Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Sigma dSLR

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Sep 29, 2004, 11:53 PM   #71
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 66
Default

Lin Evans wrote:
Quote:
Go to the full sized image and point out an artifact. That's a very vague term unless you refer to stairstep aliasing which is normal for the SD9.
"Artifact" what all thedetail in your leaf picture is riddled with. Constructively, it looks sized/resized/neated/oversharpened to the point where there is little optical left over. The remaining detail is overwhelmed in artifact soup.

The overallimage is beautiful, though I personally don't care much for the bullseye composition.
Quote:
Even in a portrait, it's nice to get sufficient depth of field to get both the dog's eye and nose in focus simultaneously unless your only interest was a portrait of the eye :-)

Lin

If it was a planned portrait, maybe, though f16-19indoors (minus serious studio lighting) wouldn't be an option worth entertaining.You won't see direct-flash instamatic style snapshots from me, sorry, can't bring myself to do it (which is why that shot worked at all, in my opinion).

And the astute observer willnotice that this wasn't a doggie outing at all, note, within the dog picture, the cute little girl wrapped up in a blanket--lower leftreflection of thedog's eye. Her old puppy just happened by, so I shot him. Here's the reason her poordoggie got popped:

http://www.smugmug.com/photos/8990826-O.jpg
http://www.smugmug.com/photos/8990823-O.jpg
http://www.smugmug.com/photos/9169093-O.jpg

Thepoint was,the SD9 capturesit's full 10.3MP of RGB detailin a very artifact resistant,film-like way, not like your artifact prone leaf image which looks sized/resized/neated/oversharpened/and possibly even fractaled to death. Good gravy, leave the poor file alone.

SigmaSD9 is offline  
Old Sep 30, 2004, 12:15 AM   #72
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,139
Default

Quote:
The point was, the SD9 captures it's full 10.3MP of RGB detail in a very artifact resistant, film-like way, not like your artifact prone leaf image which looks sized/resized/neated/oversharpened/and possibly even fractaled to death. Good gravy, leave the poor file alone.
Quote:
(Photoshop'ed to deliver a more acceptable portrait: overall 0.3 gausian blur, selective blur and clones to reduce lots of unflattering detail, vignette)
Let's see, you're telling "me" to leave the file alone after you just posted the above about what you did to the "portrait" - another of your lapses in logic, or just a case of the pot calling the kettle black......??? How does a "sized" image look? Let's see, you seem to have "sized" the one you posted as well... Hmmmm. And how does a "resized" image look and how does it differ from a "sized" image?

So, where's the artifact? Point it out!That's the problem with making vague comments without supporting evidence. What's the big deal? With all the "artifact prone" evidence let's see you point one out.... It should be pretty simple. The problem is that you're not happy with your image so you tinker with it to get what pleases you yet youcriticize other images which don't fit "your" concept of how they "should" look?

You can't have it both ways, although I know you wish you could :-)

Lin



Lin Evans is offline  
Old Sep 30, 2004, 12:46 PM   #73
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 66
Default

Lin Evans wrote:
Quote:
Let's see, you're telling "me" to leave the file alone after you just posted the above about what you did to the "portrait" - another of your lapses in logic, or just a case of the pot calling the kettle black......???
A case of excellent detail vs poor. Your displayed results are poor, sorry. I should think you'd want constructive critism with examplesthat prove the camera can do much better.

And obviously the SD9's brutal full color optical resolution needs to be toned down out of mercy when producing portraits. That doesn't mean a stocking should be a permanent part of a optically superb system.

Quote:
How does a "sized" image look? Let's see, you seem to have "sized" the one you posted as well... Hmmmm. And how does a "resized" image look and how does it differ from a "sized" image?
I postedauto-generated thumbs and linked originals, if you need an explanation as to why we need to stop and back up.
Quote:
So, where's the artifact? Point it out!
Your very pretty leaf image, when viewed full size, is riddled withartifacts. If you can't see it, to me that explains your inclination towards Bayers.


SigmaSD9 is offline  
Old Sep 30, 2004, 2:00 PM   #74
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 66
Default

Hey Lin, its interesting that, as a Sigma shooter, you have no Simga imageslink on your website. But I did find this:

http://208.56.82.71/recent2/bothsidesnow2.jpg

Maybe you'd like to compare that blurry Canon DSLR image (dowsnized, and its still blurry) to a few similar10.3MP SD9's images:

http://photocenter.smugmug.com/photos/8584736-O.jpg
http://photocenter.smugmug.com/photos/8596273-O.jpg
http://photocenter.smugmug.com/photos/8585464-O.jpg

Maybe you could post your full size original for us? Lets see how well Bayer pixels hold up to Foveon full size, the recorded pixel count should be about the same.
SigmaSD9 is offline  
Old Sep 30, 2004, 5:35 PM   #75
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,139
Default

Quote:
A case of excellent detail vs poor. Your displayed results are poor, sorry. I should think you'd want constructive critism with examples that prove the camera can do much better.
Well you're correct about the above - it's definitely a case of excellent detail versus poor, but you've got the results quite reversed. the leaf I postedhas excellent detail and it's "your" displayed results which are conspicuously missing in detail. Except for the eye of the dog, there's not another area which has significant detail visible whether it's because you don't understand depth of field or decided that a proper portriait should only include the eye :-)

Sorry, butthe "riddled with artifacts" is leaf detail. It sounds to me like you've never shot a macro of an Aspen leaf or perhaps never seen one up close and personal.

I'm glad you're proud of your gull shots. But you really shouldn't discuss the clarity because only the head of the first two on your linksare even remotely in focus and you didn't even get the entire gull in the third shot. The gulls from my site which you decided to critique and made incorrect assumptions aboutare 100% crops from a 4 megapixel capture, not downsized in any way and still much sharper in each and every way than the first two you have posted.They weretaken at 728mm effective with a 100-400L IS with 1.4x tele and a 1.3 crop factor sensor.

Don't try to turn this into a Canon versus Sigma issue you will loose.This is a Sigma forum. JustFYI, I have over 30 digital cameras and very few of them are represented on the samples site. And I'm not a "Sigma shooter" - I'm a photographer.Each ofmy cameras aresimply tools to me, not religions, and I choose the one best suited for the task at hand whether it's a 1.5 megapixel bayer, 16 megapixel bayeror SD10.

You're trying very hard to turn this forum into the same mess you made on more than one occassion at dPReview but it's not working.

Lin

Lin Evans is offline  
Old Oct 1, 2004, 5:21 AM   #76
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 66
Default

Lin Evans wrote:
Quote:
Well you're correct about the above - it's definitely a case of excellent detail versus poor, but you've got the results quite reversed. the leaf I posted has excellent detail and it's "your" displayed results which are conspicuously missing in detail. Except for the eye of the dog, there's not another area which has significant detail visible whether it's because you don't understand depth of field or decided that a proper portriait should only include the eye
Your leaf picture at 100%is the most artifact proneSD image I've seen. You still haven't siad if it is posted straight out of camera or not, so I'll assume you've tampered with it.I already explained the quick doggie shot (which isn't riddled with artifacts) and you ignored it.

Since youdecided not to post your full sized Canon gull shot, we'll have no choice but to assume you agree the Sigma images are superior. Any reason that pricey Canon CMOS blew the highlites so badly in your gull shot?
SigmaSD9 is offline  
Old Oct 1, 2004, 9:04 AM   #77
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,139
Default

Quote:
Your leaf picture at 100% is the most artifact prone SD image I've seen. You still haven't siad if it is posted straight out of camera or not, so I'll assume you've tampered with it. I already explained the quick doggie shot (which isn't riddled with artifacts) and you ignored it.
Repeating yourself neither makes your observation correct nor makes "artifacts" where they don't exist. As I said, you are apparently clueless about details of aspen leaves.

Your "quick" doggie shot isn't"riddled" with artifacts any more than my leaf shot is "riddled" with artifacts.With the exception of the eye, it also has zero detail.

Quote:
Since you decided not to post your full sized Canon gull shot, we'll have no choice but to assume you agree the Sigma images are superior. Any reason that pricey Canon CMOS blew the highlites so badly in your gull shot?
Apparently, you are still having problems with the English language since I already informed you that the gull image you refer to "is" - let me repeat that again so you get it this time "is" full sized.

Once again let me remind you this is not a Canon versus Sigma forum, as much as you seem to want to turn it into such.

Just for the record and to help you a bit with your understanding of the meaning of "blown highlights" - the highlights are not "blown" any more in the Canon gull shot thanthe highlights are "blown" in the Sigma gull shot. There is no portion of the Canon gull which has "blown" highlights. White feathers in bright sunlight are very light in hue, but "blown" means by measurement 255,255,255 and no such condition exists.

Now go back to church, get down on your kneesand worship at the Foveon alter and pray for guidance forwhatever gods of sensor superiority you might believe in and perhaps they will help you find some place to spread your gospel. This isn't it. People here are not interested in brand A versus brand B, they are interested in how to make better images with their SD9/SD10. If you can't help with that goal,go peddle your wares elsewhere.

Lin
Lin Evans is offline  
Old Oct 1, 2004, 2:13 PM   #78
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 34
Default

edshropwrote:
Quote:
By the way SigmaSD9 & code I won't be checking back on this thread.
Thanks, edshrop.
code is offline  
Old Oct 1, 2004, 7:35 PM   #79
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 66
Default

Lin Evans wrote:
Quote:
Repeating yourself neither makes your observation correct nor makes "artifacts" where they don't exist. As I said, you are apparently clueless about details of aspen leaves.
Like I said, if you can see that level of artifacting, it explains your inclination towadr Bayers. Anyone can judge for themselves if Aspen leaves are made of oversharpening/upsampling/downsampling artifacts, so enough said.
Quote:
Your "quick" doggie shot isn't "riddled" with artifacts any more than my leaf shot is "riddled" with artifacts. With the exception of the eye, it also has zero detail.
You sound bitter. Are you upset about something?
Quote:
Quote:
Apparently, you are still having problems with the English language since I already informed you that the gull image you refer to "is" - let me repeat that again so you get it this time "is" full sized.
Did you use a 0.3MP camera? I asked you Post the entire image, that means the whole thing with exif. You won't post it becausedoesn't compare well with a 10.3MP camera.
Quote:
Once again let me remind you this is not a Canon versus Sigma forum, as much as you seem to want to turn it into such.
I'm not the one who said Sigma and Foveon are intentionally dishonest. You did. The fact is you are wrong, I've proven so many times its getting old. The SD9 is a 10.3MP camera, a slightly better than 10.3MP Bayer equivalent due to no blur filter, no poor full frame optics, and no orphaned color sensors. But as I pointed out, image quality has nothing to do with MP ratings or P&Ss would all be rated lower than they are. The unfortunate fact of life is, 10.3MP describes the camera whether it has higher, or lower, full color resolution than a 10.3MP blur filtered ditorted full frame glass color-lopsided Bayer DSLR.

Quote:
Just for the record and to help you a bit with your understanding of the meaning of "blown highlights" - the highlights are not "blown" any more in the Canon gull shot thanthe highlights are "blown" in the Sigma gull shot. There is no portion of the Canon gull which has "blown" highlights. White feathers in bright sunlight are very light in hue, but "blown" means by measurement 255,255,255 and no such condition exists.
Open your Canon-biased eyes Lin, the highlites in you gull are blown to solid 255s, it isn't a matter of opinion. Canon CMOS are well known for poor dynamic range w/blown highlights, every honest user (which is all of them) I know admits this is a serious problem with all CMOS models past and present (Phils 1Ds Mk2 samples are blown too). Underexposing is paramountin outdoorSun to avoid what happened to you. Try -1.5EV next time like all good Canon shooters do.
SigmaSD9 is offline  
Old Oct 1, 2004, 8:22 PM   #80
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,139
Default

Quote:
Open your Canon-biased eyes Lin, the highlites in you gull are blown to solid 255s, it isn't a matter of opinion. Canon CMOS are well known for poor dynamic range w/blown highlights, every honest user (which is all of them) I know admits this is a serious problem with all CMOS models past and present (Phils 1Ds Mk2 samples are blown too). Underexposing is paramount in outdoorSun to avoid what happened to you. Try -1.5EV next time like all good Canon shooters do.
Put your crystal ball away and learn a little about photography. You've once again poven you haven't a clue. Obviously you havezero understanding of what "blown" highlights are and I have neither the time nor inclination to teach you.

One more time so you get the point - but of course you won't - this isn't a Canon versus Sigma forum, so take your anti-Canon sentiments and tell someone who cares.

Lin
Lin Evans is offline  
 
Closed Thread


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 9:16 PM.