If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Sigma, tired of LYING about resolution, admit they needed more
"SMS" wrote in message ... On 10/5/2010 6:28 PM, nospam wrote: In g.com, Gary wrote: http://dpreview.com/news/1010/101005...ainterview.asp sleaze knows no bounds. Whose sleaze? sigma's sleaze. not only are they lying about the pixels, but they are coming up with absurd claims and bogus math to justify it. They've simply redefined a pixel as a photosite rather than a spatial element. They could add some more layers to their sensor and get even more "pixels." Unfortunately for Sigma, they've never been able to show an advantage for pixels made up of stacked photosites, as opposed to a Bayer sensor with the same number of photosites. The big problem is that silicon color separation never worked as well as Foveon had hoped. Perhaps this time will be different, but a camera is more than just a sensor. I just thought of an analogy. A three-chip video camera is precisely comparable to the 3-stack Foveon chip, as far as the number of photosites. But they do NOT triple the claimed number of pixels in their image. It is still 720 x 480, or 1920 x 1080, even though each chip has that resolution. No? Gary Eickmeier |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Sigma, tired of LYING about resolution, admit they needed more
On Sat, 9 Oct 2010 10:18:54 +0200, Alfred Molon
wrote: In article , Gary Eickmeier says... A three-chip video camera is precisely comparable to the 3-stack Foveon chip, as far as the number of photosites. But they do NOT triple the claimed number of pixels in their image. It is still 720 x 480, or 1920 x 1080, even though each chip has that resolution. By the way, there is no formal definition of "pixel". See what wikipedia writes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pixel "In some contexts (such as descriptions of camera sensors), the term pixel is used to refer to a single scalar element of a multi-component representation (more precisely called a photosite in the camera sensor context," Citing any Wikipedia entry is like going to a high-school drop-out neighbor who is still living in their mother's basement and asking them for their opinion. Knowing full well that they might be better qualified. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Sigma, tired of LYING about resolution, admit they needed more
In article , Alfred
Molon wrote: By the way, there is no formal definition of "pixel". yes there is. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Sigma, tired of LYING about resolution, admit they needed more
Alfred Molon wrote:
In article , Gary Eickmeier says... A three-chip video camera is precisely comparable to the 3-stack Foveon chip, as far as the number of photosites. But they do NOT triple the claimed number of pixels in their image. It is still 720 x 480, or 1920 x 1080, even though each chip has that resolution. By the way, there is no formal definition of "pixel". There most certainly is. See what wikipedia writes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pixel "In digital imaging, a pixel (or picture element[1]) is a single point in a raster image." -- Ray Fischer |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Sigma, tired of LYING about resolution, admit they needed more | Rich[_6_] | Digital Photography | 126 | October 19th 10 01:28 PM |
Rita, you have to admit that Nikon can't do this! | Charles[_2_] | Digital Photography | 8 | July 22nd 08 12:37 AM |
Sigma DP-1 review resolution claim | RichA | Digital SLR Cameras | 16 | April 18th 08 12:12 AM |
film scanner resolution needed for ISO 200 | Alan Browne | 35mm Photo Equipment | 1 | August 30th 04 06:15 PM |
film scanner resolution needed for ISO 200 | Monte Castleman | 35mm Photo Equipment | 3 | August 30th 04 06:15 PM |