For all you digicam folks...your purchases just became obsolete: Welcome X3

JawZ · Post by **JawZ** » Fri Feb 22, 2002 11:46 am

Minir reported on this first but it went relatively unnoticed by the masses...this is revolutionary CCD technology that is shipping today!!! We are talking tripling the CCD pixel count because basically, this new technology is able to have red,blue and gren on one pixel instead of red, blue, gree, being on separate sensors...

So all the peeps that just bought 3 megapixel cameras yesterday...9 megapixel cameras are coming out today...and they require less power to run also...longer battery life and work in extreme low light conditions...

http://www.foveon.net/press_X3_business.html

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0202/02021101foveonx3.asp

https://www.speedguide.net/forums/ ... ght=foveon (Minir reported it first but I didn't make the connection the first time round)

Here is the company making the new camera...

SD9 SLR digital camera made by Sigma Corporation

http://www.sigma-photo.com/

The specs are here:
http://www.sigma-photo.com/Html/news/news_sd9_fs.htm

poptom · Post by **poptom** » Fri Feb 22, 2002 11:56 am

Sigma???????????????????????????????????

JawZ · Post by **JawZ** » Fri Feb 22, 2002 11:57 am

Originally posted by poptom
Sigma???????????????????????????????????

yeah...this is just the first company to do it....they will all be soon so save and wait.

Jim · Post by **Jim** » Fri Feb 22, 2002 11:58 am

I missed Minir's post on it, and while I don't know the specifics, I find 3megapixel (or other) digicams HARDLY "obsolete". These cameras already take damn good pictures at decent resolutions, and the only reason I can see where a 9megapixel camera would even come into play at this stage would be for professionals and people working with the print media. That'll probably change down the road, but for now, I can only see this as a novelty for those who like to play with "big boy toys" like myself.

JawZ · Post by **JawZ** » Fri Feb 22, 2002 12:04 pm

Originally posted by BIGJIMSLATE
I missed Minir's post on it, and while I don't know the specifics, I find 3megapixel (or other) digicams HARDLY "obsolete". These cameras already take damn good pictures at decent resolutions, and the only reason I can see where a 9megapixel camera would even come into play at this stage would be for professionals and people working with the print media. That'll probably change down the road, but for now, I can only see this as a novelty for those who like to play with "big boy toys" like myself.

The point is....for afficianados, $3,000 and the will to buy it will get you a camera that exceeds film...thats right...EXCEEDS film...

look here dude...

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0202/02021 ... review.asp

Gaming-Module · Post by **Gaming-Module** » Fri Feb 22, 2002 12:27 pm

Originally posted by UOD

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0202/02021 ... review.asp

Holy $hit dude. That site has more popups than a warez website.

poptom · Post by **poptom** » Fri Feb 22, 2002 12:30 pm

Originally posted by UOD

yeah...this is just the first company to do it....they will all be soon so save and wait.

Have they ever made a camera before?
Interesting bit of technology and the results are certainly impressive.

JawZ · Post by **JawZ** » Fri Feb 22, 2002 12:30 pm

Originally posted by Macho-Module

Holy $hit dude. That site has more popups than a warez website.

haha...didn't notice as I've opted out of everything so I no longer am bothered by pop ups...and I'm not using any type of pop up killer either. search for my thread on opting out and you'll see what I'm talking about.

JawZ · Post by **JawZ** » Fri Feb 22, 2002 12:31 pm

Originally posted by poptom

Have they ever made a camera before?
Interesting bit of technology and the results are certainly impressive.

yeah...just look at their site dude.

poptom · Post by **poptom** » Fri Feb 22, 2002 12:31 pm

Originally posted by Macho-Module

Holy $hit dude. That site has more popups than a warez website.

I didn't get any.

Jim · Post by **Jim** » Fri Feb 22, 2002 12:35 pm

Originally posted by UOD

The point is....for afficianados, $3,000 and the will to buy it will get you a camera that exceeds film...thats right...EXCEEDS film...

look here dude...

"Exceeds" film is extremely relative, and really is hard to measure. Film's "resolution" is impossible to measure, and even most film effects are done at 4000x4000+ resolutions (and some at slightly lower are very noticeable, such as the first CG shot in T2). Its a little unbalanced to compare light-sensitive silver crystials to CCD chips.

Don't get me wrong, I love digital. In fact, as far as "moving pictures" go, I do prefer working digital instead of on traditional magnetic or film-based mediums. And I am still very much interested in something like this (especially how it'll apply to other technologies), since it could mean something like a HD-capable video camera in a prosumer price range (sub $5k) in a few years. But I just think its a little unfair to compare the two mediums, and wanted to note that its a little much for your average consumer at this time, that's all.

And Macho....I didn't get a single pop-up loading that page, and I'm not using any programs or settings to stop them.

JawZ · Post by **JawZ** » Fri Feb 22, 2002 12:47 pm

By all indications BigJim....you will see your wishes come true and they will be under 5k....

this year!

Jim · Post by **Jim** » Fri Feb 22, 2002 12:52 pm

Originally posted by UOD
By all indications BigJim....you will see your wishes come true and they will be under 5k.... this year!

If a sub-5K video camera using a digital or optical storage medium can do 1080i, or at least 720p and is available for purchase in the US by the end of the year (ie, not just some pipe-dream press release), I'll give you $5. Deal?

Randy · Post by **Randy** » Fri Feb 22, 2002 12:53 pm

cool i am clad i have not purchased an expensive camera(50$)

I bought a cheap disposable camera, got pics developed on cd at walmart for 4$ they turned out pretty good too 1.2mb pics

I would post a pic but need a host that will take 1 mb pics

JawZ · Post by **JawZ** » Fri Feb 22, 2002 1:02 pm

Originally posted by BIGJIMSLATE

If a sub-5K video camera using a digital or optical storage medium can do 1080i, or at least 720p and is available for purchase in the US by the end of the year (ie, not just some pipe-dream press release), I'll give you $5. Deal?

Read what you just said....don't you think that the demand is already there? You bet there is...the consumer market needs this and it will push everything else along with it...from PC's to edit the stuff on to DVD players to play it on to HDTV's for the DVD's to look good on...you name it, I think it will charge the industry...could be wrong but the manufacturing process is the key here.

poptom · Post by **poptom** » Fri Feb 22, 2002 3:57 pm

Film resolution is measured in lines per millimeter. This ccd array works out to just under 55 lpm which makes it comparable to a low resolution film. I don't know what specific film that might be but I believe most are much higher. I'll see what I can find on that.

Jim · Post by **Jim** » Fri Feb 22, 2002 4:39 pm

Originally posted by poptom
Film resolution is measured in lines per millimeter. This ccd array works out to just under 55 lpm which makes it comparable to a low resolution film. I don't know what specific film that might be but I believe most are much higher. I'll see what I can find on that.

That's where you're somewhat wrong. There are no "lines" in film, and like I said, there is no real way to measure the resolution of film. Its just a different medium where the same properties of video or digital apply. Sure, you can estimate the resolution, but you can't actually MEASURE it. You can't measure how many photo-sensitive crystals are in the piece of film, and even if you could, the way they work is far different from how a CCD converts the information to a pixel.

Jim · Post by **Jim** » Fri Feb 22, 2002 4:49 pm

Originally posted by UOD

Read what you just said....don't you think that the demand is already there? You bet there is...the consumer market needs this and it will push everything else along with it...from PC's to edit the stuff on to DVD players to play it on to HDTV's for the DVD's to look good on...you name it, I think it will charge the industry...could be wrong but the manufacturing process is the key here.

Oh sure, the demand is DEFINATELY there. And since the networks and cable providers have been fairly lazy getting on the HDTV train (such as Fox and their cropping of video), many people who have HD capable sets (widescreen or otherwise) are extremely limited on what content can actually take advantage of this format.

BUT, the cost is still extremely expensive AND the technology is still new. To get a HD capable camera in a consumer's hands, you'll need many things. First off, the camera can't be too bulky. Consumers don't want a camera the size of one used on a TV station, although many prosumers will go for it. That'll also imply that the camera is fairly lightweight, which early high-def cams are definately not.

Then, your storage format. Its easy to go digital, but I'm not sure if there are any digital tape formats that'll support something like 720p or 1080i. I believe even Digital Beta tapes are limited to the same old 525 lines of resolution. And you can probably count optical mediums out since the amount of storage space required would be far greater than what even the new "Blu-ray" discs can handle. A 27GB optical disc can only store about 2 hours of regular old DV footage (720x480 for NTSC @ ~3.7MB/sec), and HD will likely take quite a bit more. I don't think there's a standard that's been set yet, but even uncompressed NTSC video (same old 525 lines) signals can go 25MB/sec or more, so even compressed HD will take quite a bit. Few people will go for a format that'll let them record twenty minutes or so on a disc, even if it is highdef.

THEN, you'd need to have computers able to handle it, both for the software and hardware. Prosumer level DV editing boards are expensive enough, I can't imagine what HDTV ones would start out as.

Will it happen? Sure. But there's been too much of a mess with the whole HD thing for a sub $5k HD camera to enter the market before the end of the year.

Besides, if it does, you're $5 richer.

syncmaster · Post by **syncmaster** » Fri Feb 22, 2002 4:59 pm

The truth is that as technology it sounds very promising , but , just because the last weeks I am really getting more and more informed about the digital photography , as tips tricks and limitations , I will say that there is three factors that will probably effect by a negative way , most of the people ,to move forward to the Foveon CCD .

1) The life time of the CCD , plus we do not know anything about hot pixels-dead pixels-stacked pixels ( and generally how the Foveon CCD handles such of common problems for all the others CCDs that we know so far ) .
2) The higher resolution from the Foveon will be less visible in our monitors ,just because our monitors is using 0.28 –0.22 dot pits .
3) The higher resolution from the Foveon will not be that visible even from the bests inkjet printers , as the printers stops to 2400x2400 dpi .

So what this Foveon will bring that we do not have it all ready , the professionals will have some more help in cropping images , and also a bit more sharper images at long distance shots .
Foveon as technology is a great revolution , but in praxis the positive characteristics of it ,will not be able to turn the market upside down .
The high price ,and all the above reasons ,will limit the Foveon CCD from being as one friendly solution for the wide market of digital cameras .
If some one ask me if I like to have a Foveon CCD in my semi professional camera , I will say yes .
Every new technology always have to offer something better , but as I have say and above , the difference in praxis between the Foveon and the CCDs that Olympus uses is not that visible with naked eye .
And in personal level , I do not cry for the price of 910$ US that I have paid for my non Foveon camera

Plus i have a better camera from what Brent haves .

JawZ · Post by **JawZ** » Fri Feb 22, 2002 5:07 pm

Plus i have a better camera from what Brent haves

hehehe

The Foveon CCD is just so far ahead right now that it makes me wonder what it will be like 6-12 months from now.

Any product that has double positives ought to be heavily scrutinized...the Foveon offers better resolutions and LOWER power consumption...that is really astounding...just like the Transmeta Crusoe CPU for Laptops. It's not often that we get a double positive anymore...

I wonder what the downsides are.

poptom · Post by **poptom** » Fri Feb 22, 2002 6:41 pm

Originally posted by BIGJIMSLATE

That's where you're somewhat wrong. There are no "lines" in film, and like I said, there is no real way to measure the resolution of film. Its just a different medium where the same properties of video or digital apply. Sure, you can estimate the resolution, but you can't actually MEASURE it. You can't measure how many photo-sensitive crystals are in the piece of film, and even if you could, the way they work is far different from how a CCD converts the information to a pixel.

Of course there are no lines on film until you put them there by exposing the film to a resolution chart. With film, it's generally referred to as "resolving power", what the film can actually record and it's determined primarily by the size of the silver halide crystals. There is a standard procedure making this measurement.

With a digital medium, the pixel spacing is predetermined. I said 55 lpm but that would only apply if the CCDs are aligned in columns and rows. If they are staggered, the resolution would be twice that number, putting it in a class with a high resolving power film. That would be remarkable. The lens then becomes the limiting factor.

To me, this is getting interesting and exciting. I would love to have a similar electronic module that I could plop into my SLR and use some of the nice lenses I have.

brembo · Post by **brembo** » Fri Feb 22, 2002 6:49 pm

One area the higher resolution CCD is gonna help is the digital zoom. The better reso will mean that the digital zoom will be able to reach out farther, and not see bad losses. I'd be willing to bet that the geometry of the setup will NOT mean 3x better digital zoom, espically when optics are fugured in. Although now thinkin a bit more about it, it could very well mean that say 10x digital a 3.3 megalpixel CCD would gather 1/3 the info of the newer CCD. Yeah, makes sense. Damn, gonna have some sick zooms on these new ones. With the image stabilization setup, you could do some really cool crap. Can't wait for Sony to get thier hands on this setup.

poptom · Post by **poptom** » Fri Feb 22, 2002 7:07 pm

Yep. With something like this, digital zoom starts to make sense.

syncmaster · Post by **syncmaster** » Fri Feb 22, 2002 7:56 pm

Ok happy campers i will blow your happines away , if you consider that :

My Olympus C2100 with the 10X optical zoom , in coperation with the digital zoom like 3X it can easely blow away , any 3X optical zoom camera even with 10X digital zoom .
The Foveon will not make any diference ,in comparison with my Olympus , but i will do in comparison with less powerful in optical zoom cameras .
Oh no , i am not taking all this too personal or something , but i can compare only with what i all ready have .

Ok now the truth is that the Foveon will not used in to low cost cameras , so even if you all have right ,in praxis your theorys will stay only as theorys for the next 5 years minimum .
But yes i will say that your theorys does have a correct base .

brembo · Post by **brembo** » Fri Feb 22, 2002 8:10 pm

Originally posted by syncmaster
Ok happy campers i will blow your happines away , if you consider that :

My Olympus C2100 with the 10X optical zoom , in coperation with the digital zoom like 3X it can easely blow away , any 3X optical zoom camera even with 10X digital zoom .
The Foveon will not make any diference ,in comparison with my Olympus , but i will do in comparison with less powerful in optical zoom cameras .
Oh no , i am not taking all this too personal or something , but i can compare only with what i all ready have .

Ok now the truth is that the Foveon will not used in to low cost cameras , so even if you all have right ,in praxis your theorys will stay only as theorys for the next 5 years minimum .
But yes i will say that your theorys does have a correct base .

What I'm sayin Sync, is that the 3x CCD will let the digital bit reach out even farther than the current crop of digital zooms, with MUCH less loss of resolution. Imagine yer 10x optical enhanced by a CCD that can grab 3x more. It will benfit the optical, and make the digital that much more potent. A camera with the ability to go 10x optical and 10x optical with PHOTOGRAPHIC quality possible. My Sony has a 3x optic and 6x digital capability. I guess Sony linited that so people would not end up with crappy lookin 6x prints, now with 3x that, the digital bit reaches out farther, I'm guessin 18x at that point with no loss of quality.

Keep in mind when ya zoom, it makes the aperture smaller, so the available "pixels" are cut down, so packin in 3x that will offer greater detail. Man its gonna be a horse race to make pocket size telephoto cameras now. We are sittin pretty as consumers.

syncmaster · Post by **syncmaster** » Fri Feb 22, 2002 8:58 pm

Originally posted by brembo
Keep in mind when ya zoom, it makes the aperture smaller, so the available "pixels" are cut down.

Nop they do not cut down ,simple because the amount of pixels is always the same in the CCD ,and the resolution is at 1600x1200 .

You have some right about the possibilities of Foveon ,after all this is the reason that we talk about it .
But do not get confused in the area of the pixels and the aperture sizes .
The current superiority of all the 10X optical zoom , is that they lower down the physical distance with out to loose anything from the detail .
Yes i will repeat that the Foveon will offer some gain in the digital zoom , but it can easily loose the battle if the extra tele converters is used on the common CCDs cameras .
Now we are getting in to another issue , like value for money .
Is it worth having a camera with Foveon and some digital zoom better abilities or one common CCD based camera with a good quality tele converter with x1.7 zoom or more .
In my camera the best tele converter like the B300 cost only 200 $ US .
We will have to wait and see how all are speculations will turn over ..

syncmaster · Post by **syncmaster** » Sat Feb 23, 2002 7:03 am

Originally posted by syncmaster
Is it worth having a camera with Foveon and some digital zoom better abilities or one common CCD based camera with a good quality tele converter with x1.7 zoom or more .
In my camera the best tele converter like the B300 cost only 200 $ US .
We will have to wait and see how all are speculations will turn over ..

I will happily debate with any one about the above question ..

TonyT · Post by **TonyT** » Sat Feb 23, 2002 10:42 am

I would love to play around with that camera!

But just to clarify what is meant by "as good as film camera" :

A quality camera such as a Leica or Hasselblad, using 2x2 film, at 100 ISA or better.......the equivilant image quality in digital would be approx 5 times greater than the Sigma. That would be about 45 milion pixels.

But the Sigma would be a better quality image than a cheapo disposable camera with a plastic lens and cheap 400 or 800 film.

The determining factor in image quality has more to do with film developing and for digital cams it has more to do with the quality of paper and printer.

Don't forget that a full quality image taken with that Sigma is useless for comparison because there are few printers out there that could render the image at it's full quality. At least there are few printers that are affordable.

JawZ · Post by **JawZ** » Sat Feb 23, 2002 10:54 am

Originally posted by syncmaster

I will happily debate with any one about the above question ..

I can't debate you because I don't exactly know how this Foveon chip will change things.

We all agree right now that digital zoom is a distortion...all that is being done is a mathematical enlargement of each pixel...that's why we get the blocky effect correct?

I would venture to say that optical zoom will ALWAYS be better. It's a magnification BEFORE the image is represented on the specific medium.

Good optics and light can be your best friends.

I would also say that the Foveon MAY give optics a run for their money because we have never before seen what a digital zoom can do when RGB color is on each pixel...it must relate to lower distortions but it is still a representation of the original so it can't be perfect.

IMHO...OPTICAL zoom will always win.

syncmaster · Post by **syncmaster** » Sat Feb 23, 2002 11:54 am

This is some words from others in one photography forum :

Here is another take on the Foveon chip. All these comments about "breathtaking", "who cares about other cameras now" "All cameras obsolete" and that sort after the Foveon announcement, here is another perspective.

I think that the Foveon chip will be forever chasing the Mosaic chips. Just like solid state storage can't catch rotating magnetic media. Everyone agrees that solid state storage is technically better, but why don't we all have flash drives in our computers? Because of the cost. By the time (today) that 256MB flash disks are cheap enough to use, magnetic storage is up to 60GB.

The same situation exists with the Foveon chip. Keep in mind a couple of things.

1) OK, yes, the matrix chip is interpolated. It's resolution is less than the native resolution of the chip. However, it isn't that bad, in real world tests mosaic chips get about 80% of their native resolutions.

2) The same situation for color. Yes, the color is interpolated. But, the human eye isn't that sensitive to color information, can it really see the difference between the Foveon and matrix interpolation? What about the situation where you are comparing a 6MP interpolated matrix chip to a 3MP Foveon chip? I'll bet that the Matrix chip still wins.

3) The Foveon chip (is rumored to) cost more to make.

4) There is apparently light loss in the Foveon chip too. Note that the Blue sites are smaller than the Green sites and are smaller than the Red sites. They aren't using all the chip area for detectors for some colors. Note that the Foveon can't match the ISO of the matrix chips.

So the Foveon chip is forever going to be chasing higher resolution matrix chips. Today it is the 3MP Foveon vs. the 6MP matrix chips. Which would you rather have in your camera today? The higher resolution 6MP matrix chip or the lower resolution Foveon? And, if chip size finally peaks out (say at 20MP) (due to cost and diffraction and the limitations of Silicon), then the Matrix chip will still be cheaper to make, and will you be able to see any difference on such a large image?

Yeah, pixel for pixel the Foveon chip has slightly better resolution and color information. But the Foveon is always going to be stacked against higher count mosaic chips due to the cost; it can't catch up.

Bryan

For some more opinions follow the link .
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1018&message=2244175

UOD : Can i keep my camera now