hmmmm - something is beginning to make sense

first of all it was the one to one correspondence of JPEG images (image is
optimised by displaying the image at the resolution chosen when the JPEG was
created. That is what the JPEG spec is there for)

Whatever the flaming criticism paranoia expressed in the NG the Foveon
sensor does have something going for i.

Why, for example, should a 3.4MP Foveon image be almost comparable to a 6MB
or 8MP canon image?

Doesn't it make sense to have similarity of output image for one-third to
one-quarter of the umage output file?

Of course it does!

I think (thios is all IMHO) the thing going for Foveon sensors and
technology is that it maintains a one to one ratio between sensor f=data and
output image (c) just in case marketing bods are reading this - you may
follow the topic introduced here but accreditation to & permission from das
B first if you please :-)

No, the reason Foveon is creating shock waves is because maintaining a one
to one correspondence seems to minimise artefacting and degradation.

Before the flaming starts (a flamed bagal anyone? lol) similarity of image
quality at gross diversity of sensor imaging elements? Hasn't the penny
dropped yet?

das B

"bagal" wrote in message
...
i should be more serious - heh heh heh

a sensor (IMHO) outputs data
that data goes to an analogue to digital converter (usually acronymed to
ADC)

when an image of 3.4MP is displayed on an output device it may be in one
to
one correspondence with the data supplied by the sensor nothing more
nothing less

inbetween there is quite a lot of digital signal processing

digital signal processing and a sensor (any sensor) have limitations and
constraints inherent to the method of manufacture and some of the
consequences are that the attempt to accurately capture images means that
the data and data processing actually introduce corruptions that make the
final output display (or print) subject just a little bit dodgy

some of these corruptions may be tweaked however, as has always been the
case in photography, attempts to improve one aspect of an image introduces
corruption in the form of image artefacts or degradations elsewhere in the
output image

There is a great deal of sophistication in hardware, software and firmware
used to optimise image quality

i think i shall stop there

das B

ps - a sensor outputs an image? a hah hah hah haaah

dB



"Steven M. Scharf" wrote in message
news
The Sigma SD10 Information Site has been updated. http://sigmasd10.com
is
the authoritative site for unbiased information about the pros and cons
of
the Sigma SD10 digital SLR.

This was a minor update.

1. A little more information was added on the cause of the color
rendition
issues with the Foveon sensor.

2. Changed the 27 links of the definition of a pixel into numbered
links,
rather than the entire URL.

3. Even though the R-CRV3 Li-Ion option isn't on Sigma's web site yet, I
went ahead and changed "No Poor Rechargeable Li-Ion Battery Option," to
"Poor Rechargeable Li-Ion Battery Option."

4. Added links to other reviews of the Sigma SD10.

If you find any errors or omissions on this site, please let me know. I
have
made several changes as a result of feedback from rec.photo.digital
contributors.

Disclaimers
------------
This is a non-commercial, informational site. The opinions stated on
this
site are the opinions of the author, and of other contributors.

Nothing is sold on this site. No advertising is accepted.

This site is not affiliated with Sigma Corporation or Foveon
Corporation.