Sigma DP-1 review resolution claim

Check this out:
http://www.photoreview.com.au/Sigma/...sigma-dp1.aspx

"Interestingly, when you convert the X3F.RAW files to TIFF format, you
end up with a 4573 x 3048 pixel image, which equates to 13.94
megapixels. So Sigma's claim of 14-megapixel resolution for the DP-1
is valid."

In article
,
RichA wrote:

Check this out:
http://www.photoreview.com.au/Sigma/...sigma-dp1.aspx

"Interestingly, when you convert the X3F.RAW files to TIFF format, you
end up with a 4573 x 3048 pixel image, which equates to 13.94
megapixels. So Sigma's claim of 14-megapixel resolution for the DP-1
is valid."

it's not valid. there are 4.7 million pixels on the sensor. what's
done later does not matter.

RichA wrote:
Check this out:
http://www.photoreview.com.au/Sigma/...sigma-dp1.aspx

"Interestingly, when you convert the X3F.RAW files to TIFF format, you
end up with a 4573 x 3048 pixel image, which equates to 13.94
megapixels. So Sigma's claim of 14-megapixel resolution for the DP-1
is valid."

Lol - they got that wrong.
But they probably got this bit right:
"Unfortunately, the plastic lens cap supplied with the review camera
didn't match its build quality and couldn't be used when the lens hood
was in place"
Sigma's crappy lens caps...
They just don't get it.

RichA wrote:
Check this out:
http://www.photoreview.com.au/Sigma/...sigma-dp1.aspx

"Interestingly, when you convert the X3F.RAW files to TIFF format, you
end up with a 4573 x 3048 pixel image, which equates to 13.94
megapixels. So Sigma's claim of 14-megapixel resolution for the DP-1
is valid."


Sigma PhotoPro 3.1 does not offer the 13.94 megapixel output size, only
2X scaling from the original X3F dimensions, which creates an 18
megapixel file 5280 x 3520 in size.

Also, the camera no longer creates 2X JPEGs in-camera, only standard
size 4.7 megapixel files; the prototypes did scaling up in camera for
JPEGs.

David

RichA wrote:

"Interestingly, when you convert the X3F.RAW files to TIFF format, you
end up with a 4573 x 3048 pixel image, which equates to 13.94
megapixels. So Sigma's claim of 14-megapixel resolution for the DP-1
is valid."

Richie, this is inane, even for a nincompoop.

But if you like, I'll write a program that creates a 4573 x
3048 TIFF from any, even empty, input, so you know your 1.3MPix
digital point&shoot really has 13.94 megapixels!

-Wolfgang

On Apr 12, 8:10 am, Wolfgang Weisselberg
wrote:
RichA wrote:
"Interestingly, when you convert the X3F.RAW files to TIFF format, you
end up with a 4573 x 3048 pixel image, which equates to 13.94
megapixels. So Sigma's claim of 14-megapixel resolution for the DP-1
is valid."

Richie, this is inane, even for a nincompoop.

But if you like, I'll write a program that creates a 4573 x
3048 TIFF from any, even empty, input, so you know your 1.3MPix
digital point&shoot really has 13.94 megapixels!

-Wolfgang

I didn't say I agreed with it, garlic eater.

On Apr 12, 5:13 pm, TRoss wrote:
On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 09:38:28 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:



On Apr 12, 8:10 am, Wolfgang Weisselberg
wrote:
RichA wrote:
"Interestingly, when you convert the X3F.RAW files to TIFF format, you
end up with a 4573 x 3048 pixel image, which equates to 13.94
megapixels. So Sigma's claim of 14-megapixel resolution for the DP-1
is valid."

Richie, this is inane, even for a nincompoop.

But if you like, I'll write a program that creates a 4573 x
3048 TIFF from any, even empty, input, so you know your 1.3MPix
digital point&shoot really has 13.94 megapixels!

-Wolfgang

I didn't say I agreed with it, garlic eater.

No, you didn't. But then you rarely comment on ANY of your Copy/Paste
articles. And, as in this case, you generally leave out an important
element in what you copied. You left out:

Then people can do what you did, go read the whole article, if it
isn't too much trouble for them.


Obviously, the conversion involves pixel-interpolation
to increase the image size.

Which really means the reviewer's 14-megapixel claim is as specious
and questionable as the one from Sigma. I suspect the reviewer was
referring to the "14.06 million output pixels" claim mentioned earlier
in the review. If this is the case, the reviewer confused *output
pixels* with *input phototectoctors*.

I think Sigma Photo Pro is the only program that can process DP-1 RAW
files. According to popphoto.com, if a DP-1 RAW file is processed
using the Mac version of Photo Pro it yields a 5280 x 3520 pixel
image. Which, by photreview.com.au standards, would mean this is a
18.5MP camera.

http://www.popphoto.com/cameras/5156...p1-sigmas-new-...

TR

BTW, I think Wolfgang is German, which would make him a "kartoffel" or
a "kraut", not a "garlic eater". It takes a special kind of
canucklehead to use the *wrong* ethnic slur....

Germans love garlic, or love smelling like it.

RichA wrote:
TRoss wrote:
RichA

I didn't say I agreed with it, garlic eater.

No, you didn't. But then you rarely comment on ANY of your Copy/Paste
articles. And, as in this case, you generally leave out an important
element in what you copied. You left out:

Then people can do what you did, go read the whole article, if it
isn't too much trouble for them.

Telling people that they SHOULD read the original article because you
cannot be trusted to honestly repesent what was written is a stupid
admission that you are dishonest.

--
Ray Fischer

In article
,
RichA wrote:

I didn't say I agreed with it, garlic eater.

BTW, I think Wolfgang is German, which would make him a "kartoffel" or
a "kraut", not a "garlic eater". It takes a special kind of
canucklehead to use the *wrong* ethnic slur....

Germans love garlic, or love smelling like it.

and you're an idiot, or love acting like one.

On Apr 13, 2:39 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
RichA wrote:
TRoss wrote:
RichA
I didn't say I agreed with it, garlic eater.

No, you didn't. But then you rarely comment on ANY of your Copy/Paste
articles. And, as in this case, you generally leave out an important
element in what you copied. You left out:

Then people can do what you did, go read the whole article, if it
isn't too much trouble for them.

Telling people that they SHOULD read the original article because you
cannot be trusted to honestly repesent what was written is a stupid
admission that you are dishonest.

--
Ray Fischer


The paragraph was verbatim, it said what it said. If you are too
stupid to understand it, or too lazy to read the article, tough.