Digital BW, The Print

> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Austin Franklin"
> <darkroom@i...> wrote:
> > They're not really comparable cameras, from what I understand of the
> > resolution as well as the physical sensor size of the Foveon chip
> in the
> > released camera.
> >
> > Austin
> >
> >
> > >
> > > For the price difference between the two cameras I think perhaps
> > > one could
> > > afford a Sigma lens or two?
> > >
> > > Karen
> > >
> > > In a message dated 10/6/02 12:58:24 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
> > > jjlphoto@y... writes:
> > >
> > > > Who's got Sigma lenses laying around? That's the only camera
> with this
> > > > Foveon chip.
> > >
> > > > Probably a better bet to get the new Kodak 14n wich uses all
> the Nikon
> > > > lenses.
>
> As one of only a few hundred owners of the orignal Foveon 3-chip
> prism camera, I disagree.

Hi Claude,

> As Technical Editor for Professional Photographer Mag., I have tested
> all digital cameras on the market, including the MF Backs.

I don't know that the Foveon you mention is really "on the market", is it?

> In terms of color fidelity, NOTHING touches the my Foveon.

The term "fidelity" is a very amorphous term.  Would you please define
EXACTLY what you mean by it?  There is quite a bit of misunderstanding about
what that term really means, and it has absolutely nothing to do with
"looking good".

> In terms
> of resolution, the Anti Alisaing filters fuzzy up the image by at
> least one pixel to reduce the dreaded moire/Xmas tree lights effect
> of Bayer filters.

Yes, MOST, but NOT ALL, Bayer pattern sensors use an anti-aliasing filter.
The new Kodak and Canon I believe do not.

> ALL monochip cameras are using flawed technology.

What is flawed about "monochip camera" technology?  Please, don't make such
statements without explaining, in technical detail, EXACTLY what you mean.

> With my large formater printer (Epson 9500) and various large digital
> output devices I have proven to the naysayers that you have to go "4
> wide" in order to equal "3 depp."

I have no idea what you are trying to say here...but I assure you, I am not
a "naysayer", but a realist who has been designing and developing digital
imaging equipment for 25 years, and don't like hearing the marketing puffery
that expounds in the digital imaging arena.

> IOW, a Foveon camera with three 2k x 2k chips (12 Megapixels) putting
> out a camera interpolated 48 Megabyte file...

2k x 2k is 4M, x 3 chips is 12M SENSORS and the is NOT the same as 12 M
PIXELS.  A camera using three 2k x 2k CCDs, one for each color is only 4M
PIXELS.   A pixel is ALL THREE COLORS.  How do you get from 12M to 48M BTW?
Why are you believing there is any interpolation there?  That's one of the
"features" of the Foveon, you don't interpolate the data.

> was equal to a 16
> megapixel Kodak Pro Back when making a 30x40 inch print, which
> required cropping out 1/4 of the native data before the bicubic
> interpolation to final print size.

Why on earth are you interpolating anything, and why are you printing at
30x40?  Why not simply print the best image this camera can, say, at 240 PPI
to the printer and make a really nice 16" x 16" print?  Once you interpolate
the data, you are adding another level of "complication" to the equation,
and therefore your comparison becomes diluted more and more.

I'd dispute that 4M PIXELS of real data is equal to a 13M Bayer pattern as
far as resolution goes.  Also, you also didn't discuss the image size issue
that I raised.  Is the Foveon sensor the same size as a 35mm film size?

I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say/get at here...but I really
believe you've got some flaws in what said, or at the least, I believe you
really need to explain your self better.

Regards,

Austin