Digital BW, The Print

Thought people on this list might be interested in this piece of "gossip" news.
To make a long story short, this past year for an assignment I had to photograph a professor at Carnegie Mellon University.  While I was photographing, we of course started to talk about cameras and digital photography.  This was an advanced math professor.  He told me that his best friend has retired recently and started the Foveon company.  He told me about visiting the company, in CA. and how great the product looked.
This prof called me yesterday to say that his Foveon friend is going to be at CMU this Monday afternoon giving a lecture.  I told this prof that I thought it was unfortunate that they coupled with Sigma, as it wasn't considered a company that made professional level equipment, and that It might not be utilized to its best end as it could have been had the partnership happened with Nikon or Cannon.  He went on to say that Foveon desperatey tried to partner with the Biggies, but they were too CONSERVATIVE, and that Sigma was the only company that would listen.
If you are near PGH and are interested in the lecture it is at 4 pm Mon. afternoon.
Thought you might be interested.
David

----- Original Message -----

From: <daschkenas@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2002 4:41 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Foveon camera
>  It might not be utilized to its best end as it could have been had the
partnership happened with Nikon or Cannon.  He went on > to say that Foveon
desperatey tried to partner with the Biggies, but they were too
CONSERVATIVE, and that Sigma was the > only company that would listen.

..and is it not always thus. I would suggest that none of the big
manufacturers R&D much themselves, and they will have extablished
relationships with current suppliers to a degree where personalities and
their reffect react against real change.

I guess the biggies have yet to understand that within the next ten years
cameras will be made by many other organisations who have no track record in
the photographic industry. These organisations will eventually bury the
established companies and perhaps even take them over.

On certain groups even now you can see the social attitude problem exposed
through the course of events taking place at Polaroid.
In effect this once great company is about to be broken up and that is the
simple truth. What so many remember with affection is their apparant quality
of service which, I would submit, never enabled any organisation to survive
in business when change is in the air. Polaroid are going down becuause they
were not well enough run as a business, and the is what always happens.

If the production batch of Favron meets the companies claims then they will
be "in" and neither Canon or Nikon or any of the other established camera
manufacturers will be able to do anything about it.

I look forward to the day when no photographic enthusiast will be forced to
buy a particular body for a specific lens but both will be fully
interchangeable so that if a Nikon 16Mp 35mm CCD looks "the business" then I
could buy it and use my canon lenses with it.

I really can hardly wait, but I probably will have to, meanwhile i am
looking at the value of Sigma shares and having a good think.

IF the foveon chip performs as it should, I think a few people at nikon and canon are going to be looking for new jobs. This chip has been written about in Discover and Science magazines as well as Photo Magazines. It sounds and looks Great.

Don't dismiss Sigma to harshly. I've used many sigma lenses over the years and they are every bit as sharp as nikon and canon, if you get their pro glass. They are NOT, of course made to the same high standard as Nikon and Canon in their build quality, but the lenses are great as far as sharpness is concerned, in their pro line.

If this chip can triple the resolution of any current 6 megapixel chips at half the price, I think a lot of people will be jumping on Sigma's bandwagon. And Canon and Nikon will probably pay Sigma through the nose for licenses.

Jerry

--- Jerry Olson <jerryolson@...> wrote:
> Don't dismiss Sigma to harshly. I've used many sigma
> lenses over the years and they are every bit as
> sharp as nikon and canon, if you get their pro
> glass.


I have a friend who also feels this way. He owns
several ultra wide angle Sigma pro lenses. He says
they're tack sharp.

I think what that company is suffering from is a
stigma from many years ago, back in the 70s and 80s,
when there probably WAS a difference in quality. But
I've been told that in recent years that they've
certainly caught up.

What a feather in their cap for them, that they are in
bed with Foveon. This one thing alone will catapult
their name and perception leaps and bounds.

I, too, bet that there are several people at Nikon and
Canon who are polishing off their rear-view mirrors
right now. It's now a three-horse race.

I can't find that URL from Stephen Johnson, who tested
the Foveon on his kids and wife, but they're stunning
images, even on the web.

-MTucker

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Sports - live college hoops coverage
http://sports.yahoo.com/

> IF the foveon chip performs as it should,

Hi Jerry,

That's one of the problems...no one knows how it SHOULD perform.  My bet is
the noise level of the chip will be higher than other architectures, as well
as not have as good at color as filtered sensors.

> It sounds and looks Great.

Yes, it does.  So did many other things...and this may in fact be
great...but with only marketing fluff to compare, it's very hard to draw ANY
valid conclusions.

> If this chip can triple the resolution of any current 6 megapixel
> chips at half the price, I think a lot of people will be jumping
> on Sigma's bandwagon.

That's one of the important points...resolution is not the only important
issue.  Noise is equally as important, as is color rendition.  These two
issues have yet to be explored.  Resolution is a static number, the other
two are performance.  I, for one, am skeptical that the Foveon can match
current sensors on these two issues.

Regards,

Austin

One of the very sharpest lens I own is a 75-300 Sigma Apochromatic. I can easily make 12x18 prints that are as sharp as any nikon or canon
lens, EXCEPT the canon macro lenses. They appear to be in a class by themselves. I have not tried the 5000 dollar and up lenses, so can't
comment here, but at anything from 14mm to 300mm, I've probably used most of the sigmas and never had a sharpness problem. It is true that
the quality today is MUCH higher in the sigma lenses than it was 20 years ago. No question about it. The Tokina pro glass is also in that
class. Never used a tamron so can't comment on that brand.

Jerry

> I have a friend who also feels this way. He owns
> several ultra wide angle Sigma pro lenses. He says
> they're tack sharp.
>
> I think what that company is suffering from is a
> stigma from many years ago, back in the 70s and 80s,
> when there probably WAS a difference in quality. But
> I've been told that in recent years that they've
> certainly caught up.
>
> What a feather in their cap for them, that they are in
> bed with Foveon. This one thing alone will catapult
> their name and perception leaps and bounds.
>
> I, too, bet that there are several people at Nikon and
> Canon who are polishing off their rear-view mirrors
> right now. It's now a three-horse race.
>
> I can't find that URL from Stephen Johnson, who tested
> the Foveon on his kids and wife, but they're stunning
> images, even on the web.
>
> -MTucker
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Sports - live college hoops coverage
> http://sports.yahoo.com/
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage.
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Austin, you can get the Foveon chip now in many 2 1/4 scanning backs, and everything I've read about them is they very much outperform film
for noise, sharpness, and shadow detail. Lets hope the 35mm chip is in that class. if it is, they are going to be rich.

So far, the company has a pretty good record.

Jerry



Austin Franklin wrote:

> > IF the foveon chip performs as it should,
>
> Hi Jerry,
>
> That's one of the problems...no one knows how it SHOULD perform.  My bet is
> the noise level of the chip will be higher than other architectures, as well
> as not have as good at color as filtered sensors.
>
> > It sounds and looks Great.
>
> Yes, it does.  So did many other things...and this may in fact be
> great...but with only marketing fluff to compare, it's very hard to draw ANY
> valid conclusions.
>
> > If this chip can triple the resolution of any current 6 megapixel
> > chips at half the price, I think a lot of people will be jumping
> > on Sigma's bandwagon.
>
> That's one of the important points...resolution is not the only important
> issue.  Noise is equally as important, as is color rendition.  These two
> issues have yet to be explored.  Resolution is a static number, the other
> two are performance.  I, for one, am skeptical that the Foveon can match
> current sensors on these two issues.
>
> Regards,
>
> Austin
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage.
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

--- Jerry Olson <jerryolson@...> wrote:
> Austin, you can get the Foveon chip now in many 2
> 1/4 scanning backs,


Jerry,

Exactly which backs use the Foveon chip?

MT

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Sports - live college hoops coverage
http://sports.yahoo.com/

Hassleblad, Mamia and Rollei for 3.

Jerry

Mark Tucker wrote:

> --- Jerry Olson <jerryolson@...> wrote:
> > Austin, you can get the Foveon chip now in many 2
> > 1/4 scanning backs,
>
> Jerry,
>
> Exactly which backs use the Foveon chip?
>
> MT
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Sports - live college hoops coverage
> http://sports.yahoo.com/
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage.
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

> Austin, you can get the Foveon chip now in many 2 1/4 scanning
> backs, and everything I've read about them is they very much
> outperform film
> for noise, sharpness, and shadow detail. Lets hope the 35mm chip
> is in that class. if it is, they are going to be rich.
>
> So far, the company has a pretty good record.
>
> Jerry

Hold on Jerry.  It's not the same sensor.  Foveon makes a number of
different sensors.  The ones you refer to are not the same architecture as
the ones used in those backs.

Austin

> I have a friend who also feels this way. He owns
> several ultra wide angle Sigma pro lenses. He says
> they're tack sharp.

When I got our first D1X I was forced to buy a wider wide angle lens. I didn't want to 
spendt he $1500 on a Nikon 17-35 so I bought the Sigma 15-35.  I too like their recent 
glass but they still have a VERY bad rep with cameras.  That is the reputation that's going 
to be hard to shake off.  The problem isn't going to be with the lenses, just their bodies. 

My bet is that either (or both) Nikon and Canon are on the fast track to developing their 
own Foveon CMOS technology.  If Foveon X3 is all they claim it to be, there HAS to be a 
reason one of the biggies didn't pick up on it.  Either it isn't really ready for prime time 
yet, they are taking a wait n' see attitude, (doubtful) or they wanted too much money (also 
doubtful) or licensing was too restrictive or they already had their own version in R&D.

Foveon has clearly stated that their license with Sigma is NOT exclusive so there is no 
clear reason why they were the only company to join in.

BTW: IMHO? Far too many people ONLY look at megapixels. There's far more to creating 
a good digital image than just the total number of raw pixels in the sensor!

Greg

But that's not what it does!

A lot of people seem to be confusing colour resolution with picture 
resolution.

It's a characteristic of human vision that our colour vision is lower 
resolution than our black and white resolution. 

This is why you can still get natural-looking results by drastically pruning 
the colour information present in a picture.

The Foveon chip adds better colour and reduces moire, but it doesn't increase 
the base resolution of the picture.

As for Canon or Nikon paying Sigma, why should they do that when it's Foveon 
that owns the technology?

On Sunday 17 Mar 2002 9:51 pm, Jerry Olson wrote:

> If this chip can triple the resolution of any current 6 megapixel chips at
> half the price, I think a lot of people will be jumping on Sigma's
> bandwagon. And Canon and Nikon will probably pay Sigma through the nose for
> licenses.

I don't think anyone feels that Sigma make poor lenses.

It's just ironic that you can get Sigma, Tokina, Tamron and Canon lenses for 
Canon, but only Sigma for a Sigma-mount camera.

On Sunday 17 Mar 2002 11:27 pm, Mark Tucker wrote:
> --- Jerry Olson <jerryolson@...> wrote:
> > Don't dismiss Sigma to harshly. I've used many sigma
> > lenses over the years and they are every bit as
> > sharp as nikon and canon, if you get their pro
> > glass.
>
> I have a friend who also feels this way. He owns
> several ultra wide angle Sigma pro lenses. He says
> they're tack sharp.
>
> I think what that company is suffering from is a
> stigma from many years ago, back in the 70s and 80s,
> when there probably WAS a difference in quality. But
> I've been told that in recent years that they've
> certainly caught up.
>
> What a feather in their cap for them, that they are in
> bed with Foveon. This one thing alone will catapult
> their name and perception leaps and bounds.
>
> I, too, bet that there are several people at Nikon and
> Canon who are polishing off their rear-view mirrors
> right now. It's now a three-horse race.
>
> I can't find that URL from Stephen Johnson, who tested
> the Foveon on his kids and wife, but they're stunning
> images, even on the web.
>
> -MTucker
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Sports - live college hoops coverage
> http://sports.yahoo.com/
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
> other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
> them short. - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the
> subject header. - Good manners are required at all time. No personal
> attacks or "flames." - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
> resources on the homepage.
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Sorry Jerry, that's a different Foveon chip!

Foveon have been in the studio camera market for some years now, this isn't 
their first own-brand sensor.

But yes, they have a good record.

On Monday 18 Mar 2002 3:19 am, Jerry Olson wrote:
> Austin, you can get the Foveon chip now in many 2 1/4 scanning backs, and
> everything I've read about them is they very much outperform film for
> noise, sharpness, and shadow detail. Lets hope the 35mm chip is in that
> class. if it is, they are going to be rich.
>
> So far, the company has a pretty good record.
>
> Jerry

Here's the url:

http://www.sjphoto.com/web-special/index.htm

-JimD

At 03:27 PM 3/17/02 -0800, Mark Tucker wrote:

>I can't find that URL from Stephen Johnson, who tested
>the Foveon on his kids and wife, but they're stunning
>images, even on the web

> Here's the url:
>
> http://www.sjphoto.com/web-special/index.htm
>
> -JimD

Thanks Jim,

In looking at the full B&W image of the woman's face (this IS a B&W group,
ya know ;-), the shadows seem to be severely blocked (histogram shows as I
observed...)...possibly just may have been bad exposure.  The image is also
quite flat.  The tree image is a bit better with the shadows, but doesn't
really have any shadows to speak of...

Overall, the images aren't bad...for web images that is...and it's REALLY
impossible to  do any comparisons with .jpg web images.

I'll wait until I can actually see a real physical comparison of it vs
film....and interestingly enough, no one has done that yet!  That would have
been the first thing I would have done, but my guess is...the people who got
these things were not allowed to do that...

Austin

Yup, you're right, it is a different chip. Sorry.

> Sorry Jerry, that's a different Foveon chip!
>
> Foveon have been in the studio camera market for some years now, this isn't
> their first own-brand sensor.
>
> But yes, they have a good record.

>
>
> As for Canon or Nikon paying Sigma, why should they do that when it's Foveon
> that owns the technology?

Because if the foveon chip was in a nikon or canon camera they would have the triple the quality they could get in an ordinary chip for half
the price, just like the sigma/foveon Camera

I'm sure that sooner or later Canon and Nikon will either license the chip or have their own version. These remarkable inventions don't seem
to be kept secure by just one company anymore. They're always copied or reverse engineered. Foveon will be on top for a while, and then
something better will either take its' place or Foveon will license it's chip technology.

Jerry

What half the price?

The sensor may be half the price, but it's not carrying through to the cost 
of the camera...

And you're still overstating the quality gain IMO. Yes, it's an advance, but 
it isn't "triple the quality".

On Monday 18 Mar 2002 5:17 pm, Jerry Olson wrote:
> Because if the foveon chip was in a nikon or canon camera they would have
> the triple the quality they could get in an ordinary chip for half the
> price, just like the sigma/foveon Camera

You mean it ISN'T three times better? Geeze, their marketing of the '3x' technology 
is working already. They ought to give that marketing guy a bonus.

Greg

> And you're still overstating the quality gain IMO. Yes, it's an
> advance, but it isn't "triple the quality".
> 
> On Monday 18 Mar 2002 5:17 pm, Jerry Olson wrote:
> > Because if the foveon chip was in a nikon or canon camera they would
> > have the triple the quality they could get in an ordinary chip for
> > half the price, just like the sigma/foveon Camera
>

Hi Derek,

> What half the price?
>
> The sensor may be half the price, but it's not carrying through
> to the cost
> of the camera...

You're right!  It's the same foolish argument that Transmeta was trying
claim, like lowering the CPU power consumption by %50 somehow gave the
entire notebook computer a %50 drop...  When analyzed, and compared with
current offerings from other mobile CPU manufacturers, it was well under %5.

> And you're still overstating the quality gain IMO. Yes, it's an
> advance, but
> it isn't "triple the quality".

And again, you're absolutely right.  It isn't even 2x.  In fact, it may not
even be noticeable...except in large enlargements.  At best, it's probably
between %20 and %30, but that's entirely subjective...and it depends on
whether you're talking about edge sharpness, detail, color accuracy...image
noise...etc.

> On Monday 18 Mar 2002 5:17 pm, Jerry Olson wrote:
> > Because if the foveon chip was in a nikon or canon camera they
> would have
> > the triple the quality they could get in an ordinary chip for half the
> > price, just like the sigma/foveon Camera

Austin

A story I read on the chip said it would triple the quality for half the price.

Jerry



Pics4U@... wrote:

> You mean it ISN'T three times better? Geeze, their marketing of the '3x' technology
> is working already. They ought to give that marketing guy a bonus.
>
> Greg
>
> > And you're still overstating the quality gain IMO. Yes, it's an
> > advance, but it isn't "triple the quality".
> >
> > On Monday 18 Mar 2002 5:17 pm, Jerry Olson wrote:
> > > Because if the foveon chip was in a nikon or canon camera they would
> > > have the triple the quality they could get in an ordinary chip for
> > > half the price, just like the sigma/foveon Camera
> >
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage.
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Austin the reviews on this chip say things like "Revolutionary," "Groundbreaking," "New Technology," and "Incredible qulaity" for the price.
This sounds like a lot more than "just a 20 or 30 percent improvement, which wouldn't even be worthy of anything more than a footnote in a
review. These reviews make it quite clear that this is a real revolution in technology.  If they are lying, I wouldn't want to be one of
their stockholders. We'll just have to wait for the test reports...

Jerry

> > Yes, its an advance, but
> > it isn't "triple the quality".
>
> And again, you're absolutely right.  It isn't even 2x.  In fact, it may not
> even be noticeable...except in large enlargements.  At best, it's probably
> between %20 and %30, but that's entirely subjective...and it depends on
> whether you're talking about edge sharpness, detail, color accuracy...image
> noise...etc.

Hi Jerry,

> Austin the reviews on this chip say things like "Revolutionary,"
> "Groundbreaking," "New Technology," and "Incredible qulaity" for
> the price.

Well, of course they do (and note the caveat..."for the price")!  For some
reason, unbeknownst to me, people WANT this thing to be some godsend...even
without testing the real thing...or comparing the results to either film or
a REAL digital camera...they just like the IDEA of it, and want to somehow
toot some horn...any horn and claim to be part of the "revolution"!  It
really is simply amazing (and inordinately humorous) to watch!

Even Foveon is SO confident in their new "invention", the test images they
show on their web site are entirely BOGUS.  The problems they bring up are
10 years old, and have been long solved, and do NOT exist in current
cameras.  They also, even though I asked, refuse to provide any information
on what camera those images came from that they use for comparison!  And you
expect me to take them seriously when they provide bogus information like
this?  Serious (and honest) scientists ALWAYS provide full disclosure of
their test methodology, equipment and results.

> This sounds like a lot more than "just a 20 or 30 percent
> improvement, which wouldn't even be worthy of anything more than
> a footnote in a
> review.

Yes, "sounds" is ALWAYS a good place to start when judging image quality.
Something about a blind man describing an elephant comes to mind ;-)

See what I mean?  Even YOU want to believe these completely unsubstantiated
claims!  Now don't get me wrong, this sensor MAY be decent...but we do NOT
know!  It has NEVER been subjected to scientific testing of results and
procedure with current cameras or film, period!  NO valid conclusion can be
drawn until...and until, it's purely wishful thinking!

> These reviews make it quite clear that this is a real
> revolution in technology.

And these people know because....  I've been IN the digital imaging industry
for over 25 years...  It's a STEP, but NOT a revolution.  Foveon did not
invent the idea of 3d sensors, or using three sensors per pixel.  That is a
standard issue concept that has been around for as long as I've been
designing this stuff.

> If they are lying, I wouldn't want to be one of
> their stockholders.

If who is lying?  Foveon isn't lying, as far as I can tell, but they are, in
my opinion, misleading (as I stated above) AND they are, as any thing of
this nature does, exaggerating and hyping.  Do you really expect any less?
Every time someone farts in this industry, it's a "revolution".  Cripes,
where were you during the .snot "revolution"?  Still licking your wounds?
;-)

> We'll just have to wait for the test reports...

Exactly what I've been saying!  But the tests HAVE to be scientific AND
honest.

Regards,

Austin

> A story I read on the chip said it would triple the quality for
> half the price.
>
> Jerry

Hi Jerry,

Claiming that the Foveon sensor would triple the "quality" is a meaningless
statement by whomever made it in the first place, unless they said what it
would triple the quality of.  Triple the quality of what?  It will
absolutely NOT triple the quality of a sensor array with an equal number of
sensors, or even one that has the same number of "output" pixels.

These amorphous claims (as well as other things ;-) get my hair on end...

Do you remember the source for that "story"?

Austin

Sorry Austin but you seem like someone with a special axe to grind here. I agree that we ALL must take a wait n' see attitude towards any new 
technology that is being touted as 'revolutionary' but your comments go a bit too far overboard to be taken seriously or without suspicion. Your 
comments are just too full of red flags that raise my level of suspicion about your true motives here.

I'm not sure why YOU expect to get a personal reply from a major company when you demand to know exactly what camera took which photos.  I 
have a hunch that unless you contacted just the right person, most employees probably don't have any idea which camera was used. Not that they 
are trying to deliberately hide the fact, just that they don't know. Further more, unless you are the editor for some well respected publication, I doubt 
they would even put too much effort into finding out for you.  If you approached them with even half the tone I read in this post, my guess is that you 
were dismissed as some crackpot without much further thought.

As for your 25 plus years of experience with digital imaging?  I bet that is a bit of a stretch. Maybe 25 years with computers or digital technology in 
general but I somehow doubt you have been doing digital imaging for 25 years. Geez, that pre-dates most solid state computers as we know them.  
Were you using tubes and relays?

We all know that marketing types stretch the facts. They manipulate them to make sure their product is presented in the best light possible. Many 
will stretch the facts as far as they think they can get away with before being held legally liable. This is a known fact. It's our job as consumers to 
sort through these layers of BS. But to start throwing around accusations such as "bogus" and "lying" is a bit too much of a stretch. IMHO maybe 
even bordering on the edge of legal accountability yourself.

Greg

> Well, of course they do (and note the caveat..."for the price")!  For
> some reason, unbeknownst to me, people WANT this thing to be some
> godsend...even without testing the real thing...or comparing the
> results to either film or a REAL digital camera...they just like the
> IDEA of it, and want to somehow toot some horn...any horn and claim to
> be part of the "revolution"!  It really is simply amazing (and
> inordinately humorous) to watch!
> 
> Even Foveon is SO confident in their new "invention", the test images
> they show on their web site are entirely BOGUS.  The problems they
> bring up are 10 years old, and have been long solved, and do NOT exist
> in current cameras.  They also, even though I asked, refuse to provide
> any information on what camera those images came from that they use
> for comparison!  And you expect me to take them seriously when they
> provide bogus information like this?  Serious (and honest) scientists
> ALWAYS provide full disclosure of their test methodology, equipment
> and results.
> 
> > This sounds like a lot more than "just a 20 or 30 percent
> > improvement, which wouldn't even be worthy of anything more than a
> > footnote in a review.
> 
> Yes, "sounds" is ALWAYS a good place to start when judging image
> quality. Something about a blind man describing an elephant comes to
> mind ;-)
> 
> See what I mean?  Even YOU want to believe these completely
> unsubstantiated claims!  Now don't get me wrong, this sensor MAY be
> decent...but we do NOT know!  It has NEVER been subjected to
> scientific testing of results and procedure with current cameras or
> film, period!  NO valid conclusion can be drawn until...and until,
> it's purely wishful thinking!
> 
> > These reviews make it quite clear that this is a real
> > revolution in technology.
> 
> And these people know because....  I've been IN the digital imaging
> industry for over 25 years...  It's a STEP, but NOT a revolution. 
> Foveon did not invent the idea of 3d sensors, or using three sensors
> per pixel.  That is a standard issue concept that has been around for
> as long as I've been designing this stuff.
> 
> > If they are lying, I wouldn't want to be one of
> > their stockholders.
> 
> If who is lying?  Foveon isn't lying, as far as I can tell, but they
> are, in my opinion, misleading (as I stated above) AND they are, as
> any thing of this nature does, exaggerating and hyping.  Do you really
> expect any less? Every time someone farts in this industry, it's a
> "revolution".  Cripes, where were you during the .snot "revolution"? 
> Still licking your wounds? ;-)
> 
> > We'll just have to wait for the test reports...
> 
> Exactly what I've been saying!  But the tests HAVE to be scientific
> AND honest.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Austin
> 
> 
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> ---------------------~--> Access Your PC from Anywhere It's Easy. It's
> Fast. - Free Download
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/AxtVhB/6XkDAA/_ZuFAA/ucIolB/TM
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------~
> ->
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls
> and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to
> keep them short. - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change
> the subject header. - Good manners are required at all time. No
> personal attacks or "flames." - Complete your Yahoo profile. - Before
> posting a question, search the message archives and the various
> resources on the homepage. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 
> 
> 
>

Hmm,

I bought my first IBM PC in 1979, 23 years ago. The Apple II and others had
been around mucc longer. I have also seen digital imaging stuff dating back
to before 1970.

Mike

----- Original Message -----
From: <Pics4U@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 6:54 PM
Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Foveon camera


> As for your 25 plus years of experience with digital imaging?  I bet that
is a bit of a stretch. Maybe 25 years with computers or digital technology
in general but I somehow doubt you have been doing digital imaging for 25
years. Geez, that pre-dates most solid state computers as we know them.
Were you using tubes and relays?

No, I read too many magazines - dozens - to remember where I read what. But you would think with the raves this chip is getting, SOMETHING
must be pretty good about it. I sure haven't heard any negatives.....


Jerry



Austin Franklin wrote:

> > A story I read on the chip said it would triple the quality for
> > half the price.
> >
> > Jerry
>
> Hi Jerry,
>
> Claiming that the Foveon sensor would triple the "quality" is a meaningless
> statement by whomever made it in the first place, unless they said what it
> would triple the quality of.  Triple the quality of what?  It will
> absolutely NOT triple the quality of a sensor array with an equal number of
> sensors, or even one that has the same number of "output" pixels.
>
> These amorphous claims (as well as other things ;-) get my hair on end...
>
> Do you remember the source for that "story"?
>
> Austin
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage.
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

> No, I read too many magazines - dozens - to remember where I read
> what. But you would think with the raves this chip is getting, SOMETHING
> must be pretty good about it. I sure haven't heard any negatives.....

Jerry,

Haven't you read what I have written?  I KNOW why people are raving about
something they have NOT tested or done any real comparisons with.  The good
thing about it is simply the IDEA.  These people are LOOKING for something
to rave about...  As I said, how on earth CAN they rave about it when they
haven't done any tests?  NONE of the "reviews" or users have posted any
usable tests.  The purported "tests" shown on the Foveon web site is
bogus...as I explained in another post...

It MAY in fact be great, but no one could possibly know that yet!

Austin

Austin, Everything you say makes sense. I've been fairly pessamistic all my life, and a couple years ago begin trying to be more optimistic.
I am, but I guess I shouldn't be in these type of cases without any evidence. You certainly know a hundred times more than I do about
engineering and digital devices. But I have a "Hunch" I guess, that something good is going to come from this in the next year or so.

In my case, It probably won't matter. I think the D60 will be the last camera I'll be getting. It will do everything I need it to do for the
rest of my picture taking days, the D-30 nearly does that now. Doubling its' resolution will be more than enough for me. If I were going to
print huge prints, this wouldn't be true, but 13x19 is good enough for me. If Epson came out with a 3000 size printer with all the features
of the 1280, I'd probably buy it. But I don't HAVE to have it. I don't have a single square inch on my walls left for more pictures. I have
to rotate them, and still have thousands I will never have money to frame!

I've found the papers and inks that do what I need,  The printer that does what I need, and I'm really getting tired of "Testing" all the
time. Now I'm going to spend some time taking photographs for fun again. and Digital photography is FUN.

Jerry

>






> Well, of course they do (and note the caveat..."for the price")!  For some
> reason, unbeknownst to me, people WANT this thing to be some godsend...even
> without testing the real thing...or comparing the results to either film or
> a REAL digital camera...they just like the IDEA of it, and want to somehow
> toot some horn...any horn and claim to be part of the "revolution"!  It
> really is simply amazing (and inordinately humorous) to watch!
>
> Even Foveon is SO confident in their new "invention", the test images they
> show on their web site are entirely BOGUS.  The problems they bring up are
> 10 years old, and have been long solved, and do NOT exist in current
> cameras.  They also, even though I asked, refuse to provide any information
> on what camera those images came from that they use for comparison!  And you
> expect me to take them seriously when they provide bogus information like
> this?  Serious (and honest) scientists ALWAYS provide full disclosure of
> their test methodology, equipment and results.
>
> > This sounds like a lot more than "just a 20 or 30 percent
> > improvement, which wouldn't even be worthy of anything more than
> > a footnote in a
> > review.
>
> Yes, "sounds" is ALWAYS a good place to start when judging image quality.
> Something about a blind man describing an elephant comes to mind ;-)
>
> See what I mean?  Even YOU want to believe these completely unsubstantiated
> claims!  Now don't get me wrong, this sensor MAY be decent...but we do NOT
> know!  It has NEVER been subjected to scientific testing of results and
> procedure with current cameras or film, period!  NO valid conclusion can be
> drawn until...and until, it's purely wishful thinking!
>
> > These reviews make it quite clear that this is a real
> > revolution in technology.
>
> And these people know because....  I've been IN the digital imaging industry
> for over 25 years...  It's a STEP, but NOT a revolution.  Foveon did not
> invent the idea of 3d sensors, or using three sensors per pixel.  That is a
> standard issue concept that has been around for as long as I've been
> designing this stuff.
>
> > If they are lying, I wouldn't want to be one of
> > their stockholders.
>
> If who is lying?  Foveon isn't lying, as far as I can tell, but they are, in
> my opinion, misleading (as I stated above) AND they are, as any thing of
> this nature does, exaggerating and hyping.  Do you really expect any less?
> Every time someone farts in this industry, it's a "revolution".  Cripes,
> where were you during the .snot "revolution"?  Still licking your wounds?

Hi Greg,

> Sorry Austin but you seem like someone with a special axe to
> grind here.

Well, in a way, you are right.  I don't like BS, hype and misinformation.  I
have no axe to grind against real technology advances...and accurate
representations.

> ...but your
> comments go a bit too far overboard to be taken seriously or
> without suspicion.

I am merely stating facts.  It is the claims I am disputing that are not
factual.  If you are able to, please show me where any of my facts are
wrong, or can be challenged.  If not, then you really have no business
making some of the statements you are making here, and the tone with which
you make them.

I have been designing digital imaging equipment for over 20 years, and have
credentials that fully qualified to evaluate this technology (in fact people
pay me TO evaluate technology and companies) and say what I have said.  I am
giving a totally objective evaluation based on my many years of experience
in the field...I am not a marketing person, and I have nothing to gain...or
lose, I only seek the truth of an honest evaluation and representation.

> I'm not sure why YOU expect to get a personal reply from a major
> company when you demand to know exactly what camera took which photos.  I
> have a hunch that unless you contacted just the right person,
> most employees probably don't have any idea which camera was
> used.

That's an interesting statement.  Why would you expect them NOT to be able
to answer that easily?  They are supposedly scientists and engineers.  I
take it you don't know much about engineering?  I can't imagine anyone in
any of the companies I have worked for providing test/evaluation data and
not writing up how the tests were conducted.  It's standard operating
procedure for ANY published tests.

> If
> you approached them with even half the tone I read in this post,
> my guess is that you
> were dismissed as some crackpot without much further thought.

I've been at this for a long time, I know how to ask the questions, and what
questions to ask.

> As for your 25 plus years of experience with digital imaging?  I
> bet that is a bit of a stretch.

No, not a stretch at all.  In fact, I developed the first commercially
available digital visual inspection system in the world, the AI416, for a
company named Automatix (which I was one of the founding engineers of).
That was in 1978/9.  I developed the image capture and processing board for
it.  For two years before that I spent my time developing a robotic vision
system for "intelligent" robot navigation.  Yes, I HAVE been at digital
image processing since 1976.  It's a fact, not a stretch at all.

> Geez, that pre-dates most solid state computers as
> we know them.
> Were you using tubes and relays?

Well, you're obviously not in this industry, nor have any grasp of the
technology timeline.  Semiconductors were around for quite a few years
before I started, in fact, before I was born!  Semiconductors were first
developed in the late 40's (1947 to be exact) and were commercialized in the
50's, and microprocessors based on the Intel 8080 were available in the mid
70's...as well as the LSI-11 from Digital. Perhaps you have just lost track
of time, and realize 25 years ago was 1977!!!

> We all know that marketing types stretch the facts. They
> manipulate them to make sure their product is presented in the
> best light possible.

The things I mentioned were not a manipulation of facts, but a
misrepresentation of information.  Plain and simple.

> It's
> our job as consumers to
> sort through these layers of BS.

I doubt that.  Most consumers have no clue what they are talking about when
it comes to digital imaging.  Most people do NOT even understand the Bayer
pattern sensor, and the fact that camera manufacturers have been
misrepresenting the details of these cameras for some time, that detail
being the difference between sensor elements and pixels.  My guess is it's
something you may not understand either.

> IMHO maybe
> even bordering on the edge of legal accountability yourself.

Well, Greg, nothing I've said is at all bordering on any legal edge.  I
merely stated facts, and will gladly stand behind any of my claims.  You
can't bring suit against someone for simply stating well known facts.

If you can't debate me on technical merits, then please give your tack a
rest please.  I haven't been disrespectful to you, and I don't understand
what your need is to be so of me.

Austin

Pics4U@... wrote:

>
> My bet is that either (or both) Nikon and Canon are on the fast track 
> to developing their
> own Foveon CMOS technology.  If Foveon X3 is all they claim it to be, 
> there HAS to be a
> reason one of the biggies didn't pick up on it.  Either it isn't 
> really ready for prime time
> yet, they are taking a wait n' see attitude, (doubtful) or they wanted 
> too much money (also
> doubtful) or licensing was too restrictive or they already had their 
> own version in R&D.


Actually, neither Nikon or Canon MAKE their own CCD or CMOS arrays. 
 They are made by one of three worldwide firms.. If I remember 
correctly, Sony, Phillips, and Foveon.

That said.

Canon and Nikon have invested a lot of short term $$ (while the Japanese 
economy has been trash) to pursues CCD and CMOS integration based upon a 
different technological model.

With the Foveon chip you would need to redesign much of the 
pre-processing and some of the capture engineering. It's not plug and play..

My guess is that Canon and Nikon went with what was looking good 
off-the-shelf (partly because they both had to compete in the 
wire-service and news market), they couldn't wait for a possible future 
technology.

The problem is that Canon and Nikon now have invested in a technology 
that may have been leap-frogged..

It's very reminiscent of the US carmakers in the 70's -  they focussed 
on big cars - gas crisis hits, but there's an economic slump at the 
time. Japanese carmakers have a fuel efficient product already and don't 
have to retool their industrial base to produce compacts (they already 
did)..  US automakers don't have the $$ to begin to catch up for 
years... Eventually all this even darn near kills off Chrysler (absent a 
US Gov't bail-out)..

Similarly, if  Nikon and Canon change direction now, it's going to take 
beau coup $$.. not for licensing as much as for redesign etc.. AND 
 although Foveon's deal with Sigma may not be exclusive, it's very 
likely that both Canon and Nikon have multi-year contracts with the 
other chip suppliers... If they change direction, kiss that money bye-bye..

PLUS, word is that the FOVEON chip is based on a design that already 
held a patent (used in spy satellites and recon drones).  If so, then 
Phillips and Sony cannot develop a chip based on the same technology for 
a bunch of years, unless THEY license the technology...   I'd call that 
about as likely as Intel licensing technology from AMD.  Unfortunately, 
all that means Nikon and Canon get hurt by being locked into the 
non-FOVEON chipmakers, and buyers get hurt ny having less options on 
bodies incorporating a breakthrough technology.. oh well, that's business..

I have to say this I will personally enjoy the poetic irony if these two 
Japanese giants of  photography (Canon & Nikon/Mitsubishi)  take some 
major hits here. The more makers in the market the better the gear we 
all get..  I use Nikon bodies, but am in no way wedded to them..  It's 
just another tool.. As long as my tool works, that's all I care about.

I use a bunch of Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, and Nikon lenses... if Sigma 
forces the big guys to produce better product at lower prices, so be it...

$3000 for the Body Sigma is trumpeting (if it performs as claimed)  will 
be a fair deal..

 
Oh yeah.. the camera is "up" at the Sigma site if anyone did NOT know that..

http://www.sigmaphoto.com/Html/news/news_sd9_fs.htm


[Keith]
 
 

****************************************************************
CONFIDENTIALITY & COPYRIGHT NOTICE:
This e-mail message, including attachments and contents, is © Copyright, 
Keith Krebs, 2001, All Rights Reserved. It is expressly for the sole use 
of the intended recipient and may contain confidential and privileged 
information. Absent the express written authorization of the author, any 
unauthorized review, use, disclosure, transfer, or distribution is 
explicitly prohibited and taken at your own risk. If you are not, or are 
unsure whether you are, the intended recipient, please contact the 
sender immediately and destroy all copies of the original message. 
Violations will be prosecuted to the FULL extent allowed under 
applicable civil and criminal law. Imagery published or distributed in 
violation of these conditions shall be subject to a $1500/image 
liquidated damages charge, in addition to any applicable Copyright 
violation penalties.

[POV IMage Service Banner]
****************************************************************
{ The P.O.V. Image Service Website is still at http://www.p-o-v-image.com/ }




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> Well, Greg, nothing I've said is at all bordering on any legal edge. 
> I merely stated facts, and will gladly stand behind any of my claims. 
> You can't bring suit against someone for simply stating well known
> facts.

I really don't want to get a p'ssin match started here but I'm still waiting to hear your "well known 
facts".  All I remember reading was a bunch of accusations and unfounded slams over a chip that I 
don't recall you saying you have even seen, let alone taken an image with. That's what I remember 
reading and that's what my reply addressed.

BTW: I'm fully aware of the Bayer pattern and the difference between a sensor and a pixel. My 
imaging experience may not be quite as extensive or go back as many years as you claim and I'm 
glad you played such a big part of imaging design history but that doesn't make me stupid.  The 
little chips of a simple 35mm camera must be way beneath your level of expertise.

I don't plan on pursuing this particular thread any further as I view it as an exercise in futility. I just 
couldn't sit back and watch somebody make such outrageous accusations, slams and name calling.

Just like everyone else, (including you) we will have to sit back and wait for the production models 
to make their way into our hands. Then we will all KNOW for sure if their claims are the bare face 
lies you say they are.

Greg

Jerry Olson wrote:

> I think the D60 will be the last camera I'll be getting. It will do 
> everything I need it to do for the
> rest of my picture taking days, the D-30 nearly does that now. 
> Doubling its' resolution will be more than enough for me. If I were 
> going to
> print huge prints, this wouldn't be true, but 13x19 is good enough for 
> me. 


Or if you were a sports shooter who often needed to crop from larger frames?

Then the added resolution is a BIG bonus..  It's kinda tough to get 
perfect composition on a slam dunk.. and I can't call them back and redo 
the shot..

[Keith]
 
 

****************************************************************
CONFIDENTIALITY & COPYRIGHT NOTICE:
This e-mail message, including attachments and contents, is © Copyright, 
Keith Krebs, 2001, All Rights Reserved. It is expressly for the sole use 
of the intended recipient and may contain confidential and privileged 
information. Absent the express written authorization of the author, any 
unauthorized review, use, disclosure, transfer, or distribution is 
explicitly prohibited and taken at your own risk. If you are not, or are 
unsure whether you are, the intended recipient, please contact the 
sender immediately and destroy all copies of the original message. 
Violations will be prosecuted to the FULL extent allowed under 
applicable civil and criminal law. Imagery published or distributed in 
violation of these conditions shall be subject to a $1500/image 
liquidated damages charge, in addition to any applicable Copyright 
violation penalties.

[POV IMage Service Banner]
****************************************************************
{ The P.O.V. Image Service Website is still at http://www.p-o-v-image.com/ }




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Michael Kravit wrote
 
> I bought my first IBM PC in 1979, 23 years ago. The Apple II and others had
> been around mucc longer. I have also seen digital imaging stuff dating back
> to before 1970.

...which puts you well ahead, Mike :-)

The PC was announced in August 1981:
http://www-1.ibm.com/ibm/history/exhibits/pc/pc_9.html


Peter Marquis-Kyle

On Tuesday 19 Mar 2002 5:06 pm, Jerry Olson wrote:
> Austin the reviews on this chip say things like "Revolutionary,"
> "Groundbreaking," "New Technology," 

Absolutely right. It IS revolutionary groundbreaking new technology. No 
question.

> and "Incredible qulaity" for the price.

That's the unproven part...

A story I read was called Alice in Wonderland.

Bob Frost.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jerry Olson" <jerryolson@...>


> A story I read on the chip said it would triple the quality for half the
price.
>
> Jerry

Greg,

> > Well, Greg, nothing I've said is at all bordering on any legal edge.
> > I merely stated facts, and will gladly stand behind any of my claims.
> > You can't bring suit against someone for simply stating well known
> > facts.
>
> I really don't want to get a p'ssin match started here

Then why did you start one, and insist on continuing it?  YOU are the one
making accusations of me, when I have made none of you.  You question my
integrity, and even go so far as to make false claims about that it is I
have said.  You make clearly erroneous statements trying to refute my
background and make no attempt to actually dispute ANY of my statements on
any technical merit at all.  You obviously have an agenda, and it isn't
about finding out the truth.

> but I'm
> still waiting to hear your "well known
> facts".

Well, then, go back with a clear head and read what I wrote in the first
place.  I stated my facts very simply, and they are there.  I don't believe
that will help you though, since you don't want to hear them.

> All I remember reading was a bunch of accusations and
> unfounded slams

State what I said that you believe was unfounded.  I do not believe you are
able to.  If you think something I said was unfounded, then you probably
just did not understand it.  Everything I said was merely fact, and it's
really funny that you want to make claims otherwise.

> over a chip that I
> don't recall you saying you have even seen, let alone taken an
> image with.

Obviously you didn't read what I really wrote, because I was NOT commenting
on the chip (except about noise), but what the Foveon web site showed FOR a
comparison.  I do not NEED to see, much less use, the chip to know that what
they showed on their web site was bogus.

> That's what I remember
> reading and that's what my reply addressed.

Then you have a reading and/or remembering deficit.  Aside from  my ONE
speculation that the noise in it may not be near as good as people
speculate, everything else I said had NOTHING to do with the sensor.  What I
disputed were their claims and examples on their web site, as well as the
claim by Carver Mead that they make 48" prints from images from the sensor.
It's a FACT, everything I pointed out was misinformation, except my one
speculation on noise.  Claiming a problem exists that was solved some 10
years ago, IS misleading, and if you just aren't able to understand that,
then that's your problem.

> I just
> couldn't sit back and watch somebody make such outrageous
> accusations, slams and name calling.

But that's NOT what I did, but appears to be what YOU are doing to me.
Obviously you aren't able to discuss or dispute ANY of my statements, so you
must resort to these kind of foolish statements.  Your claims are equally as
erroneous as theirs!  I made NO "outrageous" accusations, no "slams" and I
didn't call ANYONE "names".  That's pure fiction.

This is what is outrageous.  You have to make things up, instead of debate
the issues on the technical merits.

> Just like everyone else, (including you) we will have to sit back
> and wait for the production models
> to make their way into our hands. Then we will all KNOW for sure
> if their claims are the bare face
> lies you say they are.

Well, NO.  I KNOW that the claims already made that I refuted are erroneous.
It is obvious YOU just don't want to hear the truth, and for some reason,
are blindly following their misleading claims like some cult religion...or
have some other agenda going on here.

You aren't even big enough to apologize for your foolish accusation and
insult that I was somehow lying about my 25 years of digital imaging
experience.  I do not lie, Greg.  I may be mistaken about some things, but
that is an entirely different issue.

Austin

On 3/20/02 9:18 AM, "Austin Franklin" <darkroom@...> wrote:

> Greg,
> 
>>> Well, Greg, nothing I've said is at all bordering on any legal edge.
>>> I merely stated facts, and will gladly stand behind any of my claims.
>>> You can't bring suit against someone for simply stating well known
>>> facts.
>> 
>> I really don't want to get a p'ssin match started here
> 
> Then why did you start one, and insist on continuing it?  YOU are the one
> making accusations of me, when I have made none of you.  You question my
> integrity, and even go so far as to make false claims about that it is I
> have said.  You make clearly erroneous statements trying to refute my
> background and make no attempt to actually dispute ANY of my statements on
> any technical merit at all.  You obviously have an agenda, and it isn't
> about finding out the truth.
> 



Enough already.  Take this unproductive, off topic nonsense off list.  Can
we get a little help here from the list admins?

Lawrence



----------------------------------
Lawrence W. Smith Photography
http://www.lwsphoto.com
lsmith@...
----------------------------------

--Lawrence

I second the motion. I thought this site was about printing B&W not 
camers. Who really cares about chips.

Vinny



- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Lawrence Smith <lsmith@l...> 
wrote:
> On 3/20/02 9:18 AM, "Austin Franklin" <darkroom@i...> wrote:
> 
> > Greg,
> > 
> >>> Well, Greg, nothing I've said is at all bordering on any legal 
edge.
> >>> I merely stated facts, and will gladly stand behind any of my 
claims.
> >>> You can't bring suit against someone for simply stating well 
known
> >>> facts.
> >> 
> >> I really don't want to get a p'ssin match started here
> > 
> > Then why did you start one, and insist on continuing it?  YOU are 
the one
> > making accusations of me, when I have made none of you.  You 
question my
> > integrity, and even go so far as to make false claims about that 
it is I
> > have said.  You make clearly erroneous statements trying to 
refute my
> > background and make no attempt to actually dispute ANY of my 
statements on
> > any technical merit at all.  You obviously have an agenda, and it 
isn't
> > about finding out the truth.
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> Enough already.  Take this unproductive, off topic nonsense off 
list.  Can

> we get a little help here from the list admins?
> 
> Lawrence
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------
> Lawrence W. Smith Photography
> http://www.lwsphoto.com
> lsmith@l...
> ----------------------------------

Sorry if I started a feud folks, I was merely trying to express my excitment 
over hearing Carver Meads lecture.  Hearing him speak and seeing his side by 
side examples sure made sense at the time.
David

> Sorry if I started a feud folks, I was merely trying to express
> my excitment
> over hearing Carver Meads lecture.  Hearing him speak and seeing
> his side by
> side examples sure made sense at the time.
> David

Hi David,

No, no feud at all.  It is great information.  Unfortunately, it's
misinformation...and actually supports my observation that there is more
hype here than fact.  I mean, the 48" print claim is really the most
obviously silly one...  Try printing at 40 something PPI to the printer and
see how good the image looks!

Austin

> Enough already.  Take this unproductive, off topic nonsense off list.  Can
> we get a little help here from the list admins?
>
> Lawrence

Hi Lawrence,

I believe this issue of what's on topic and what's off topic came up some
time ago.  I also believe it was stated that it's OK to discuss issues like
"this" here.  Now, don't get me wrong, I think the topic, at least some of
the posts, have strayed well beyond appropriate, and I have stated that.

There are a LOT of topics that come up here that I have no interest in
either, and I just summarily delete them, though I know there is probably
some valuable information in them, but I don't want to take the time to read
through them all.

Please don't call something that others have an interest in "nonsense",
there's no need for that.  Though it may be nonsense in your eyes, it isn't
to some other people.  And, it certainly doesn't help the situation.

Regards,

Austin

> Please don't call something that others have an interest in 
> "nonsense", there's no need for that.  Though it may be 
> nonsense in your eyes, it isn't to some other people.  And, 
> it certainly doesn't help the situation.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Austin
> 

Austin,

The topic is not nonsense, the bickering is.  Can't we dial it back a
bit?  It may come as shock but the rest of us don't really want to hear
it  ;-)

Lawrence

> > Please don't call something that others have an interest in
> > "nonsense", there's no need for that.  Though it may be
> > nonsense in your eyes, it isn't to some other people.  And,
> > it certainly doesn't help the situation.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Austin
> >
>
> Austin,
>
> The topic is not nonsense, the bickering is.  Can't we dial it back a
> bit?  It may come as shock but the rest of us don't really want to hear
> it  ;-)
>
> Lawrence

Hi Lawrence,

I HAVE tried to keep the discussion technical.  Chastise the party that
decided to take this personal.  I agree that "bickering" IS unnecessary, but
I also won't let someone say what Greg said about me on-list go
unchallenged, and it is unfair to expect me to.  Other than his comments,
the discussion has maintained technical bearing, I believe.

Regards,

Austin

Hmm, maybe it was '81, all those drug infested years blend into a blur. ;-)

Maybe it was an IMSI 8080?

Then again, I can't remember....

-Mike
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Marquis-Kyle" <petermk@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 1:51 AM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Foveon camera


> Michael Kravit wrote
>
> > I bought my first IBM PC in 1979, 23 years ago. The Apple II and others
had
> > been around mucc longer. I have also seen digital imaging stuff dating
back
> > to before 1970.
>
> ...which puts you well ahead, Mike :-)
>
> The PC was announced in August 1981:
> http://www-1.ibm.com/ibm/history/exhibits/pc/pc_9.html
>
>
> Peter Marquis-Kyle
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage.

>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>