Digital BW, The Print

Diane, I still want the 12 megapixels, (11 is ok). Chip prices are
falling fast, and the new foveon chip will cause them
to fall faster. The current Sigma Foveon camera is (3) but effectively 9
megapixels, and is noticeably sharper than the D60. But the Sigma camera
isn't for me. a 4.2 megapixel Canon camera for 4000 dollars is nuts. I'd
never pay that much for 4 megapixels no matter how good the camera
itself was. I need the resolution, NOT the top of the line camera. I
have plenty of memory and speed to take care of the larger files. I
would NEVER spend 4000 dollars for a digital camera, so I'll wait until
I get what I want for $2500 or less. If it doesn't happen, I'll simply
live with my D60.

> The 1D is still only a 4MP camera and is being snapped
> up by many as it has dropped below the $4000 point.

If you can live with 4 megapixel resolution. It still is far from a
bargain. The new Nikon/Kodak is 14 megapixels 
for $4000. Canon better get on board, or people are going to be
switching to the Kodak.

Jerry

> 
> Diane
> 
> <<Subject: Re: OT...New Canon 10D! !!
> 
> Chris, I'm only looking for the D60 replacement. I have no need for a
> <<igh end camera, only a camera that
> has high RESOLUTION. If the new D10 doesn't have double the rez of the
> <<D60, I simply have no interest in it.
> 
> <<Jerry
> 
> 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
> 
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.
> 
> 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 &amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
> - 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/

El 25/2/03 17:50, "Jerry Olson" <jerryolson@...> escribió:


> . The new Nikon/Kodak is 14 megapixels
> for $4000. 
> 
> 
Hi,
Where are the new kodak? There is not news of it ??
Aitor

On 2/25/03 12:07 PM, "Jerry Olson" <jerryolson@...> wrote:

> It's advertised everywhere, in all the pro magazines.
> 
> Jerry


Advertised and actually shipping are 2 different things...

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

It's advertised everywhere, in all the pro magazines.

Jerry

> > . The new Nikon/Kodak is 14 megapixels
> > for $4000.

> Hi,
> Where are the new kodak? There is not news of it ??
> Aitor
> >

Yeah, but Jerry it isn't released yet because it isn't working. The 
last samples of images they pulled from the website because the image 
quality was so bad - really soft, huge digital artefacts. Someone tried 
it at PMA yesterday and said his d100 image quality was better. Also 
Gursky tried the latest sinar at PMA (22megapixels) and declared his 
film output is still better.

Julian

----- Mensaje Original -----
De: Jerry Olson <jerryolson@...>
Fecha: Martes, Febrero 25, 2003 6:07 pm
Asunto: Re: [Digital BW] Re: OT  Canon 10D

> It's advertised everywhere, in all the pro magazines.
> 
> Jerry
> 
> 
> > > . The new Nikon/Kodak is 14 megapixels
> > > for $4000.
> 
> > Hi,
> > Where are the new kodak? There is not news of it ??
> > Aitor
> > >
> 
> 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
> 
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you 
> wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by 
> visiting this same page.
> 
> 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/ 
> 
> 
>

El 25/2/03 18:07, "Jerry Olson" <jerryolson@...> escribió:

> It's advertised everywhere, in all the pro magazines.
> 
Yes, I know ,What I mean is that was announced for December, then delay for
February , .... February has end and there is no news of it......seems that
Kodak has some problems with it.
Aitor

The SD9 isn't a 9 megapixel camera, just a 3 megapixel true colour camera.

The 10D is an incremental upgrade for the D60, not a higher-resolution 
replacement. I don't think anyone happy with their D60 will buy it.

The Kodak 14n still hasn't got any real samples out, which is a bit of a 
worry.


In article <3E5B9ED2.C7F1FF57@...>, jerryolson@... (Jerry Olson) 
wrote:

> Diane, I still want the 12 megapixels, (11 is ok). Chip prices are
> falling fast, and the new foveon chip will cause them
> to fall faster. The current Sigma Foveon camera is (3) but effectively 9
> megapixels, and is noticeably sharper than the D60. But the Sigma camera
> isn't for me. a 4.2 megapixel Canon camera for 4000 dollars is nuts. I'd
> never pay that much for 4 megapixels no matter how good the camera
> itself was. I need the resolution, NOT the top of the line camera. I
> have plenty of memory and speed to take care of the larger files. I
>  would NEVER spend 4000 dollars for a digital camera, so I'll wait until
> I get what I want for $2500 or less. If it doesn't happen, I'll simply
> live with my D60.
> 
> > The 1D is still only a 4MP camera and is being snapped
> > up by many as it has dropped below the $4000 point.
> 
> If you can live with 4 megapixel resolution. It still is far from a
> bargain. The new Nikon/Kodak is 14 megapixels 
> for $4000. Canon better get on board, or people are going to be
> switching to the Kodak.
> 
> Jerry
>

> The SD9 isn't a 9 megapixel camera, just a 3 megapixel true colour camera.

That is absolutely correct, though "true" color I'd debate...three
color/pixel camera yes.

The fact that the Bayer pattern sensors have more positional information is
why they technically have a higher resolution (in the dimensional sense, as
opposed to the color sense).  But I have always not liked them being called
N MegaPIXEL sensors.  The are truly N MegaSENSOR sensor arrays, since one
sensor element does not have sufficient information for a pixel, and pixels
are either monochromatic (grayscale), or contain full color information
(RGB, CMYK etc.).

Regards,

Austin

For all practical purposes Derek, the Foveon 3 megapixel is equal in all
respects to a 9 megapixel chip, because of its unique design. I've I've
seen side by side comparisons of huge enlargements and the foveon is
sharper than the D60. But I have no use for a sigma camera.  Lets see
what the next generation foveon chip will do. I'm simply not interested
in a digital camera replacement for my D60 unless it is a LOT sharper
than the D60, and costs no more than $2500. I simply will wait until
that happens. I'm very happy with my D60.

Jerry







derek_c@... wrote:

> 
> The SD9 isn't a 9 megapixel camera, just a 3 megapixel true colour camera.
> 
> The 10D is an incremental upgrade for the D60, not a higher-resolution
> replacement. I don't think anyone happy with their D60 will buy it.
> 
> The Kodak 14n still hasn't got any real samples out, which is a bit of a
> worry.
> 
> In article <3E5B9ED2.C7F1FF57@...>, jerryolson@... (Jerry Olson)
> wrote:
> 
> > Diane, I still want the 12 megapixels, (11 is ok). Chip prices are
> > falling fast, and the new foveon chip will cause them
> > to fall faster. The current Sigma Foveon camera is (3) but effectively 9
> > megapixels, and is noticeably sharper than the D60. But the Sigma camera
> > isn't for me. a 4.2 megapixel Canon camera for 4000 dollars is nuts. I'd
> > never pay that much for 4 megapixels no matter how good the camera
> > itself was. I need the resolution, NOT the top of the line camera. I
> > have plenty of memory and speed to take care of the larger files. I
> >  would NEVER spend 4000 dollars for a digital camera, so I'll wait until
> > I get what I want for $2500 or less. If it doesn't happen, I'll simply
> > live with my D60.
> >
> > > The 1D is still only a 4MP camera and is being snapped
> > > up by many as it has dropped below the $4000 point.
> >
> > If you can live with 4 megapixel resolution. It still is far from a
> > bargain. The new Nikon/Kodak is 14 megapixels
> > for $4000. Canon better get on board, or people are going to be
> > switching to the Kodak.
> >
> > Jerry
> >
> 
> 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
> 
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.
> 
> 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 &amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
> - 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, it is indeed a "3" megapixel camera, but has the quality of a 9
Megapixel camera. 

Jerry



Austin Franklin wrote:

> 
> > The SD9 isn't a 9 megapixel camera, just a 3 megapixel true colour camera.
> 
> That is absolutely correct, though "true" color I'd debate...three
> color/pixel camera yes.
> 
> The fact that the Bayer pattern sensors have more positional information is
> why they technically have a higher resolution (in the dimensional sense, as
> opposed to the color sense).  But I have always not liked them being called
> N MegaPIXEL sensors.  The are truly N MegaSENSOR sensor arrays, since one
> sensor element does not have sufficient information for a pixel, and pixels
> are either monochromatic (grayscale), or contain full color information
> (RGB, CMYK etc.).
> 
> 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
> 
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.
> 
> 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, it is indeed a "3" megapixel camera, but has the quality of a 9
> Megapixel camera.
>
> Jerry

Hi Jerry,

The term "quality" is entirely subjective.  The Foveon POSSIBLY has higher
color fidelity (and that is debatable) as compared to a Bayer pattern
imaging sensor, but as far as anything else goes, no.  It certainly doesn't
have anywhere near the resolution that a 9M sensor Bayer pattern imaging
array does.  If you are making somewhat smallish prints, like 4x6, I'm sure
that a 3M Foveon and a 3M Bayer camera would look just about the same.

In really no way, subjective or not, does it have the "quality" of a 9M
"pixel" (which really means 9M sensors in a Bayer pattern in this case)
camera, unless the image is simply not large enough to distinguish any
difference.

Austin

Argh, Jerry,

> For all practical purposes Derek, the Foveon 3 megapixel is equal in all
> respects to a 9 megapixel chip, because of its unique design.

Absolutely not.

> I've I've
> seen side by side comparisons of huge enlargements and the foveon is
> sharper than the D60.

So what?  I can make an enlargement of a two pixel image and it will be
"sharper" than the D60.  Sharpness is an exceptionally bad metric.  It may
be the attribute YOU consider important in an image, but it is not an
attribute of the quality of the imaging device, period.

Austin

Austin, I really don't want to get into a tech argument about the tech
end again. All I know is that the foveon chip has higher image quality
than the D60 in sharpness. The foveon image looked better. that's all I
can tell you. I wouldn't know a bayer pattern from a water buffalo. Take
a look at a foveon chip photo some time. Tell me it isn't great for its
paltry 3 megs. The print comparison I saw was a small center section of
a 30x40 inch image.

Jerry

Jerry,

> The print comparison I saw was a small center section of
> a 30x40 inch image.

That's also questionable, and has me wondering what on earth you were
looking at.  Do the arithmetic.  A 3M pixel image is basically 2100 x 1400,
let's say.  That would be 1400 pixels of image data over a 30 inch span...or
1400/30 pixels/inch or 46.6 pixels/inch to the printer?  Now come on, Jerry.
Do you REALLY believe that a print that has only 46PPI is going to look any
good?  It won't, it'll be nothing but pixelation.

They did something to the image, obviously, to get it to look as it did.
That isn't the work of the camera, but the work of someone who is proficient
in manipulating the image.  IMO, it's dishonest, unless they clearly stated
exactly what was done to the original image, and they compared it to an
image from a comparable Bayer pattern camera that had the image processed
the same (as suitable) way.  Even if they did disclose the workflow, it's
still not an honest image comparison of the CAMERA.

Regards,

Austin

Austin, I don't know how to more clearly state it. The foveon was
sharper and the overall quality was better than the D60. Simple as that.
You must have been a clinton lawyer. Always want to know what "is" is.
You know a good quality print from an average print. You know a great
quality print from a very good quality print. I'm not putting the foveon
chip against a 4x5 scanning back. Overall it simply was better overall
than the canon D60, which I own, and love.

jerry

> > For all practical purposes Derek, the Foveon 3 megapixel is equal in all
> > respects to a 9 megapixel chip, because of its unique design.

> Absolutely not.
Absolutely.

> > I've I've
> > seen side by side comparisons of huge enlargements and the foveon is
> > sharper than the D60.
> 
> So what?  I can make an enlargement of a two pixel image and it will be
> "sharper" than the D60.  

C'mon Austin, you know perfectly well what I mean here.

Sharpness is an exceptionally bad metric.  It may
> be the attribute YOU consider important in an image, but it is not an
> attribute of the quality of the imaging device, period.

How about ability to separate out fine detail then? More detail than the
other one. 

Overall quality. Resolution, sharpness, detail, the picture any
professional would choose over the other one in a side 

> Austin

Hi Jerry,

> Austin, I don't know how to more clearly state it. The foveon was
> sharper and the overall quality was better than the D60. Simple as that.

I believe that you believe that, but sharpness is simply irrelevant to image
quality in the sense we are talking.  You can make any image sharp.  Also,
more pixels will actually give a less sharp image, and as I've stated time
and time again, I can give you a two pixel image that is as sharp or sharper
than ANY image you can get anywhere.  Quality, well, that's certainly
subjective.

> You must have been a clinton lawyer.

No.  He would have done jail time if I was.

> Always want to know what "is" is.

Yep.  Me too.

> You know a good quality print from an average print. You know a great
> quality print from a very good quality print. I'm not putting the foveon
> chip against a 4x5 scanning back. Overall it simply was better overall
> than the canon D60, which I own, and love.

Well, the print YOU saw YOU believed was better than a print YOU made from
YOUR D60.  If the same person were given the same data file and spent the
same amount of time and effort on your D60 image, you would not be saying
the same thing.  It's a game, kind of a con game in my opinion.

Regards,

Austin

> jerry
>
> > > For all practical purposes Derek, the Foveon 3 megapixel is
> equal in all
> > > respects to a 9 megapixel chip, because of its unique design.
>
> > Absolutely not.
> Absolutely.
>
> > > I've I've
> > > seen side by side comparisons of huge enlargements and the foveon is
> > > sharper than the D60.
> >
> > So what?  I can make an enlargement of a two pixel image and it will be
> > "sharper" than the D60.
>
> C'mon Austin, you know perfectly well what I mean here.
>
> Sharpness is an exceptionally bad metric.  It may
> > be the attribute YOU consider important in an image, but it is not an
> > attribute of the quality of the imaging device, period.
>
> How about ability to separate out fine detail then? More detail than the
> other one.
>
> Overall quality. Resolution, sharpness, detail, the picture any
> professional would choose over the other one in a side
>
> > Austin

Austin, I don't care about arithmetic, numbers or bayer patterns. I only
can tell you what my eye sees. That's
good enough for me.  Before I got my D60 camera, many people said it
couldn't possibly equal film at 12x18 inch film print. I think you were
among them. Well it can. And I will not get into a debate with you as
you will only say that's impossible. Sorry, but it is possible and my
prints prove it to anyone who has seen them.

And there was no pixelation in the comparison prints I saw. Remember it
was a comparison between a 9 megapixel chip (foveon) and a 6 megapixel
chip (Canon). I assume these pictures were upsized with General Fractals
or some other program like it. I always upsize mine to 240 DPI at ouput
resolution for photographs. I know you say they couldn't possibly be as
good, I must lose all kinds of detail when I do this, but I don't.
Nobody could tell that if they were upsized or not. I'm only speaking of
12x18 inch prints on 13x19 inch paper here. Not billboards. 

> > The print comparison I saw was a small center section of
> > a 30x40 inch image.
> 
> That's also questionable, and has me wondering what on earth you were
> looking at.  Do the arithmetic.  A 3M pixel image is basically 2100 x 1400,
> let's say.  

The foveon is effectively NINE megapixles Austin, not  3. The Canon is SIX.

That would be 1400 pixels of image data over a 30 inch span...or
> 1400/30 pixels/inch or 46.6 pixels/inch to the printer?  Now come on, Jerry.
> Do you REALLY believe that a print that has only 46PPI is going to look any
> good?  It won't, it'll be nothing but pixelation.
> 
> They did something to the image, obviously, to get it to look as it did.
> That isn't the work of the camera, but the work of someone who is proficient
> in manipulating the image.  IMO, it's dishonest, unless they clearly stated
> exactly what was done to the original image, and they compared it to an
> image from a comparable Bayer pattern camera that had the image processed
> the same (as suitable) way.  Even if they did disclose the workflow, it's
> still not an honest image comparison of the CAMERA.

Austin I would never send a 46 DPI image to the printer. and the foveon
is NINE megapixels. You know this.

Jerry

> 
> Regards,
> 
> Austin
>

Hi Jerry,

> Austin, I don't care about arithmetic, numbers or bayer patterns. I only
> can tell you what my eye sees. That's
> good enough for me.

You're missing the point.

> Before I got my D60 camera, many people said it
> couldn't possibly equal film at 12x18 inch film print. I think you were
> among them. Well it can.

Well, no.  It couldn't then and it can't now.  It equals it in size, but not
fidelity.  It simply can't, and doesn't.  Your sole criteria for image
"goodness" is sharpness, which is really a singular and mostly irrelevant
criteria for image fidelity (again, in this case).  I know you don't
understand that, and that is why we always butt heads on this.  To YOU it
looks better, by your criteria of observation, and I understand that, but
that that doesn't make it universally better, nor is your criteria the same
as everyone else's.

> And I will not get into a debate with you as
> you will only say that's impossible. Sorry, but it is possible and my
> prints prove it to anyone who has seen them.

Who knows what you are comparing, Jerry, or what your criteria is...but for
sure, it's probably this mythical "sharpness".

> And there was no pixelation in the comparison prints I saw.

I'm sure there wasn't.  It was highly manipulated.

> Remember it
> was a comparison between a 9 megapixel chip (foveon)

No.  The Foveon (at least the one we are discussing) is a THREE M pixel, not
9.  You are confused about what a pixel is and isn't.

> and a 6 megapixel
> chip (Canon). I assume these pictures were upsized with General Fractals
> or some other program like it.

And with great care, at least for the Foveon image.

> I always upsize mine to 240 DPI at ouput
> resolution for photographs. I know you say they couldn't possibly be as
> good, I must lose all kinds of detail when I do this, but I don't.

You don't lose detail, you just don't get any more by upsizing.  If you take
two images.  One from a 3M pixel camera, upsize it to say 9 M pixels.  Then
compare it to a 9M pixel image, the 9M pixel image will have a lot more
detail.

> Nobody could tell that if they were upsized or not. I'm only speaking of
> 12x18 inch prints on 13x19 inch paper here. Not billboards.

Er, I probably could.  I do it all the time.  The issue is, if you don't
know what detail isn't there, you don't know that it's missing.  Sharpness
does not require detail, they are two entirely different things.

Regards,

Austin

> > Austin, I don't know how to more clearly state it. The foveon was
> > sharper and the overall quality was better than the D60. Simple as that.
> 
> I believe that you believe that, but sharpness is simply irrelevant to image
> quality in the sense we are talking.  You can make any image sharp.  Also,
> more pixels will actually give a less sharp image, and as I've stated time
> and time again, I can give you a two pixel image that is as sharp or sharper
> than ANY image you can get anywhere.

But Austin, you know what I'm talking about. Detail. Resolution.
Sharpness. Acutance. Clarity. I don't know any other way to say it.

> Well, the print YOU saw YOU believed was better than a print YOU made from
> YOUR D60.  If the same person were given the same data file and spent the
> same amount of time and effort on your D60 image, you would not be saying
> the same thing.  It's a game, kind of a con game in my opinion.

I didn't ever say there was a huge difference in quality between the
Foveon and the Canon D60. I said the difference was better with the
foveon. Not a LOT better, but better. Noticeably better. I would love to
have that foveon chip in my D60. And I'm sure the next generation chip
will be better still.

I think I'm pretty good at bringing out the best in an image. I've been
at it for a lot of years, and have used photoshop for 12 years. I had a
copy of it when it was Barneyscan, software for a Nikon scanner. And I
have had 
every single upgrade they have released. I have a LOT of plugins, and
think I can make an image as good as it can be.

Jerry
>

<A HREF="http://www.users.qwest.net/~rnclark/scandetail.htm">http://www.users.qwest.net/~rnclark/scandetail.htm</A>
The above is a link that compare's extensively, digital vs scanned film 
resolutions as well as digital camera resolutions with plenty of image zooms. 
Be sure to scroll through it all. 
I wouldn't even consider a digital camera unless its at least 11MegaPixels! 
At least not when I can scan film much cheaper and with better resolving 
power.
There was a comment that the Canon D60 had the best images in its class? From 
what I've read the Fuji S2 had the best image quality.
Steve M.


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

Hi Jerry,

> > > Austin, I don't know how to more clearly state it. The foveon was
> > > sharper and the overall quality was better than the D60.
> Simple as that.
> >
> > I believe that you believe that, but sharpness is simply
> irrelevant to image
> > quality in the sense we are talking.  You can make any image
> sharp.  Also,
> > more pixels will actually give a less sharp image, and as I've
> stated time
> > and time again, I can give you a two pixel image that is as
> sharp or sharper
> > than ANY image you can get anywhere.
>
> But Austin, you know what I'm talking about.

> Detail.

No

> Resolution.

No

> Sharpness. Acutance. Clarity.

Possibly, but these are attributes that can be done using image
manipulation, and they are not indicative of "better" in an imaging sense as
we are talking about.

> > Well, the print YOU saw YOU believed was better than a print
> YOU made from
> > YOUR D60.  If the same person were given the same data file and
> spent the
> > same amount of time and effort on your D60 image, you would not
> be saying
> > the same thing.  It's a game, kind of a con game in my opinion.
>
> I didn't ever say there was a huge difference in quality between the
> Foveon and the Canon D60. I said the difference was better with the
> foveon. Not a LOT better, but better. Noticeably better.

I understand.  But you are comparing images that I know not a thing about,
and I could create images that prove (in your sense) the exact opposite.

Regards,

Austin

Yo Austin.

> > Remember it
> > was a comparison between a 9 megapixel chip (foveon)

> No.  The Foveon (at least the one we are discussing) is a THREE M pixel, not
> 9.  You are confused about what a pixel is and isn't. 

You are confused. TECHNICALLY it is a 3 MP chip. It has the exact same
quality that anybody elses 9 meapixel chip has. That is the whole point
behind the foveon chip.

> You don't lose detail, you just don't get any more by upsizing.  If you take
> two images.  One from a 3M pixel camera, upsize it to say 9 M pixels.  Then
> compare it to a 9M pixel image, the 9M pixel image will have a lot more
> detail.
THE FOVEON HAS THE SAME QUALITY AS ANYBODY ELSE'S 9 MEGAPIXEL CHIP. THAT
IS THE WHOLE
POINT BEHIND THE FOVEON PHILOSOPHY. IT IS DIFFERENT TECHNOLOGY.

> > Nobody could tell that if they were upsized or not. I'm only speaking of
> > 12x18 inch prints on 13x19 inch paper here. Not billboards.
> 
> Er, I probably could.  I do it all the time.  The issue is, if you don't
> know what detail isn't there, you don't know that it's missing.  Sharpness
> does not require detail, they are two entirely different things.

I doubt you probably could.

BUT I'VE MADE COMPARISONS WITH FILM. FILM IS NOT BETTER IN ANY WAY
WHATSOEVER FOR AN 18 INCH PRINT !!!!!

ENOUGH	!

WE'VE BEEN THROUGH THIS TOO MANY TIMES ALREADY.

JERRY
>

No it is a 3 meg sensor - period. The others also have 1/3 of the 
resolution that they claim. There are a lot of ways to measure 
resolution on the bench and in any of those the Foveon is 3 megs. Step a 
red laser across it you will get 3 megapixels. Step a blue laser across 
it you will get 3 megapixels. Step a green laser across it  you will get 
3 megapixels. You cannot invent additional sensors than are not there. 
Of course if you step a red then blue then green laser across a 
conventional sensor you will get 1/3 the number of sensors advertised. 
The whole digital camera market is a shell game of inflating numbers. 
When you can put any of them on an airplain at 100,000 feet and read a 
license plate on a car - I will be interested. Until then I'll stick to 
film.

Truman



Jerry Olson wrote:

>Yo Austin.
>
>  
>
>>>Remember it
>>>was a comparison between a 9 megapixel chip (foveon)
>>>      
>>>
>
>  
>
>>No.  The Foveon (at least the one we are discussing) is a THREE M pixel, not
>>9.  You are confused about what a pixel is and isn't. 
>>    
>>
>
>You are confused. TECHNICALLY it is a 3 MP chip. It has the exact same
>quality that anybody elses 9 meapixel chip has. That is the whole point
>behind the foveon chip.
>
>  
>
>>You don't lose detail, you just don't get any more by upsizing.  If you take
>>two images.  One from a 3M pixel camera, upsize it to say 9 M pixels.  Then
>>compare it to a 9M pixel image, the 9M pixel image will have a lot more
>>detail.
>>    
>>
>THE FOVEON HAS THE SAME QUALITY AS ANYBODY ELSE'S 9 MEGAPIXEL CHIP. THAT
>IS THE WHOLE
>POINT BEHIND THE FOVEON PHILOSOPHY. IT IS DIFFERENT TECHNOLOGY.
>
>  
>
>>>Nobody could tell that if they were upsized or not. I'm only speaking of
>>>12x18 inch prints on 13x19 inch paper here. Not billboards.
>>>      
>>>
>>Er, I probably could.  I do it all the time.  The issue is, if you don't
>>know what detail isn't there, you don't know that it's missing.  Sharpness
>>does not require detail, they are two entirely different things.
>>    
>>
>
>I doubt you probably could.
>
>BUT I'VE MADE COMPARISONS WITH FILM. FILM IS NOT BETTER IN ANY WAY
>WHATSOEVER FOR AN 18 INCH PRINT !!!!!
>
>ENOUGH	!
>
>WE'VE BEEN THROUGH THIS TOO MANY TIMES ALREADY.
>
>JERRY
>  
>
>
>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
>
>If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.
>
>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/ 
>
>
>
>  
>



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

Austin,

We'll just have to agree to disagree Austin. I know what the quality of
my prints looks like I am convinced that to 18 inches it will can does,
and will equal 100 Provia film scanned at 4000 DPI on the scanner of
your choice.

You could probably look at both prints side by side and claim your
filmscan is a better print in whatever area you wish to claim. I will
make the opposite claim. We will never agree. So lets not go through
this debate again. It would be the third time, and you will simply never
convince me and I'll never convince you.

Jerry

Jerry,

> You are confused. TECHNICALLY it is a 3 MP chip. It has the exact same
> quality that anybody elses 9 meapixel chip has. That is the whole point
> behind the foveon chip.

No, Jerry, you don't understand how this works.  I design these things for a
living, and have been doing so for 25 years.  I know quite well how this
stuff works.

There are ONLY 3M PHOTO SITES on the Foveon chip, no matter how many colors
they use, how many bits per photo site, the number of PHOTO SITES is only
3M, period.  On a 9M Bayer pattern imaging sensor there are 9M PHOTO SITES.
The two are NOT the same, the 9M Bayer pattern sensor has 3x the resolution
of spatial data, period.  The accuracy of color information is another
issue, and the Foveon MAY have a SLIGHT...read that again...MAY HAVE A
SLIGHT edge, but the fact is, the Bayer pattern sensors in fact do VERY
well.

The issue with the Foveon is it isn't solving any problems.  In fact, it
creates some that don't exist with traditional Bayer pattern CCDs.  It has
low light problems, and color fidelity problems.  It's a nice idea, and so
far, in my book, fails in implementation.  I still have high hopes for it
though.

> BUT I'VE MADE COMPARISONS WITH FILM. FILM IS NOT BETTER IN ANY WAY
> WHATSOEVER FOR AN 18 INCH PRINT !!!!!

THEN YOU ARE USING LOUSY FILM, PERIOD.

> ENOUGH	!
>
> WE'VE BEEN THROUGH THIS TOO MANY TIMES ALREADY.

Yes, we have.  You don't understand how the Foveon works, and why it is
still only 3M pixels and why a 9M sensor Bayer pattern sensor DOES HAVE 3x
the resolution of the 3M Foveon sensor...it's a FACT, and any belief
otherwise is simply your not understanding how these work.

Second, I have done many film vs digital tests....many.  It's part of what I
do for a living.  Your criteria for comparison is yours, and yours alone.
It holds no water as far as professional imaging goes.  If you like it,
that's fine for you, but in reality no one judges imaging that way.  As I've
said countless times, and you fail to grasp, sharpness is IRRELEVANT.

I fear you will never get it.

Austin

=There was a comment that the Canon D60 had the best images in 
=its class? From 
WHAT class??  The Canon D60 class.  The Fuji is best in the Fuji S2 class.
The D100 is best in its class.
=what I've read the Fuji S2 had the best image quality.

All that stuff is so subjective, it's bordering on meaningless.  It's
starting to sound like Popular Photography reviewing some "Acme" lens.

Seth

Truman-

=Of course if you step a red then blue then green laser across a 
=conventional sensor you will get 1/3 the number of sensors advertised. 
=The whole digital camera market is a shell game of inflating numbers. 
=When you can put any of them on an airplain at 100,000 feet and read a 
=license plate on a car - I will be interested. Until then I'll 
=stick to 
=film.
=
Excellent concept.  I wondered how those spy satellites work!  How do they
they get that hi-res film back down to earth so fast?  I'd thought it'd burn
up in the atmosphere.  Sneaky government is making secret film drops from
space.

Seth

Seth Rossman wrote:

>Excellent concept.  I wondered how those spy satellites work!
>
Ummm...  The Foveon chip technology is how..

> How do they
>they get that hi-res film back down to earth so fast?  I'd thought it'd burn
>up in the atmosphere.  Sneaky government is making secret film drops from
>space.
>
>  
>
Actually, film was dropped from space back into the atmosphere at one 
point..

Film capsules were retrieved in most cases in midair as they parachuted 
down, by specially equipped aircraft..

In those days, the film carried by a spy sateellite limited its 
effective life...
Keith

 

"Just some guy," and caretaker of the Multiverse's largest EPSON printer 
User Community (highly recommended by Vogon Poets and MegaDodo 
Publications), at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EPSONx7x_Printers/
 
"For the rest of you out there, the secret is to bang the rocks together 
guys"

 




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

I think Spy sattelites are more about Zoom than the medium used...

Sam

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Seth Rossman 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 8:44 AM
  Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Re: OT Canon 10D



  Truman-

  =Of course if you step a red then blue then green laser across a 
  =conventional sensor you will get 1/3 the number of sensors advertised. 
  =The whole digital camera market is a shell game of inflating numbers. 
  =When you can put any of them on an airplain at 100,000 feet and read a 
  =license plate on a car - I will be interested. Until then I'll 
  =stick to 
  =film.
  =
  Excellent concept.  I wondered how those spy satellites work!  How do they
  they get that hi-res film back down to earth so fast?  I'd thought it'd burn
  up in the atmosphere.  Sneaky government is making secret film drops from
  space.

  Seth


        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 
              ADVERTISEMENT
             
       
       

  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

  If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.

  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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 


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

Hi Truman,

> The others also have 1/3 of the
> resolution that they claim.

That's not true.  They have the FULL spatial resolution they claim, it's the
color fidelity that is decreased.  It's a matter of number of photosites,
not pixels or M bytes.

> You cannot invent additional sensors than are not there.

Well, actually you can.  That's what interpolation is...but it wouldn't work
with the Foveon in the same way as it does with the Bayer pattern imaging
sensors, simply because the Bayer pattern imaging sensors have every output
pixel based on some actual data from that photosite.  Interpolating a Foveon
would be the same as doing it in PhotoShop...but the Bayer pattern
interpolation for color information is entirely different.

> Of course if you step a red then blue then green laser across a
> conventional sensor you will get 1/3 the number of sensors advertised.

Actually, 1/2 for green.  The Bayer pattern imaging sensors have %25 red,
%25 blue and %50 green.

But, the fact is, not much exists in real life that is %100 red, %100 blue
or %100 green, and this is why the Bayer pattern imaging sensors give really
good images, and why a Foveon, even of the exact same spatial resolution
size, doesn't give much of an increase in color fidelity over a Bayer
pattern imaging sensor of the same spatial resolution.

People are confusing two resolutions.  One is spatial, the other is color
(tonality).  Spatial is purely based on the number of photosites.  Color is
based on the depth of information received at any one photosite.  For the
Foveon, it gets full RGB at each photosite, and for the Bayer, it gets
either R, G or B at each photosite.

To relate this to your computer monitor.  You can have a 1200 x 1600 monitor
with 8 bits/pixel (256 colors), and the same monitor can be 1200 x 1600 with
24 bits/pixel...yet they are the exact same spatial resolution.  A 768 x
1024 monitor with 24 bits/pixel does not have the same spatial resolution as
a 1200 x 1600 monitor with 8 bits/pixel, though it has higher pixel
depth...but pixel depth is irrelevant as far as spatial resolution goes.

In fact, TV works a similar way to the Bayer sensor concept, where the color
information (Chrominance) is only 1/4th as much "data" as the luminance
information.  This works because of how our (human) visual
acquisition/processing system works.  We are more acute to edge/luminance
difference than to color differences.  This is why there is such a marginal
(if any) true visual benefit to having full color information, like the
Foveon gives.

Austin

The NRO will tell you now how they worked in the early days. Go to 
www.nro.gov and click on Corona.  

Truman

Editor P.O.V. Image Service wrote:

>Seth Rossman wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Excellent concept.  I wondered how those spy satellites work!
>>
>>    
>>
>Ummm...  The Foveon chip technology is how..
>
>  
>
>>How do they
>>they get that hi-res film back down to earth so fast?  I'd thought it'd burn
>>up in the atmosphere.  Sneaky government is making secret film drops from
>>space.
>>
>> 
>>
>>    
>>
>Actually, film was dropped from space back into the atmosphere at one 
>point..
>
>Film capsules were retrieved in most cases in midair as they parachuted 
>down, by specially equipped aircraft..
>
>In those days, the film carried by a spy sateellite limited its 
>effective life...
>Keith
>
> 
>
>"Just some guy," and caretaker of the Multiverse's largest EPSON printer 
>User Community (highly recommended by Vogon Poets and MegaDodo 
>Publications), at:
>
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EPSONx7x_Printers/
> 
>"For the rest of you out there, the secret is to bang the rocks together 
>guys"
>
> 
>
>
>
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>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
>
>If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.
>
>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/ 
>
>
>
>  
>



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

100,000 feet is not space. The U2 flies at about 65,000 and the SR71 
Blackbird flew at about 100,000.  They simply land with the film.

Truman

Sam wrote:

>I think Spy sattelites are more about Zoom than the medium used...
>
>Sam
>  ----- Original Message ----- 
>  From: Seth Rossman 
>  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
>  Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 8:44 AM
>  Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Re: OT Canon 10D
>
>
>
>  Truman-
>
>  =Of course if you step a red then blue then green laser across a 
>  =conventional sensor you will get 1/3 the number of sensors advertised. 
>  =The whole digital camera market is a shell game of inflating numbers. 
>  =When you can put any of them on an airplain at 100,000 feet and read a 
>  =license plate on a car - I will be interested. Until then I'll 
>  =stick to 
>  =film.
>  =
>  Excellent concept.  I wondered how those spy satellites work!  How do they
>  they get that hi-res film back down to earth so fast?  I'd thought it'd burn
>  up in the atmosphere.  Sneaky government is making secret film drops from
>  space.
>
>  Seth
>
>
>        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 
>              ADVERTISEMENT
>             
>       
>       
>
>  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
>
>  If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.
>
>  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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 
>
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>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
>
>If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.
>
>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/ 
>
>
>
>  
>

Two things for sure in this world-  1/ Austin knows the definition 
of sharpness and 2/ Austin gets the last word

Garry Sarre

www.sarre.com.au

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Austin 
Franklin" <darkroom@i...> wrote:
> Hi Jerry,
> 
> > Austin, I don't know how to more clearly state it. The foveon was
> > sharper and the overall quality was better than the D60. Simple 
as that.
> 
> I believe that you believe that, but sharpness is simply 
irrelevant to image
> quality in the sense we are talking.  You can make any image 
sharp.  Also,
> more pixels will actually give a less sharp image, and as I've 
stated time
> and time again, I can give you a two pixel image that is as sharp 
or sharper
> than ANY image you can get anywhere.  Quality, well, that's 
certainly
> subjective.
> 
> > You must have been a clinton lawyer.
> 
> No.  He would have done jail time if I was.
> 
> > Always want to know what "is" is.
> 
> Yep.  Me too.
> 
> > You know a good quality print from an average print. You know a 
great
> > quality print from a very good quality print. I'm not putting 
the foveon
> > chip against a 4x5 scanning back. Overall it simply was better 
overall
> > than the canon D60, which I own, and love.
> 
> Well, the print YOU saw YOU believed was better than a print YOU 
made from
> YOUR D60.  If the same person were given the same data file and 
spent the
> same amount of time and effort on your D60 image, you would not be 
saying
> the same thing.  It's a game, kind of a con game in my opinion.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Austin
> 
> > jerry
> >
> > > > For all practical purposes Derek, the Foveon 3 megapixel is
> > equal in all
> > > > respects to a 9 megapixel chip, because of its unique design.
> >
> > > Absolutely not.
> > Absolutely.
> >
> > > > I've I've
> > > > seen side by side comparisons of huge enlargements and the 
foveon is
> > > > sharper than the D60.
> > >
> > > So what?  I can make an enlargement of a two pixel image and 
it will be
> > > "sharper" than the D60.
> >
> > C'mon Austin, you know perfectly well what I mean here.
> >
> > Sharpness is an exceptionally bad metric.  It may
> > > be the attribute YOU consider important in an image, but it is 
not an
> > > attribute of the quality of the imaging device, period.
> >
> > How about ability to separate out fine detail then? More detail 
than the

> > other one.
> >
> > Overall quality. Resolution, sharpness, detail, the picture any
> > professional would choose over the other one in a side
> >
> > > Austin

Thanks for those that responded to how they "get the film back from space." 

It was tongue-in-cheek.  As a Navy photo officer, I know how it works.

The point is:  THAT technology is winding its way into our upper  level
digis.

Seth


=
=100,000 feet is not space. The U2 flies at about 65,000 and the SR71 
=Blackbird flew at about 100,000.  They simply land with the film.
=

Jerry & Austin

I know you two old codgers like to butt heads so I am sure this wont 
make any difference to you but... there is really no dis-agreement 
here, you're just on different wavelengths. It is very obvious that 
Austin is right about the 'detail', it's pure logic. What we are 
talking about Jerry, is that the 'conjured detail' is good enough 
for your work.. as it is mine.

Jerry, I gather you use the D60 for portrait... I switched over from 
Hasselblad with softar filter for portrait to a D60 and I do get 
more 'apparent' detail, that is - I can see my silhouette 
beautifully in my subjects eyes where with the Blad it was pretty 
noisy with all the grain and fibres floating around in the chemistry.

I step interpolate up from the raw files to around 200mb when 
necessary. I think that Austin would agree that approximately 97% of 
that image would be purely 'computer conjuring'. It seems to do a 
nice job at this in photoshop as I have printed to 24x36 from the 
D60 and see no limit in size for portrait. Before I am dismissed 
here, I am talking of aesthetics, not original detail. I know it is 
calculated. It is calculated amazingly well. At times I see a 
diagonal hair that is very fine that I KNOW is below the threshold 
of the original pixels in camera. It is illusion. For my work, the 
illusion works beautifully.

I printed traditionally for 27 years including cibachromes in 1977. 
My cibachrome processor I made out of a sewing machine motor and 
cast iron. I have not found a printer (as in person)that prints to 
my satisfaction. Not to boast but to show that I take my printing 
very 
seriously far and above what the public demands.

The combination of the CMOS D60 (beautiful smooth skin tones) and 
the 9600 printing sepia (predominantly) onto photorag with matte 
black has brought back the enthusiasm that I was beginning to lose.

I would never go back to traditional for my style of work. If I 
required original,true and exacting detail, I would go to a scanning 
camera or film.

Garry Sarre


www.sarre.com.au
> 
> > Austin, I don't care about arithmetic, numbers or bayer 
patterns. I only
> > can tell you what my eye sees. That's
> > good enough for me.
> 
> You're missing the point.
> 
> > Before I got my D60 camera, many people said it
> > couldn't possibly equal film at 12x18 inch film print. I think 
you were
> > among them. Well it can.
> 
> Well, no.  It couldn't then and it can't now.  It equals it in 
size, but not
> fidelity.  It simply can't, and doesn't.  Your sole criteria for 
image
> "goodness" is sharpness, which is really a singular and mostly 
irrelevant
> criteria for image fidelity (again, in this case).  I know you 
don't
> understand that, and that is why we always butt heads on this.  To 
YOU it
> looks better, by your criteria of observation, and I understand 
that, but
> that that doesn't make it universally better, nor is your criteria 
the same
> as everyone else's.
> 
> > And I will not get into a debate with you as
> > you will only say that's impossible. Sorry, but it is possible 
and my
> > prints prove it to anyone who has seen them.
> 
> Who knows what you are comparing, Jerry, or what your criteria 
is...but for
> sure, it's probably this mythical "sharpness".
> 
> > And there was no pixelation in the comparison prints I saw.
> 
> I'm sure there wasn't.  It was highly manipulated.
> 
> > Remember it
> > was a comparison between a 9 megapixel chip (foveon)
> 
> No.  The Foveon (at least the one we are discussing) is a THREE M 
pixel, not
> 9.  You are confused about what a pixel is and isn't.
> 
> > and a 6 megapixel
> > chip (Canon). I assume these pictures were upsized with General 
Fractals
> > or some other program like it.
> 
> And with great care, at least for the Foveon image.
> 
> > I always upsize mine to 240 DPI at ouput
> > resolution for photographs. I know you say they couldn't 
possibly be as
> > good, I must lose all kinds of detail when I do this, but I 
don't.
> 
> You don't lose detail, you just don't get any more by upsizing.  
If you take
> two images.  One from a 3M pixel camera, upsize it to say 9 M 
pixels.  Then
> compare it to a 9M pixel image, the 9M pixel image will have a lot 
more
> detail.
> 
> > Nobody could tell that if they were upsized or not. I'm only 
speaking of
> > 12x18 inch prints on 13x19 inch paper here. Not billboards.
> 
> Er, I probably could.  I do it all the time.  The issue is, if you 
don't
> know what detail isn't there, you don't know that it's missing.  
Sharpness

> does not require detail, they are two entirely different things.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Austin

Garry,

> Jerry & Austin

> I know you two old codgers

I'd dare say, Garry, you're probably either not much younger than I am, or
possibly even older, of you were doing Cibachromes in 1977.  I was not even
20 then.  Now as far as Jerry, I believe he came over on the Mayflower, but
I could be off by a few years ;-)

Austin

wrong

foveon has 9 million (+-) image sites that record a 3 MP image, not 9. it is a very wide spread misconception based on sigma * foveon marketing bohoo. yes, this 3 MP image holds more information than comparable 3 MP images from bayer sensors. however the "usefullness" factor is about 1.6 to 1.8 depending on the subject at hand. this has been discussed ad nauseam. so a 3 MP image in the best possible conditions would equal a nikon d100 or canon d60. however it won't even come close to fuji s2 which has a real resolution of approximately 8 - 9 MP although being an effective 6-mio bayer patterned photosite imager


i don't mind foveon canon nikon or fuji for that matter ( personally i still use an olympus E-10 and a contax 645AF with a kodak dcs 645c pro back. but please do not spread rubbish about foveon being a 9 megapixel chip. 

9 megasite chip that records a 3 megapixel image where 3 imagesites are used to record 1 pixel. 

that's it - nothing more nothing less when it comes to resolution.


regards

Veniamin Kostitsin

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Jerry Olson 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 1:27 AM
  Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: OT Canon 10D


  Austin, I don't care about arithmetic, numbers or bayer patterns. I only
  can tell you what my eye sees. That's
  good enough for me.  Before I got my D60 camera, many people said it
  couldn't possibly equal film at 12x18 inch film print. I think you were
  among them. Well it can. And I will not get into a debate with you as
  you will only say that's impossible. Sorry, but it is possible and my
  prints prove it to anyone who has seen them.

  And there was no pixelation in the comparison prints I saw. Remember it
  was a comparison between a 9 megapixel chip (foveon) and a 6 megapixel
  chip (Canon). I assume these pictures were upsized with General Fractals
  or some other program like it. I always upsize mine to 240 DPI at ouput
  resolution for photographs. I know you say they couldn't possibly be as
  good, I must lose all kinds of detail when I do this, but I don't.
  Nobody could tell that if they were upsized or not. I'm only speaking of
  12x18 inch prints on 13x19 inch paper here. Not billboards. 

  > > The print comparison I saw was a small center section of
  > > a 30x40 inch image.
  > 
  > That's also questionable, and has me wondering what on earth you were
  > looking at.  Do the arithmetic.  A 3M pixel image is basically 2100 x 1400,
  > let's say.  

  The foveon is effectively NINE megapixles Austin, not  3. The Canon is SIX.

  That would be 1400 pixels of image data over a 30 inch span...or
  > 1400/30 pixels/inch or 46.6 pixels/inch to the printer?  Now come on, Jerry.
  > Do you REALLY believe that a print that has only 46PPI is going to look any
  > good?  It won't, it'll be nothing but pixelation.
  > 
  > They did something to the image, obviously, to get it to look as it did.
  > That isn't the work of the camera, but the work of someone who is proficient
  > in manipulating the image.  IMO, it's dishonest, unless they clearly stated
  > exactly what was done to the original image, and they compared it to an
  > image from a comparable Bayer pattern camera that had the image processed
  > the same (as suitable) way.  Even if they did disclose the workflow, it's
  > still not an honest image comparison of the CAMERA.

  Austin I would never send a 46 DPI image to the printer. and the foveon
  is NINE megapixels. You know this.

  Jerry
  > 
  > Regards,
  > 
  > Austin
  >

        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 
              ADVERTISEMENT
             
       
       

  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

  If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.

  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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 


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

Austin, have you actually seen the results of a foveon chip? seen a
direct comparison with anybody else's 6 megapixel chip? If you have,
what did you see?


Do you know the people who invented it? They are not chopped liver.
They are quite famous scientists.

I don't care HOW you put the numbers together or HOW technical you want
to be. I only care about results. and I know the Foveon has more detail,
sharpness, resolution, or whatever you want to call it than the Canon
D60 chip; at least that's what the prints show me.

So enough already.

> No, Jerry, you don't understand how this works.  I design these things for a
> living, and have been doing so for 25 years.  I know quite well how this
> stuff works.

Then you must have read a LOT about the foveon chip and the principles
behind it. 

> The issue with the Foveon is it isn't solving any problems.  In fact, it
> creates some that don't exist with traditional Bayer pattern CCDs.  It has
> low light problems, and color fidelity problems.  It's a nice idea, and so
> far, in my book, fails in implementation.  I still have high hopes for it
> though.

That may be. It's only the first generation. But it ain't bad for a
first try.
> 
> > BUT I'VE MADE COMPARISONS WITH FILM. FILM IS NOT BETTER IN ANY WAY
> > WHATSOEVER FOR AN 18 INCH PRINT !!!!!
> 
> THEN YOU ARE USING LOUSY FILM, PERIOD.  Then you are saying Provia film is lousy film.

I doubt that very much.
> 
> > ENOUGH        !
> >
 
> Yes, we have.  You don't understand how the Foveon works, and why it is
> still only 3M pixels and why a 9M sensor Bayer pattern sensor DOES HAVE 3x
> the resolution of the 3M Foveon sensor...it's a FACT, and any belief
> otherwise is simply your not understanding how these work.

Not doubting your facts at all. Only the results I see.

Jerry,

> Austin, have you actually seen the results of a foveon chip?

Yes.  Not manipulated images, but actual from the camera images.

> seen a
> direct comparison with anybody else's 6 megapixel chip? If you have,
> what did you see?

Er, that the Foveon has color problems, and doesn't have as much detail as
the 6M camera does.

> Do you know the people who invented it?

Yes.

> They are not chopped liver.
> They are quite famous scientists.

I'm no slouch my self, Jerry.  I started life as a Staff Scientist at IBM
Cambridge Scientific Center after getting degrees from three letter schools.
That was in 1978, at age 20.  I've done a lot since then.

> I don't care HOW you put the numbers together or HOW technical you want
> to be. I only care about results.

And I understand that.

> and I know the Foveon has more detail,
> sharpness, resolution, or whatever you want to call it than the Canon
> D60 chip; at least that's what the prints show me.

You are missing the point.  It is what YOU see in the prints you are being
shown.  You have no clue how accurate the actual image is (that's called
fidelity), or what was really done to the images to make them look as they
do.

If you are happy with them, of course, then they are for you...but it
becomes borderline surrealism when the images contain less original image
information than they do original information.  That's the part you're
missing.  You may as well take up painting ;-)

Austin

True Truman, BUT if all chips get exactly the same treatment, the Foveon
STILL wins. It simply has more detail than a 6 megapixel chip, which I
have seen with mine own eyebulbs. Again, THAT was the whole point of the
Foveon chip, to get more information on the same size chip than a
regular ccd chip. It did. 




Truman Prevatt wrote:
> 
> No it is a 3 meg sensor - period. The others also have 1/3 of the
> resolution that they claim. 

Foveon CLAIMS 9 megapixels.

Canon CLAIMS 6 megapixels.

If both chips are treated identically, the Foveon still has the better image.


Jerry


There are a lot of ways to measure

> resolution on the bench and in any of those the Foveon is 3 megs. Step a
> red laser across it you will get 3 megapixels. Step a blue laser across
> it you will get 3 megapixels. Step a green laser across it  you will get
> 3 megapixels. You cannot invent additional sensors than are not there.
> Of course if you step a red then blue then green laser across a
> conventional sensor you will get 1/3 the number of sensors advertised.
> The whole digital camera market is a shell game of inflating numbers.
> When you can put any of them on an airplain at 100,000 feet and read a
> license plate on a car - I will be interested. Until then I'll stick to
> film.
> 
> Truman
> 
> Jerry Olson wrote:
> 
> >Yo Austin.
> >
> >
> >
> >>>Remember it
> >>>was a comparison between a 9 megapixel chip (foveon)
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> >
> >
> >>No.  The Foveon (at least the one we are discussing) is a THREE M pixel, not
> >>9.  You are confused about what a pixel is and isn't.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >You are confused. TECHNICALLY it is a 3 MP chip. It has the exact same
> >quality that anybody elses 9 meapixel chip has. That is the whole point
> >behind the foveon chip.
> >
> >
> >
> >>You don't lose detail, you just don't get any more by upsizing.  If you take
> >>two images.  One from a 3M pixel camera, upsize it to say 9 M pixels.  Then
> >>compare it to a 9M pixel image, the 9M pixel image will have a lot more
> >>detail.
> >>
> >>
> >THE FOVEON HAS THE SAME QUALITY AS ANYBODY ELSE'S 9 MEGAPIXEL CHIP. THAT
> >IS THE WHOLE
> >POINT BEHIND THE FOVEON PHILOSOPHY. IT IS DIFFERENT TECHNOLOGY.
> >
> >
> >
> >>>Nobody could tell that if they were upsized or not. I'm only speaking of
> >>>12x18 inch prints on 13x19 inch paper here. Not billboards.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>Er, I probably could.  I do it all the time.  The issue is, if you don't
> >>know what detail isn't there, you don't know that it's missing.  Sharpness
> >>does not require detail, they are two entirely different things.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >I doubt you probably could.
> >
> >BUT I'VE MADE COMPARISONS WITH FILM. FILM IS NOT BETTER IN ANY WAY
> >WHATSOEVER FOR AN 18 INCH PRINT !!!!!
> >
> >ENOUGH !
> >
> >WE'VE BEEN THROUGH THIS TOO MANY TIMES ALREADY.
> >
> >JERRY
> >
> >
> >
> >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
> >
> >If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.
> >
> >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/
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> 
> 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
> 
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.
> 
> 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/

Veniamin,

> foveon has 9 million (+-) image sites

Not correct.  It has 3M image sites.  Each image site has three sensors, but
the point is each of the three sensors sees the EXACT same light column.

And, I do disagree with your 1.6 to 1.8 factor as well.  I have found from
my own testing that it is more like 1-1.2 typically, and VERY rare that it
goes over 1.3.  It is, of course, very image dependant, as you say.

Regards,

Austin

Jerry,

> True Truman, BUT if all chips get exactly the same treatment, the Foveon
> STILL wins. It simply has more detail than a 6 megapixel chip, which I
> have seen with mine own eyebulbs.

Then you are seeing data that was simply not there in the original image, or
a VERY poorly done 6M image.

> Again, THAT was the whole point of the
> Foveon chip, to get more information on the same size chip than a
> regular ccd chip.

Jerry...you keep misunderstanding what "information" is, and what is and
isn't important about the different information.  There is spatial
information (for example 2k x 3k), and tonality information (for example 24
bit RGB).  As far as spatial information, the Foveon is 3M and a 6M is 6M
spatially, that is just plain and simple.  As far as tonal information, yes,
the Foveon has more "true" tonal information...but the importance of that
information is far less than that of the resolution.  You can dispute it all
you want, but it's a plain and simple fact.

Austin

I suspect that NASA has MUCH higher quality equipment than we ordinary
photographers do. In fact I know they do.

J

>   Excellent concept.  I wondered how those spy satellites work!  How do they
>   they get that hi-res film back down to earth so fast?  I'd thought it'd burn
>   up in the atmosphere.  Sneaky government is making secret film drops from
>   space.
> 
>   Seth
>

Hi Garry,

Austin is obsessed with technical matters. I'm obsessed with what I see,
and is it good enough for me?

I KNOW that there are many digital cameras that would run rings around a
D60, BUT I never make billboard  size
prints. 12x18 is about as high as I go. And I usually merge several
pictures together, or combine 2 or more shots
for panoramas. The resolution at the 18 inch print is surely as good as
the Hassleblad or Rollei, particularly if you string 2 images together.
The digital files are grainless and have no artifacts. Watch Austin jump
in here to tell me there are hundreds of artifacts in a D60 image. Well
I see NONE, and that's what counts.  The D60 is about all I use now for
everything, and I'm quite happy with it, especially with the 50 and 100
Macro Canon Lenses. If Canon comes out with a D60 replacement that has
11 or 12 megapixels for under $3000, I'll get it. If they don't, I'll
just be happy with what I have. No problem. I have seen many a digital
image in the print exchanges and I can't imagine how anyone can say they
don't equal film.

Jerry




"Garry Sarre " wrote:

> 
> Jerry & Austin
> 
> I know you two old codgers like to butt heads so I am sure this wont
> make any difference to you but... there is really no dis-agreement
> here, you're just on different wavelengths. It is very obvious that
> Austin is right about the 'detail', it's pure logic. What we are
> talking about Jerry, is that the 'conjured detail' is good enough
> for your work.. as it is mine.
> 
> Jerry, I gather you use the D60 for portrait... I switched over from
> Hasselblad with softar filter for portrait to a D60 and I do get
> more 'apparent' detail, that is - I can see my silhouette
> beautifully in my subjects eyes where with the Blad it was pretty
> noisy with all the grain and fibres floating around in the chemistry.
> 
> I step interpolate up from the raw files to around 200mb when
> necessary. I think that Austin would agree that approximately 97% of
> that image would be purely 'computer conjuring'. It seems to do a
> nice job at this in photoshop as I have printed to 24x36 from the
> D60 and see no limit in size for portrait. Before I am dismissed
> here, I am talking of aesthetics, not original detail. I know it is
> calculated. It is calculated amazingly well. At times I see a
> diagonal hair that is very fine that I KNOW is below the threshold
> of the original pixels in camera. It is illusion. For my work, the
> illusion works beautifully.
> 
> I printed traditionally for 27 years including cibachromes in 1977.
> My cibachrome processor I made out of a sewing machine motor and
> cast iron. I have not found a printer (as in person)that prints to
> my satisfaction. Not to boast but to show that I take my printing
> very
> seriously far and above what the public demands.
> 
> The combination of the CMOS D60 (beautiful smooth skin tones) and
> the 9600 printing sepia (predominantly) onto photorag with matte
> black has brought back the enthusiasm that I was beginning to lose.
> 
> I would never go back to traditional for my style of work. If I
> required original,true and exacting detail, I would go to a scanning
> camera or film.
> 
> Garry Sarre
> 
> www.sarre.com.au
> >
> > > Austin, I don't care about arithmetic, numbers or bayer
> patterns. I only
> > > can tell you what my eye sees. That's
> > > good enough for me.
> >
> > You're missing the point.
> >
> > > Before I got my D60 camera, many people said it
> > > couldn't possibly equal film at 12x18 inch film print. I think
> you were
> > > among them. Well it can.
> >
> > Well, no.  It couldn't then and it can't now.  It equals it in
> size, but not
> > fidelity.  It simply can't, and doesn't.  Your sole criteria for
> image
> > "goodness" is sharpness, which is really a singular and mostly
> irrelevant
> > criteria for image fidelity (again, in this case).  I know you
> don't
> > understand that, and that is why we always butt heads on this.  To
> YOU it
> > looks better, by your criteria of observation, and I understand
> that, but
> > that that doesn't make it universally better, nor is your criteria
> the same
> > as everyone else's.
> >
> > > And I will not get into a debate with you as
> > > you will only say that's impossible. Sorry, but it is possible
> and my
> > > prints prove it to anyone who has seen them.
> >
> > Who knows what you are comparing, Jerry, or what your criteria
> is...but for
> > sure, it's probably this mythical "sharpness".
> >
> > > And there was no pixelation in the comparison prints I saw.
> >
> > I'm sure there wasn't.  It was highly manipulated.
> >
> > > Remember it
> > > was a comparison between a 9 megapixel chip (foveon)
> >
> > No.  The Foveon (at least the one we are discussing) is a THREE M
> pixel, not
> > 9.  You are confused about what a pixel is and isn't.
> >
> > > and a 6 megapixel
> > > chip (Canon). I assume these pictures were upsized with General
> Fractals
> > > or some other program like it.
> >
> > And with great care, at least for the Foveon image.
> >
> > > I always upsize mine to 240 DPI at ouput
> > > resolution for photographs. I know you say they couldn't
> possibly be as
> > > good, I must lose all kinds of detail when I do this, but I
> don't.
> >
> > You don't lose detail, you just don't get any more by upsizing.
> If you take
> > two images.  One from a 3M pixel camera, upsize it to say 9 M
> pixels.  Then
> > compare it to a 9M pixel image, the 9M pixel image will have a lot
> more
> > detail.
> >
> > > Nobody could tell that if they were upsized or not. I'm only
> speaking of
> > > 12x18 inch prints on 13x19 inch paper here. Not billboards.
> >
> > Er, I probably could.  I do it all the time.  The issue is, if you
> don't
> > know what detail isn't there, you don't know that it's missing.
> Sharpness
> > does not require detail, they are two entirely different things.
> >
> > 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
> 
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.
> 
> 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/

Veniamin Kostitsin II wrote:
> 
> wrong
> 
> foveon has 9 million (+-) image sites that record a 3 MP image, not 9. it is a very wide spread misconception based on sigma * foveon marketing bohoo. yes, this 3 MP image holds more information than comparable 3 MP images from bayer sensors. however the "usefullness" factor is about 1.6 to 1.8 depending on the subject at hand. this has been discussed ad nauseam. so a 3 MP image in the best possible conditions would equal a nikon d100 or canon d60. however it won't even come close to fuji s2 which has a real resolution of approximately 8 - 9 MP although being an effective 6-mio bayer patterned photosite imager

Never said it was that much greater. Said it was a bit better than the
D60 chip. Not a LOT better.

J

Permit me to delurk for a moment.

I, so far, am still learning about digital printing and haven't said 
much in the week or two I have belonged to this group but frankly I 
am looking forward to an END to this pointless debate about the 
merits of camera A vs. camera B.  One of the reasons I dropped out of 
camera club in college 25 years ago was the endless, "my Nikon is 
better than your Canon is better than your Minolta" b.s.

I am learning that the big disadvantage to getting a daily digest vs. 
individual emails is that I can't filter out certain "contributors" 
and "off topic" subjects.

I am sick of the whole thing, do either of you have ANYTHING to say 
about making digital black and white prints?  This whole thread has 
degenerated into a pissing contest with neither of you wanting the 
other to have the last word.  If you two boys don't stop right now 
I'm going to turn this car around and go back home.

Thank you, I shall now fade back into the woodwork.

Oh Jerry,

> The resolution at the 18 inch print is surely as good as
> the Hassleblad or Rollei...

Only if you lick the lense before you take the picture.  There is seriously
something wrong somewhere if you believe the above is true.  I shoot
Hasselblad and Rollei cameras, and I happen to make LOTS of 13x19 prints
from them, and I have lots of 6M pixel images, and the 13 x 19 prints from
the Hasselblad and Rollei are FAR better than the digital images from the 6M
pixel digital camera (which uses Nikon lenses BTW).  I think you're in
digital delirium.

> If Canon comes out with a D60 replacement that has
> 11 or 12 megapixels for under $3000, I'll get it.

I'd go for under $2k, and full frame, and I'd get it.

> I have seen many a digital
> image in the print exchanges and I can't imagine how anyone can say they
> don't equal film.

For 8x10 prints, sure, they easily can.

Austin

Mike,

> I, so far, am still learning about digital printing and haven't said
> much in the week or two I have belonged to this group but frankly I
> am looking forward to an END to this pointless debate about the
> merits of camera A vs. camera B.

The Jerry/Austin "debate" isn't about camera A vs camera B.  It isn't about
digital vs film, or about Foveon vs other.  It is about realistic
expectations and reality of limitations.

Regards,

Austin

Austin-

>
> Jerry...you keep misunderstanding what "information" is, and what is 
> and
> isn't important about the different information.  There is spatial
> information (for example 2k x 3k), and tonality information (for 
> example 24
> bit RGB).  As far as spatial information, the Foveon is 3M and a 6M is 
> 6M
> spatially, that is just plain and simple.

If my understanding is correct, the sensors in a ccd do not butt up 
against each other precisely.  There is a small gap between each sensor 
in the array. If the x's below were sensors it would something like 
this:

   x x x x

   x x x x

not like this:

xxxx
xxxx

I also understand that this slight space between the sensing elements 
creates the "softness" often associated with scanned or digitally 
captured images.

So, in your experience, is this true?  Also is there an important 
difference in the "spacing" of the sensors produced by different 
manufacturers (foveon vs whoever makes the chips in a Canon/Nikon etc)?

Kevin-

And it will end with this post. I've had enough.

Jerry

> The Jerry/Austin "debate" isn't about camera A vs camera B.  It isn't about
> digital vs film, or about Foveon vs other.  It is about realistic
> expectations and reality of limitations.
>

Jerry,

> Actually some very distant relatives did come over on the mayflower.

Er, OK, that's scarry...we may be related...because mine are as well...
What was their last name?

> Codger maybe, old? Never. I believe I'm somewhere around 27.

Not a chance you're 27.  I demand to see a driver's license.  Are you really
only 27?

Austin

Actually some very distant relatives did come over on the mayflower. Or
so my family has said. (Warren, mothers side of the family). Have no
idea if it's true. I didn't do cibachrome printing, but I've made a few
dye transfers at Brooks. My God we've come a LONG way since then!

Jerry

> > Jerry & Austin

> > I know you two old codgers

Codger maybe, old? Never. I believe I'm somewhere around 27.
 
> I'd dare say, Garry, you're probably either not much younger than I am, or
> possibly even older, of you were doing Cibachromes in 1977.  I was not even
> 20 then.  Now as far as Jerry, I believe he came over on the Mayflower. :)

Not personally.

Jerry

Hi Kevin,

> If my understanding is correct, the sensors in a ccd do not butt up
> against each other precisely.  There is a small gap between each sensor
> in the array. If the x's below were sensors it would something like
> this:
>
>    x x x x
>
>    x x x x
>
> not like this:
>
> xxxx
> xxxx

Well, though you are right...there are two issues.  One is the spacing
between the photosites is miniscule, compared to the size of the photosite,
and second, some sensors have microlenses over them...which have their own
issues as well.

> I also understand that this slight space between the sensing elements
> creates the "softness" often associated with scanned or digitally
> captured images.

No, that's not correct in my experience.  The "softness" is because of the
properties of the imaging sensors.  Red tends to be the softest channel,
blue next softest and green the sharpest.  This is one of the reasons I've
said that scanning using a single neutral density filter will give you
better (as in sharper...there you go Jerry ;-) scans than scanning using RGB
filters. That is why I believe the Leafscan gives better B&W scans than any
other CCD based scanner.  PMTs do not have this issue, and that's why they
are sharper.

> So, in your experience, is this true?  Also is there an important
> difference in the "spacing" of the sensors produced by different
> manufacturers (foveon vs whoever makes the chips in a Canon/Nikon etc)?

That is something I have not looked into.

Regards,

Austin

Originally they did indeed get film back with re-entry capsules.

These days they are all digital.

In article <000b01c2dd51$c72d00e0$79960b45@Seth>, seth@... (Seth 
Rossman) wrote:

> Excellent concept.  I wondered how those spy satellites work!  How do 
> they
> they get that hi-res film back down to earth so fast?  I'd thought it'd 
> burn
> up in the atmosphere.  Sneaky government is making secret film drops 
> from
> space.
> 
> Seth
>

Jerry,

> > > Actually some very distant relatives did come over on the mayflower.
> 
> I've been told this by the older members of my family. I don't know if
> it's true, but they have some old records...
> 
> > Er, OK, that's scarry...we may be related...because mine are as well...
> > What was their last name? 
> 
> Warren, English.

Phew!  Mine are White.

> > Not a chance you're 27.  I demand to see a driver's license.  
> Are you really
> > only 27?
> 
> No, I said around 27, I believe. I'm so handsome and young looking I
> couldn't be much more than that, could I?
> 
> Well, maybe Closer to the half century mark, or somewhere around it. 
> Well, near it. Ok, not too far from it. Would you believe beyond it?

Hum.  I'd put you at...72 ;-)

Regards,

Austin

> Jerry,

> > Actually some very distant relatives did come over on the mayflower.

I've been told this by the older members of my family. I don't know if
it's true, but they have some old records...

> Er, OK, that's scarry...we may be related...because mine are as well...
> What was their last name? 

Warren, English.

> Not a chance you're 27.  I demand to see a driver's license.  Are you really
> only 27?

No, I said around 27, I believe. I'm so handsome and young looking I
couldn't be much more than that, could I?

Well, maybe Closer to the half century mark, or somewhere around it. 
Well, near it. Ok, not too far from it. Would you believe beyond it?

Jer

By definition NASA or rather satellite makers use obsolescent technology!

Firstly a satellite project starts years before it gets into space, and 
they can't continually use the latest technology but rather what's 
available at the beginning of the project.

Secondly space hardware needs to be radiation hardened, and radiation 
hardened microprocessors themselves are always some way behind the state 
of the art.

So your brand new Canon 1Ds is much more likely to have up to date 
technology than a satellite due for launch even the year after next.

In article <3E5CF236.D59A93F0@...>, jerryolson@... (Jerry Olson) 
wrote:

> I suspect that NASA has MUCH higher quality equipment than we ordinary
> photographers do. In fact I know they do.

Hi Jerry,

For once I agree with you! I bought a 6 MP Nikon D100 recently (despite all
the things I've said about lack of pixels in digital cameras in the past),
and I have been amazed at the pictures I've produced with it (and so have
most of my photographic friends). It is so much easier to produce a good
18x12 from the D100 (with some upsampling to give 240ppi) than it is from my
Nikon LS4000 scanning Provia 100F (taken on a Nikon F100) and printing at
360 ppi without upsampling. I use the Raw file output, and process with
Nikon Capture 3.5.1 (better than Adobe Camera Raw in my tests).

Why are they better? Well, having no film grain or grain aliasing, no
'pepper grain' microbubbles in the film, no dirt on the film, no film
processing deposits, no scanner depth of field problems, etc, certainly
helps. It seems to me that number of pixels/sensors is just one parameter to
be considered (6000:24000 for D100:F100/LS4000:), but the 'quality' of those
output pixels is equally important. Don't ask me what goes on in the
processing algorithms of Nikon Capture, but the end result is very nice.
Nikon Scan does not do the same for the four-times-as-many pixels from my
scanner.

Perhaps another reason why I get better pictures is the fact that I can use
much faster shutter speeds with my D100, just by switching to a higher ISO
setting (manually or automatically), and since I only occasionally use a
monopod, I guess using the higher speeds is reducing camera shake
significantly. The extra noise from the higher ISO's is often liveable with,
or if excessive for my taste, is easily removed by Neat Image (a very nice
little program).

In the space of just 3 months and one two-week holiday in the Canaries with
my D100, I've switched from supporting Austin to agreeing with you. Well I
never!

Bob Frost.



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

From: "Jerry Olson" <jerryolson@...>


> Austin, I don't care about arithmetic, numbers or bayer patterns. I only
> can tell you what my eye sees. That's
> good enough for me.  Before I got my D60 camera, many people said it
> couldn't possibly equal film at 12x18 inch film print. I think you were
> among them. Well it can. And I will not get into a debate with you as
> you will only say that's impossible. Sorry, but it is possible and my
> prints prove it to anyone who has seen them.

on 2/26/03 9:37 AM, Austin Franklin at darkroom@... wrote:

Mike,

> I, so far, am still learning about digital printing and haven't said
> much in the week or two I have belonged to this group but frankly I
> am looking forward to an END to this pointless debate about the
> merits of camera A vs. camera B.

The Jerry/Austin "debate" isn't about camera A vs camera B.  It isn't about
digital vs film, or about Foveon vs other.  It is about realistic
expectations and reality of limitations.

Regards,

Austin

Allow me to come to Mike's defense. I, for two, am tired of weeding out your
emails from this list. Your discussion has gone beyond boring to beyond
ridiculous. Have it on your own time and please spare us the excruciating
details of your personal psychological profiles. I read this list for it's
often useful and interesting information on digital B/W printing etc. not to
witness your "pissing match".  Get together, find a snowbank and measure the
arc of your debate 'til you're blue in the face! : >
...Awaiting your very predictable final word Austin....

Sue

Sue Tallon Photography
suetallon@...





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

Thanks for the lone (so far) compliment.

That's all I ever meant. MY images are as good as 100 Provia if you
don't go much beyond the 13x19 inch print size
on a 1280 Printer. I suspect the actual chips canon and nikon use in
their D100 and D60 are the same quality. Usually, nikon and canon have
been about equal in quality since I began photography. Canon has a few
sharper lenses than nikon and nikon has a few that beat canon. 

My next digital, and probably the last one will be a Canon, IF it has 11
or 12 megapixels, and IF it costs under $3000 street price. I'll simply
wait for that to happen, as we all know it will. 

In the meantime, I'm quite satisfied with my D60, as you can probably
tell. It put the Fun back in photography again for me.

Jerry

> Hi Jerry,
> 
> For once I agree with you! I bought a 6 MP Nikon D100 recently (despite all
> the things I've said about lack of pixels in digital cameras in the past),
> and I have been amazed at the pictures I've produced with it (and so have
> most of my photographic friends). It is so much easier to produce a good
> 18x12 from the D100 (with some upsampling to give 240ppi) than it is from my
> Nikon LS4000 scanning Provia 100F (taken on a Nikon F100) and printing at
> 360 ppi without upsampling. I use the Raw file output, and process with
> Nikon Capture 3.5.1 (better than Adobe Camera Raw in my tests).
> 
> Why are they better? Well, having no film grain or grain aliasing, no
> 'pepper grain' microbubbles in the film, no dirt on the film, no film
> processing deposits, no scanner depth of field problems, etc, certainly
> helps. It seems to me that number of pixels/sensors is just one parameter to
> be considered (6000:24000 for D100:F100/LS4000:), but the 'quality' of those
> output pixels is equally important. Don't ask me what goes on in the
> processing algorithms of Nikon Capture, but the end result is very nice.
> Nikon Scan does not do the same for the four-times-as-many pixels from my
> scanner.
> 
> Perhaps another reason why I get better pictures is the fact that I can use
> much faster shutter speeds with my D100, just by switching to a higher ISO
> setting (manually or automatically), and since I only occasionally use a
> monopod, I guess using the higher speeds is reducing camera shake
> significantly. The extra noise from the higher ISO's is often liveable with,
> or if excessive for my taste, is easily removed by Neat Image (a very nice
> little program).
> 
> In the space of just 3 months and one two-week holiday in the Canaries with
> my D100, I've switched from supporting Austin to agreeing with you. Well I
> never!
> 
> Bob Frost.
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jerry Olson" <jerryolson@...>
> 
> > Austin, I don't care about arithmetic, numbers or bayer patterns. I only
> > can tell you what my eye sees. That's
> > good enough for me.  Before I got my D60 camera, many people said it
> > couldn't possibly equal film at 12x18 inch film print. I think you were
> > among them. Well it can. And I will not get into a debate with you as
> > you will only say that's impossible. Sorry, but it is possible and my
> > prints prove it to anyone who has seen them.
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.
> 
> 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 &amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
> - 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/

> Allow me to come to Mike's defense. I, for two, am tired of
> weeding out your
> emails from this list. Your discussion has gone beyond boring to beyond
> ridiculous. Have it on your own time and please spare us the excruciating
> details of your personal psychological profiles. I read this list for it's
> often useful and interesting information on digital B/W printing
> etc. not to
> witness your "pissing match".  Get together, find a snowbank and
> measure the
> arc of your debate 'til you're blue in the face! : >
> ...Awaiting your very predictable final word Austin....
>
> Sue

Sue,

If you don't like a discussion, or the person posting, just delete the
posts, instead of whining.  I get tons of posts about things I have no
interest in, and I simply delete them.

If you want to contribute to the list, the list is better served by posting
something on topic, instead of this blatant whining.  You can, and should,
do that off list.  At least I contribute to the list, not always on-topic,
or what everyone wants to read, but that's the nature of email lists.

And, it was discussed a while ago that digital imaging does fall under the
purview of "on topic" for this list.  If I am mistaken, or that has changed,
I would expect the list owners to speak up and say so.

Regards,

Austin

on 2/26/03 2:25 PM, Austin Franklin at darkroom@... wrote:
 
 > If you want to contribute to the list, the list is better served by
posting
      > something on topic, instead of this blatant whining.

Likewise Austin. 

Sue

Sue Tallon Photography
suetallon@...





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

Seems to ME we could put Nikon and Canoin in this scenario and have the same
answer
=
=Firstly a satellite project starts years before it gets into 
=space, and 
=they can't continually use the latest technology but rather what's 
=available at the beginning of the project.

Cameras photographer hardened?  Except the amateurs, they use cute little
cases.

=Secondly space hardware needs to be radiation hardened, and radiation 
=hardened microprocessors themselves are always some way behind 
=the state 
=of the art.
=
=In article <3E5CF236.D59A93F0@...>, jerryolson@... 
=(Jerry Olson) 
=wrote:
=
=> I suspect that NASA has MUCH higher quality equipment than 
=we ordinary 
=> photographers do. In fact I know they do.
=
=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
=
=If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or 
=you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership 
=preferences by visiting this same page.
=
=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 &amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
=- 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/ 
=
=
=

Bob!  Go figure!!

Glad to have you along.  

Seth

=photographic friends). It is so much easier to produce a good 
=18x12 from the D100 (with some upsampling to give 240ppi) than 
=it is from my Nikon LS4000 scanning Provia 100F (taken on a 
=Nikon F100) and printing at 360 ppi without upsampling. I use 
=
=Why are they better? Well, having no film grain or grain 
=aliasing, no 'pepper grain' microbubbles in the film, no dirt 
=on the film, no film processing deposits, no scanner depth of 
=field problems, etc, certainly helps. It seems to me that

Bob,

> =Why are they better? Well, having no film grain

That depends on the film.  Slower films, like 160 or lower, don't show much
grain, if at all, with 4k scanners.

> or grain
> =aliasing,

That's a scanner/film issue that I don't have.

> no 'pepper grain' microbubbles in the film,

Never seen that.  I haven't even heard of that one.

> no dirt
> =on the film, no film processing deposits,

Never have that problem...but you do have that nasty old dust on the sensor
issue to contend with...

> no scanner depth of
> =field problems

I don't have those either, and obviously, that's a scanner dependant issue.

I understand what you're saying, and for you, obviously, your happy with
what you've got.  But, don't believe that the issues you had, everyone has,
because I, and many, simply don't.

But, to bring it on topic, what about B&W?  You have to convert that nasty
old Bayer pattern RGB data to grayscale if you want grayscale.  That's going
to really give you a lot of information loss.  I really wish they sold these
cameras without the Bayer filter...with just a neutral density filter, so it
gave TRUE grayscale images.  No Bayer pattern processing...and I'd bet the
images would be pretty damn good in fact.  Surely a hell of a lot better
than Bayer pattern images converted!

Regards,

Austin

Austin,

Here's one reference for info:

www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/fuji-pepper.shtml

Bob Frost.

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

From: "Austin Franklin" <darkroom@...>
> 
> > no 'pepper grain' microbubbles in the film,
> 
> Never seen that.  I haven't even heard of that one.

Of course we could always get back on-list and discuss whether a Bayer 
camera or a Foveon sensor gives better B&W images :-)

In article <NABBLIJOIFAICKBIEPJJEEOGEHAB.darkroom@...>, 
darkroom@... (Austin Franklin) wrote:

> > Allow me to come to Mike's defense. I, for two, am tired of
> > weeding out your
> > emails from this list. Your discussion has gone beyond boring to 
> > beyond
> > ridiculous. Have it on your own time and please spare us the 
> > excruciating
> > details of your personal psychological profiles. I read this list for 
> > it's
> > often useful and interesting information on digital B/W printing
> > etc. not to
> > witness your "pissing match".  Get together, find a snowbank and
> > measure the
> > arc of your debate 'til you're blue in the face! : >
> > ...Awaiting your very predictable final word Austin....
> >
> > Sue
> 
> Sue,
> 
> If you don't like a discussion, or the person posting, just delete the
> posts, instead of whining.  I get tons of posts about things I have no
> interest in, and I simply delete them.
> 
> If you want to contribute to the list, the list is better served by 
> posting
> something on topic, instead of this blatant whining.  You can, and 
> should,
> do that off list.  At least I contribute to the list, not always 
> on-topic,
> or what everyone wants to read, but that's the nature of email lists.
> 
> And, it was discussed a while ago that digital imaging does fall under 
> the
> purview of "on topic" for this list.  If I am mistaken, or that has 
> changed,
> I would expect the list owners to speak up and say so.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Austin

> Austin,
>
> Here's one reference for info:
>
> www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/fuji-pepper.shtml
>
> Bob Frost.

Ah, gee, thanks, Bob.  The biggest source of misinformation about digital
imaging on the Internet...but luckily, this article was written by "someone
else", so it has a chance of being believable ;-)

I typically don't scan Fuji chromes (though I do have two rolls of RDPII
that I can scan and take a look at.  Most people who shoot for scanning,
shoot negative film, as it has a higher dynamic range and higher exposure
latitude)...but thanks for the info.  My scanner may not show this problem
anyway, but if I see it, I'll know what it's called.

Regards,

Austin

The problem is that the Bayer filter is an integral part of the sensor 
package, sandwiched under the microlens array.

So you're talking about a mono-only sensor, which wouldn't be cheap as 
there wouldn't be a high demand.

If you want ultimate mono quality, how about a medium format scanning back 
in mono mode?


In article <NABBLIJOIFAICKBIEPJJGEPPEHAB.darkroom@...>, 
darkroom@... (Austin Franklin) wrote:

> Bob,
> 
> > =Why are they better? Well, having no film grain
> 
> That depends on the film.  Slower films, like 160 or lower, don't show 
> much
> grain, if at all, with 4k scanners.
> 
> > or grain
> > =aliasing,
> 
> That's a scanner/film issue that I don't have.
> 
> > no 'pepper grain' microbubbles in the film,
> 
> Never seen that.  I haven't even heard of that one.
> 
> > no dirt
> > =on the film, no film processing deposits,
> 
> Never have that problem...but you do have that nasty old dust on the 
> sensor
> issue to contend with...
> 
> > no scanner depth of
> > =field problems
> 
> I don't have those either, and obviously, that's a scanner dependant 
> issue.
> 
> I understand what you're saying, and for you, obviously, your happy with
> what you've got.  But, don't believe that the issues you had, everyone 
> has,
> because I, and many, simply don't.
> 
> But, to bring it on topic, what about B&W?  You have to convert that 
> nasty
> old Bayer pattern RGB data to grayscale if you want grayscale.  That's 
> going
> to really give you a lot of information loss.  I really wish they sold 
> these
> cameras without the Bayer filter...with just a neutral density filter, 
> so it
> gave TRUE grayscale images.  No Bayer pattern processing...and I'd bet 
> the
> images would be pretty damn good in fact.  Surely a hell of a lot better
> than Bayer pattern images converted!
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Austin

Sorry, but I couldn't find the original reference when I looked, so I did a
search on Google and guess what it came up with - not the original!

Bob Frost.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Austin Franklin" <darkroom@...>
>
> Ah, gee, thanks, Bob.  The biggest source of misinformation about digital
> imaging on the Internet...but luckily, this article was written by
"someone
> else", so it has a chance of being believable ;-)

Bob,

Don't worry about it, I believe the reference you provided was just fine.
That was great information about something I hadn't heard of, and I
appreciate the new info!

Regards,

Austin

> Sorry, but I couldn't find the original reference when I looked,
> so I did a
> search on Google and guess what it came up with - not the original!
>
> Bob Frost.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Austin Franklin" <darkroom@...>
> >
> > Ah, gee, thanks, Bob.  The biggest source of misinformation
> about digital
> > imaging on the Internet...but luckily, this article was written by
> "someone
> > else", so it has a chance of being believable ;-)