Improving Digital Photography

Milican writes "'It's easy to have a complicated idea," Carver Mead used to tell his students at Caltech. "It's very, very hard to have a simple idea...And now one of Mead's simplest ideas--a digital camera should see color the way the human eye does--is poised to change everything about photography. Its first embodiment is a sensor - called the X3 - that produces images as good as or better than what can be achieved with film.'" We had a previous story about Foveon last February.

Comments

Sadly...

[Fideaux!]

..Mead picked probably the crappiest camera company possible to produced his first camera. Sigma is known for making low-cost, and relatively low-quailty aftermarket lenses for the big camera manufacturers. Others will argue with the same info that they were given by the camera salesperson who makes a comparitively huge commission on the Sigma (or ProMaster, or one of of Sigma's off brands), but trust me, they suck. (They might also say that Sigma builds lenses for the big camera manufacturers, also false) They've made a few cameras that have been embarassing flops.

I've talked to a few people who have used the Foveon Sigma and while they rave about the technology, the can't stand the camera for handling, feature set, etc.

What Mead needs to do is play whatever game Canon/Nikon/Minolta/Olympus wants him to play to get his chip in their cameras. Then it'll really take off.

Re:Sadly...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, when I didn't know anything about cameras I bought an expensive camera and shitty Sigma lens. After the realization that the camera is not really involved in the actual picture-taking (when the shutter opens the camera is just an empty box) I took it all back and got a shitty camera with an expensive Canon lens. The pictures were much better. The Sigma had barrel distortion on a prime lens, how shitty can you get!

I bet the major players aren't interested in his technology because they are developing their own.

His idea for a sensor isn't as revolutionary as it seems, I mean EVERY pro camera manufacturer wants a sensor thats 1) the same size as 35mm film (or other common film sizes) and 2) registers the colors of each pixel in the same physical spot. All cameras will be this way someday.

Re:Sadly...

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, Sigma is generally the best of the third-party lensmakers. They occationally produce lenses that rival Canon or Nikons lenses, although most of their lenses are a step or so down. They also produce a bunch of cheap crap, but so do Canon and Nikon.

Having said that, I don't know why anyone would buy a Sigma body that uses Sigma's own autofocus lens mount. You'd think that they could clone Nikon's mount or something. At least that way users wouldn't be tied into Sigma's len line for everything.

Re:Pixel Noise

[forand]

I think the point is that we don't have three detectors in our eyes to see base colors and then construct the true color.

Reviews, etc.

[skatedork]

A good review is at dpreview.com (skip to conclusion if you're in a hurry).

This technology still has a way to go, but the SD9 certainly is an interesting camera.

One huge problem is with adaptation - Sigma makes consumer-grade lenses and cameras, some of which are of poor quality (but quite affordable). For these cameras to be adapted by professionals, Sigma need to create a camera with Canon or Nikon mounts, but furthermore, they need to erase the stigma attached to their equipment by many professional photographers.

If they were to make a full-frame sensor in a Canon mount that worked better at higher ISOs, this camera would be a huge seller.

Re:Pixel Noise

[tgibbs]

This foveon system is like the human eye inasmuchas the light photons penetrate multiple layers and register at more than one levels in the same spot.

Uh, no. Only one of those layers actually registers light--the others are just "wiring" (yes the mammalian eye actually runs its connections in front of its light sensors). Actually, it is less like the way the eye works. That doesn't mean that it isn't better, however. The notion that a camera should work like an eye is fundamentally misguided--would you wanted a camera that only captured color and high resolution at the very center of the image, and was low resolution black & white every where else?

Re:Hubble?

[afidel]

High quality extremely expensive digital imaging devices are extremely good at capturing low amounts of light, but for consumer cameras the noise level in the electronics is too high so low light captures get faded out by the natural noise in the signal. Most CCD's used for astonomy are cooled through some means, usuall liquid nitrogen to bring the noise level in the sensor down to small fractions of what they would be at room temperature. This also leads into one of the negative points of the foveon tech which is that its noise floor is about 3 times higher than the cmos tech that Canon is using in their cameras like the D-30 and D-60.

Re:Pixel Noise

[tgibbs]

I think the point is that we don't have three detectors in our eyes to see base colors and then construct the true color

Except...we do. (Well, 4 detectors if you count the rods). But our brains are probably smarter in using the "sidebands" of the three color detectors to help construct the true colors.

Re:Uh-oh, here come the digital bashers.

[harrkev]

Before all of the replies saying that digital is for geeks and film will forever rule, please be sure that you have used current and professional quality digital gear, including 35mm gear made by Canon or Nikon with standard lens mounts, digital medium or digital large format backs (depending on the type of vs. film comparison you plan to make).

I disagree. You can put together quite a nice film-based SLR system for around $500-800 or so (camera and lenses -- tripods/bags/filters extra). To get similar quality from a digital SLR would add at least $1000 (probably more) to the price tag. $1000 will buy a lot of film and processing. I am sticking with film for now.

I don't want to star a flame war, but look at resale prices for digital vs. film. Even 20-year-old film cameras can still command a respectable resale value. A 3-year-old digicam is almost considered worthless these days.

Re:It's like the eye because...

[Eight 01]

I don't think anyone disagrees that the Fovean is cool. It sure is. Undoubtably the future of digital photography lies with Fovean type technologies.

The problem is the article. It makes a false claim (the fovean works just like the eye) and then makes false statements of quality (the fovean is better than film, bayer is worse than film). This is like saying "the motorcycle is best because it works just like you walk! Motorcycles are better than cars because cars don't work in the same way you walk".

PNG/JNG

[fizbin]

Basic PNG can store images with up to 48 bits of depth without a problem, and the basic compression algorithm is what's used in gz - it's deliberately patent-unencumbered.

Also, the statements of some slimy money-grubbers to the contrary, the jpeg compression scheme is patent-unencumbered as well, and the JNG format (one of the PNG family) allows 12 bits per channel per pixel.

See the technical specs on libpng.org for more details.

Re:Uh-oh, here come the digital bashers.

[u19925]

You are right that film SLR is much more cheaper than similar quality digital camera in low end market. However, at high end, the film cameras are becoming overall more price competitive. Professional often take hundreds of photos for every photo published in print magazine.

Also, as time goes, digital will overtake low end market too. Last March, I bought 4M pixel digital camera for just $250. Couple of months later, in a party, I used Canon SLR and this camera. I used standard ISO-200 film and developed at local grocery store for films. For digital, I used one of the digital labs which prints for just 14 cents a copy. My judgement is that digital prints are better. Besides, I only got the interesting ones printed. Also, no need to keep track of negatives. That was the last time, I used my SLR.

At the best quality level, film cameras are equivalent to 6-9 mega pixels. At regular quality (ISO-200 print film developed at grocery store), they are close to 2-3 mega pixels. A relatively cheap ($150) digital camera is likely to beat its P/S film counter part.

Anybody who wants to do new $150+ investment in photography, I would seriously advise him/her to consider digital alternative.

Re:Uh-oh, here come the digital bashers.

[sysadmn]

I don't want to star a flame war, but look at resale prices for digital vs. film. Even 20-year-old film cameras can still command a respectable resale value. A 3-year-old digicam is almost considered worthless these days.

That's because current film cameras are arguably not any better than a 20 year old (high quality) one. In fact, some people consider them worse, since they dislike some new 'features', and the fact that new cameras are designed to a price point, and are almost disposable. Digital technology is still young, and new digital cameras are getting much better each year.