, etc. (Score:3, Insightful)
A good review is at dpreview.com (skip to conclusion [dpreview.com] if you're in a hurry).
This technology still has a way to go, but the SD9 certainly is an interesting camera.
One huge problem is with adaptation - Sigma makes consumer-grade lenses and cameras, some of which are of poor quality (but quite affordable). For these cameras to be adapted by professionals, Sigma need to create a camera with Canon or Nikon mounts, but furthermore, they need to erase the stigma attached to their equipment by many professional photographers.
If they were to make a full-frame sensor in a Canon mount that worked better at higher ISOs, this camera would be a huge seller.
Re:Another solution for the problem... (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, issues with "separate" pixels are how many pixels for what color (usually there are more green pixels than other pixels, for psychovisual reasons), what tiling pattern you put them in, how you combat moire, and how you interpolate/combine the data that you have. No one solution, stacking pixels a'la Foveon, SuperCCD a'la Fuji etc is really better or worse. They each have their drawbacks which resonate far into the firmware and algorithms. Also, there is the issue of sensor type. Currently we have CCD (various types, actually, as any astronomer can tell you), X3 and CMOS, and each is continually being improved. Technical progress with one type may well surpass a theoretically more pleasing design.
Re:Sadly... (Score:1, Insightful)
I bet the major players aren't interested in his technology because they are developing their own.
His idea for a sensor isn't as revolutionary as it seems, I mean EVERY pro camera manufacturer wants a sensor thats 1) the same size as 35mm film (or other common film sizes) and 2) registers the colors of each pixel in the same physical spot. All cameras will be this way someday.
Re:Sadly... (Score:1, Insightful)
Having said that, I don't know why anyone would buy a Sigma body that uses Sigma's own autofocus lens mount. You'd think that they could clone Nikon's mount or something. At least that way users wouldn't be tied into Sigma's len line for everything.
Re:Pixel Noise (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hubble? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Pixel Noise (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Uh-oh, here come the digital bashers. (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't want to star a flame war, but look at resale prices for digital vs. film. Even 20-year-old film cameras can still command a respectable resale value. A 3-year-old digicam is almost considered worthless these days.
Re:It's like the eye because... (Score:2, Insightful)
The problem is the article. It makes a false claim (the fovean works just like the eye) and then makes false statements of quality (the fovean is better than film, bayer is worse than film). This is like saying "the motorcycle is best because it works just like you walk! Motorcycles are better than cars because cars don't work in the same way you walk".
PNG/JNG (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, the statements of some slimy money-grubbers to the contrary, the jpeg compression scheme is patent-unencumbered as well, and the JNG format (one of the PNG family) allows 12 bits per channel per pixel.
See the technical specs on libpng.org [libpng.org] for more details.
Re:Uh-oh, here come the digital bashers. (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, as time goes, digital will overtake low end market too. Last March, I bought 4M pixel digital camera for just $250. Couple of months later, in a party, I used Canon SLR and this camera. I used standard ISO-200 film and developed at local grocery store for films. For digital, I used one of the digital labs which prints for just 14 cents a copy. My judgement is that digital prints are better. Besides, I only got the interesting ones printed. Also, no need to keep track of negatives. That was the last time, I used my SLR.
At the best quality level, film cameras are equivalent to 6-9 mega pixels. At regular quality (ISO-200 print film developed at grocery store), they are close to 2-3 mega pixels. A relatively cheap ($150) digital camera is likely to beat its P/S film counter part.
Anybody who wants to do new $150+ investment in photography, I would seriously advise him/her to consider digital alternative.
Re:Uh-oh, here come the digital bashers. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:May not be such a big deal... (Score:3, Insightful)
Not to mention that the SD9 only shoots RAW files, which you MUST "develop" using the Sigma-provided software in order to convert them to a useable format (i.e. jpeg, tiff, ...) Not only is the software proprietary, but you can't get it if you don't own the camera. And it's also awefully slow (1 minute or so per image) and the batch mode sucks: the exposure of individual images will be set to exposure of the first frame!!!
For the moment, I say no thanks. Great sensor and promising technology but let's give it a couple of years to mature.