Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Mar 31, 2004, 3:13 PM   #11
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 48
Default

here's a site to learn more on the polaroid camera.


http://www.dpreview.com/news/0402/04...laroidx530.asp
lodingi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 31, 2004, 5:39 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 205
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lodingi
here's a site to learn more on the polaroid camera.


http://www.dpreview.com/news/0402/04...laroidx530.asp
At the link to foveon about the sensor used in this camera, they quoted:

Quote:
The Foveon FO18-50-F19 is a 1/1.8-inch CMOS direct image sensor that incorporates breakthrough Foveon X3 technology. Foveon X3 direct image sensors capture full-measured color images through a unique stacked pixel sensor design. By capturing full-measured color images, the need for color interpolation and artifact-reducing blur filters is eliminated.
It is disappointing too me that they are not using an anti-alias filter on this product. I look forward to seeing controlled tess of this camera when it is avaiable; i expect to see many aliasing problems when the images up upsampled to 8x10, for example.

-Chris
WmAx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 1, 2004, 12:00 PM   #13
DBB
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,483
Default

Hi Chris

[quote="WmAx"]
Quote:
Ok, if I zoom in on that image and some point I start to see "noise." Mind you I'm talking perfect focus, light etc.

This will not occur with a Foveon sensor.
This does not make any sense. Could you please provide a controlled example?

I downloaded Foveon samples from DPREVIEW and comnpared them to images that I took with my D1x using a 5omm Nikon lens


Quote:
Naturally at some point zooming in on that "perfect Foveon image results in a loss of detail - blur if you will, but not noise. I'm using the word "noise" in a different sense then the way we normally use the expression.
Well, noise is defined as an unwanted signal. In the case of digital cameras, it is a result primarily of thermal noise. What is your defnintion? Examples?

Ok, take any of your perfect bayer images and zoom in on it, you''ll see exactly what I mean. I also have to apologise if I sound like a rocket scientist; I'm not - I am however a professional - The noise I'm referring to is the breakdown of the image at high enough magnification - This is a test you can run yourself. Without being technically minded I would guess that this is a result of the inherent interpolations of a bayer chip. The foveon images maintained their integrity without this kind of "noise" until the resolution became inadaquite

Quote:
In practice this means that you can interpolate a Foveon image up further then a bayer pattern sensor.
I have yet to see this demonstrated. Phil Askey recently took this to task in his SD10 review. The Fovewon images were approximately the same as a 10D, in controlled situations, both cameras having 'perfect' light, focus, etc. The Foveon images had some aliasing problems tht did become slightly apparent when upsizing cmopared to the 10D.

I print my own images. I can see what I'm talking about in the output - Still, I don't own a foveon camera - But I'll stand by my experiments which you can easily dupilicate on a home printer. Make a very small crop and blow it up about twenty times....

Quote:
I then as an experiment cripped and printed similar images form the Bayer and Foveon and the Foveon were noticably better.
One problem is that you are comparing a consumer class bayer 5mp, it seems. Noise will be higher from this camera then from the SD9. Use a DSLR to compare, and then you need controlled situation shots, not general/random shots if you need accurate results.

See above

Quote:
Even the SD-9 is useless to me because I need a high ISO for my work.
YOu should check out the SD-10. It has much imporoved high ISO performance over the SD-9.

The SD 10 is much better then the 9 - But from all I've read - Not good enough - While I am hoping that Nikon releases the D2x soon, if I don't hear anything soon I'm springing for the 1Ds - I need the higher resolving power.

Most of my shoots are action pictures of wildlife. The D1x barely allows me to get by - The Foveons, either one, would work if resolving power was the only question - But at high ISO's they are simply not in the same ballpark. I need a ninumum of an an ISO of 500 - The D1x doesn't become unacceptable for my work at that ISO - After that noise becomes to much of a problem.

Dave
DBB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 1, 2004, 12:59 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 205
Default

Quote:
I downloaded Foveon samples from DPREVIEW and comnpared them to images that I took with my D1x using a 5omm Nikon lens
For a useful comparision, a controlled test is required to get accurate results: controlled lighting, exposure, etc. for each camera. This is why dpreview SD10 test has some very useful data(the 10D vs. SD10 shots and resolutoin target shots).


Quote:
Ok, take any of your perfect bayer images and zoom in on it, you''ll see exactly what I mean.
I don't know what you mean, sorry. You would need to take a crop of each and magnify, then show me exactly what you mean.

Quote:
The noise I'm referring to is the breakdown of the image at high enough magnification - This is a test you can run yourself
.

I will need an example to illustate. I don't know what you are referring too, exactly.

Quote:
The foveon images maintained their integrity without this kind of "noise" until the resolution became inadaquite
Example, please. I am interested in seeing what you are referring to as "noise".


Quote:
if I don't hear anything soon I'm springing for the 1Ds - I need the higher resolving power.

Most of my shoots are action pictures of wildlife. The D1x barely allows me to get by - The Foveons, either one, would work if resolving power was the only question - But at high ISO's they are simply not in the same ballpark. I need a ninumum of an an ISO of 500 - The D1x doesn't become unacceptable for my work at that ISO - After that noise becomes to much of a problem.
Dave[/quote]

The Fuji S2 offers a good resolution jump(when shot RAw, using FUJI EX convertor to process) over standard 6MP DSLRS, as well as the lowest noise levels at high ISO. However, I imagine the N80 body limitations are not suitable for your use(s). I dno't understand your comment about resolution being adequate on th Foveons. They will not outresolve a conventinal 6MP DSLR such as the Canon 10D, etc according to carefully controlled tests. Considering the Canon 1DS, I'm not sure if this would provide any resolution benefit for you. If you are normally using the longest length telephoto lenses, the DSLRs such as teh D1x, 10d, etc. have the advantage of the 1.5-1.6 crop factor. A 400mm lens has effective 640mm magnification on a Canon 10D. On the 1ds, it is full frame, therfor it will be a true 400mm magnfication from a FOV perspective. This means hauling an evern larger lens to make up for the difference, or using a teleconvertor which could only degreade the effective resolution(which makes the point of getting a 1ds for resolution illogical).

-Chris
WmAx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 2, 2004, 11:08 AM   #15
DBB
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,483
Default

Hi Chris


Quote:
if I don't hear anything soon I'm springing for the 1Ds - I need the higher resolving power.

Most of my shoots are action pictures of wildlife. The D1x barely allows me to get by - The Foveons, either one, would work if resolving power was the only question - But at high ISO's they are simply not in the same ballpark. I need a ninumum of an an ISO of 500 - The D1x doesn't become unacceptable for my work at that ISO - After that noise becomes to much of a problem.
Dave[/quote]

The Fuji S2 offers a good resolution jump(when shot RAw, using FUJI EX convertor to process) over standard 6MP DSLRS, as well as the lowest noise levels at high ISO. However, I imagine the N80 body limitations are not suitable for your use(s).

Your comments, and I apologise in advance if this seems offensive, an ignorance of the S2. It's a fine camera but it achieves its higher resoultion by using interpolation. I can interpolate iin Photoshop, I don't need a camera to do it. The future S3 looks promising although I don't understand what their propaganda means by different types of receptors.



I dno't understand your comment about resolution being adequate on th Foveons. They will not outresolve a conventinal 6MP DSLR such as the Canon 10D, etc according to carefully controlled tests.

As I said the primary problem for my use is ISO, neither Sigma shoots without signifigant noise at ISO's above 400.


Considering the Canon 1DS, I'm not sure if this would provide any resolution benefit for you. If you are normally using the longest length telephoto lenses, the DSLRs such as teh D1x, 10d, etc. have the advantage of the 1.5-1.6 crop factor. A 400mm lens has effective 640mm magnification on a Canon 10D. On the 1ds, it is full frame, therfor it will be a true 400mm magnfication from a FOV perspective. This means hauling an evern larger lens to make up for the difference, or using a teleconvertor which could only degreade the effective resolution(which makes the point of getting a 1ds for resolution illogical).

Your understanding of the crop factor is unclear. The crop factor is exactly what it says it is - There is an increased number of pixels on the target - This is true, but there is actually no increase in magnification. It helps quite a bit and certainly an 11 meg camera with a crop factor would be better for my use then a full frame sensor.

That being said the 1Ds has impresive resolution approaching medium format.

Let me explain it this way. My Nikon (and let me pause and say the D1x is a superb wonderful camera) when I look through the lens doesn't magnify ANYTHING - I am no closer to my target with the Nikon then a full frame sensor. What is happening is the the captured image is a "crop" of what a full frame sensor would see. In practive this means more pixels on the target then the same amount of a full frame sensor. This is fine. The 1Ds will provide about a 50 to 60 percent increase in resolving power for the same shot.

To put it another way - There is no real telephoto effect although there is an increased number of pixels. So the 1Dx is equivalent to a 7.5 meg full frame. All thiings being equal.

As for your remarks about the Foveon.

Please try my experiment. Crop an image to about one twentieth of its size and crop a bayer pattern image the same way. Blow up both nimages about twenty times. You can both see the difference on screen and you can print the difference on your home printer.

Dave

Dave
DBB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 2, 2004, 12:29 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 205
Default

Quote:
Your comments, and I apologise in advance if this seems offensive, an ignorance of the S2. It's a fine camera but it achieves its higher resoultion by using interpolation. I can interpolate iin Photoshop, I don't need a camera to do it.
No worry, I have thick skin. :-)

However, your comment is understandable. It's jsut not accurate. The Fuji SCCD system interpolates becuase it has to in order to realign the diagnon sensor grid to a 0 degree format without resolution loss. The S2 measures higher then any other 6MP DSLR. The S2 produces higher resolution 'real'' images compared to any other 6MP DSLR. This has been shown again and again in controlled comparisions. Here is a shot from the D100 and FS2, using the same prime lens at the same place and time(D100 image was interpolated in Photoshop to 12MP size of S2 file for easy comparison):




Quote:
Your understanding of the crop factor is unclear. The crop factor is exactly what it says it is - There is an increased number of pixels on the target - This is true, but there is actually no increase in magnification. It helps quite a bit and certainly an 11 meg camera with a crop factor would be better for my use then a full frame sensor.
My understanding is clear. The crop factor=your feild of view. The resolution of any given sensor can ONLY be related in an equal FOV comparison. Just like the tiny sensor on prosumer camera can get a 200mm FOV with a 50mm lens due to the crop factor. This must be a consideration, especially since you are concerned with final resolution. It won't do you any good if you have to crop away 50 percent of your frame on the 1DS shot to equal the FOV you would get with a crop factor, which cnocentrates the full resolution of the chip in this crop area.

Quote:
That being said the 1Ds has impresive resolution approaching medium format.
I agree.


Quote:
Please try my experiment. Crop an image to about one twentieth of its size and crop a bayer pattern image the same way. Blow up both nimages about twenty times. You can both see the difference on screen and you can print the difference on your home printer.
I have performed plenty of related experiments. YOu would need to actually demonstrate what you are referring too.

-Chris
WmAx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 3, 2004, 10:25 AM   #17
DBB
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,483
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WmAx
Quote:
Your comments, and I apologise in advance if this seems offensive, an ignorance of the S2. It's a fine camera but it achieves its higher resoultion by using interpolation. I can interpolate iin Photoshop, I don't need a camera to do it.
No worry, I have thick skin. :-)

However, your comment is understandable. It's jsut not accurate. The Fuji SCCD system interpolates becuase it has to in order to realign the diagnon sensor grid to a 0 degree format without resolution loss. The S2 measures higher then any other 6MP DSLR. The S2 produces higher resolution 'real'' images compared to any other 6MP DSLR. This has been shown again and again in controlled comparisions. Here is a shot from the D100 and FS2, using the same prime lens at the same place and time(D100 image was interpolated in Photoshop to 12MP size of S2 file for easy comparison):

You misunderstand. As I said the Fuji is a fine camera but it is being sold as a 12 meg camera - It achieves this through interpolation. It may very well be better then other 6 Meg cameras - That is besides the point.


Quote:
Your understanding of the crop factor is unclear. The crop factor is exactly what it says it is - There is an increased number of pixels on the target - This is true, but there is actually no increase in magnification. It helps quite a bit and certainly an 11 meg camera with a crop factor would be better for my use then a full frame sensor.
My understanding is clear. The crop factor=your feild of view. The resolution of any given sensor can ONLY be related in an equal FOV comparison. Just like the tiny sensor on prosumer camera can get a 200mm FOV with a 50mm lens due to the crop factor. This must be a consideration, especially since you are concerned with final resolution. It won't do you any good if you have to crop away 50 percent of your frame on the 1DS shot to equal the FOV you would get with a crop factor, which cnocentrates the full resolution of the chip in this crop area.

Perhaps I should explain this in another way. Implied in your statement is that the crop factor is the actual quivalent of an increase in mm - Which is to say that looking at an image brings you just as close with a 1.5 Crop factor at 50 mm as a 1.0 lens at 75 mm. This is simply not true. The ability of the eye or the lens to resolve detail is NOT increqased by the crop factor. I am no "closer" to my target with the D1x then the 1Ds. What the crop factor does do is put more pixels on the target but if the target is to far away you are putting more pixels on a blur as opposed to actually being closer.

In a sense this is academic since I will be using the same mm lens and spotting scopes on either camera. However - In comparing the two cameras we see that the 1Ds will put more pixels on my target, larger frame or no. The amount will be at least 55 percent more pixels, actually because of other factors the increase is greater. I would much rather wait for the next Nikon, but time is of the essense here because of a book deal.

Capish?

As for the Foveon, apparently we can agree to disagree. However on another board all those who tried my experiment admitted that I was correct.

Dave

Quote:
That being said the 1Ds has impresive resolution approaching medium format.
I agree.


Quote:
Please try my experiment. Crop an image to about one twentieth of its size and crop a bayer pattern image the same way. Blow up both nimages about twenty times. You can both see the difference on screen and you can print the difference on your home printer.
I have performed plenty of related experiments. YOu would need to actually demonstrate what you are referring too.

My little experiment is an attempt to demonstrate my point.
-Chris
Dave
DBB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 3, 2004, 10:55 AM   #18
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 205
Default

Quote:
You misunderstand. As I said the Fuji is a fine camera but it is being sold as a 12 meg camera - It achieves this through interpolation. It may very well be better then other 6 Meg cameras - That is besides the point.
I may have missed the part where they advertised it as a 12MP camera. Do you have a link where Fuji claims it is a 12MP camera?

Quote:
Perhaps I should explain this in another way. Implied in your statement is that the crop factor is the actual quivalent of an increase in mm - Which is to say that looking at an image brings you just as close with a 1.5 Crop factor at 50 mm as a 1.0 lens at 75 mm. This is simply not true. The ability of the eye or the lens to resolve detail is NOT increqased by the crop factor
.

The arguement on my side is puretly theoretical. In my model, it is assumed the lens MTF is adequate not to cause degradation. IN that case, the effective magnfication is effective. If comprehensive MTF plots of y our lenses exist, you can mathematically predict whether the lens at issue will resolve the realtive crop to it's potential.

Quote:
In a sense this is academic since I will be using the same mm lens and spotting scopes on either camera. However - In comparing the two cameras we see that the 1Ds will put more pixels on my target, larger frame or no. The amount will be at least 55 percent more pixels, actually because of other factors the increase is greater. I would much rather wait for the next Nikon, but time is of the essense here because of a book deal.
See my above reply, concerning MTF.

Quote:
As for the Foveon, apparently we can agree to disagree. However on another board all those who tried my experiment admitted that I was correct.
I am not interested in the admissions of people. But, it should be easy for you to provide an example illustrating your point, right?

-Chris
WmAx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 3, 2004, 9:19 PM   #19
DBB
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,483
Default

Hi Chris

1. When the Fuji first came out it was billed by Fuji as a 12 meg camera. They dropped that from their propaganda. It's an irrelevant questio9n at best. While it may very well be a better camera then the D1x (and actuallly I don't belive that) the amount of "improvement" is minimal at best.

2. Having spent a day with a 1Ds, it would be adaquite for my needs. The increase in resolving power is impressive - as I said near medium format. It can also handle the high ISO's that I need. So in this sense I am speaking from direct experience. While I have many, many shots that will knock anyone socks off, I always compare my images to the best I've seen and the Nikon (but not the Canon) simply can't match those images that I occasionally run across.

I have a large investment in Nikon lenses - Well, the Nikon will be a wonderful second camera to increase the aches and groans of my mucles when I come home. Right now I carry a little Olympus around and while its pictures, to show the landscape are just peachy, the Nikon would be far more like it.

I've made it a habit not to change lenses on a beach...

Now as for providing you with an example. I have no net site. The site that I'm on is for my digital art and I cannot just go in and change images - It's not my site - You can look at it, all the images were taken with a Nikon - but they are not wildlife images.

So the only example I can post is my little test, so carefully worked out and dismissed with such contempt

And finally, I KNOW that the bums at Nikon will release the D2x the day after I buy the 1Ds. This causes me to hesitate...

This of course if the great delemma - Your equipment beccomes obsolte the day you buy it. I know this - And darn I have all this Nikon glass...

I really commited to Nikon and of course FUji and Kodak use Nikon glass. The Kodak of course is out of the question. SO I'm going to putn off buying my next camera as long as posible.

Dave
DBB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 3, 2004, 10:00 PM   #20
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 205
Default

Quote:
1. When the Fuji first came out it was billed by Fuji as a 12 meg camera. They dropped that from their propaganda.
Okay. I guess I missed this, if it happened.


Quote:
Now as for providing you with an example. I have no net site. The site that I'm on is for my digital art and I cannot just go in and change images - It's not my site - You can look at it, all the images were taken with a Nikon - but they are not wildlife images.
I would be glad to host any images for you for the purpose of comprisions. If you email me, I will provide you with a ftp/http account to which you can upload as many full resolution images(if you have broadband, of course), if you wish.

[email protected]

Quote:
And finally, I KNOW that the bums at Nikon will release the D2x the day after I buy the 1Ds. This causes me to hesitate...
Yes, nothing quite like that feelilng,is their?

Quote:
This of course if the great delemma - Your equipment beccomes obsolte the day you buy it. I know this - And darn I have all this Nikon glass...
At least their is ebay... but be optimistic. Maybe that DX2 will shop up in the 'nick of time.

Quote:
I really commited to Nikon and of course FUji and Kodak use Nikon glass. The Kodak of course is out of the question. SO I'm going to putn off buying my next camera as long as posible.
I know it's not worth anything; but I wish the you the best of luck in your endeavor(s).

-Chris
WmAx is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 7:41 AM.