Am I oversharpening
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: jennifer.wilson2 on 26 Jun 2005 15:40 Bill Funk wrote: > On 19 Jun 2005 05:51:16 -0700, george_preddy(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > > > > > >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. > > So what? That's a good question. So what if the SD-10 has more color and monochrome MPs? Aren't there are cameras with even fewer than 8MP?
From: Bill Funk on 26 Jun 2005 15:52 On 26 Jun 2005 12:40:11 -0700, jennifer.wilson2(a)lycos.com wrote: > > >Bill Funk wrote: >> On 19 Jun 2005 05:51:16 -0700, george_preddy(a)yahoo.com wrote: >> >> > >> > >> >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. >> >> So what? > >That's a good question. So what if the SD-10 has more color and >monochrome MPs? Aren't there are cameras with even fewer than 8MP? Well, let's try that again, without the creative cutting that allows you to redefine what I said... "So what? Sigma claims the SDx are 10.3MP cameras; what do they know? Trying to redefine industry-wide standards to meet the desires of Sigma/Foveon is your best trick, but it's all smoke. Not even mirrors, just smoke. " Are you trying to say that each sensor site in an X3 sensor is a "pixel"? Or, what is it you're trying to say? -- Bill Funk replace "g" with "a"
From: jennifer.wilson2 on 26 Jun 2005 16:23 KennyJr wrote: > In article <1119712736.084304.159520(a)g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, > jennifer.wilson2(a)lycos.com says... > > I did the same thing today and I was extrememly impressed. Such high > > quality reproduction! Digital photography isn't considered ready for > > prime time by most, if not all photography afficionados, but I doubt > > many of them have seen what Foveon has to offer or realize how > > differently their digital technology has developed. > > > > Your easily impressed. Please post some links to these great > Sigma/Foveon images. Here is an SD-10 picture with unbelievable dynamic range. http://www.pbase.com/sigmasd9/image/25617798/original There is nothing harder to capture than intense sunshine illuminating bright white snow next to deep dark shadows. The camera perfectly exposed the details in both conditions inthe same image. It could be a trick photo, I guess. If not, I am sold on Foveon's technical quality. George is right. I haven't seen any digital pictures that compare to them. His Bart alias showed a boat image from a $10000 (MSRP) professional Canon camera that had the benefit of cloudy skies and a plethora of color noise degrading mild shadow. > Amazing how much better the pictures from the > under $200 A510 compared to the $1200 SD10. Pbase's web site let me search by camera. I couldn't find a gallery with original size A510 images but this one shows the difference in dynamic range. More than enough to expose your bad comparision. Few details here and noise in shadow http://www.pbase.com/image/41018560
From: KennyJr on 26 Jun 2005 18:02 In article <1119313998.835779.144880(a)o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>, george_preddy(a)yahoo.com says... > > > KennyJr wrote: > > It seems there aren't any pros out there then, at least none that I've > > seen. I have yet to see a SD9 or SD10 picture with decent color. > > Try looking at one. > > Some? I've looked at hundreds. I've asked you on a number of occasions to post a link to a good Sigma/Foveon image and yet you haven't done so. If there are indeed so many good ones then why haven't you been able to post a link to one? ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
From: KennyJr on 26 Jun 2005 20:03
In article <1119817411.496804.182600(a)z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>, jennifer.wilson2(a)lycos.com says... > > > KennyJr wrote: > > In article <1119712736.084304.159520(a)g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, > > jennifer.wilson2(a)lycos.com says... > > > I did the same thing today and I was extrememly impressed. Such high > > > quality reproduction! Digital photography isn't considered ready for > > > prime time by most, if not all photography afficionados, but I doubt > > > many of them have seen what Foveon has to offer or realize how > > > differently their digital technology has developed. > > > > > > > Your easily impressed. Please post some links to these great > > Sigma/Foveon images. > > Here is an SD-10 picture with unbelievable dynamic range. > http://www.pbase.com/sigmasd9/image/25617798/original There is nothing > harder to capture than intense sunshine illuminating bright white snow > next to deep dark shadows. The camera perfectly exposed the details in > both conditions inthe same image. It could be a trick photo, I guess. > I wouldn't consider that an example of good dynamic range. Most of the image is under exposed. > > Amazing how much better the pictures from the > > under $200 A510 compared to the $1200 SD10. > > Pbase's web site let me search by camera. I couldn't find a gallery > with original size A510 images but this one shows the difference in > dynamic range. More than enough to expose your bad comparision. Few > details here and noise in shadow > http://www.pbase.com/image/41018560 > This definitely isn't an original image. Every image from an A510 includes EXIF data of which this file doesn't have. There is no telling what was done to this image aside from being resized, but one thing is sure, it isn't an image directly from the camera. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |