Beni wrote:
Yeah but in the real world it was more like 8 megapixels.
Actually, in the real world the SD9 and SD10 are equivalent to 10mp Bayer sensor using DSLR's and the SD14 is equivalent to 12mp Bayer sensor using DSLR's...As has been shown in several head to comparisons.
It Foeveon was competitive it would have been successful.
It doesn't measure all colors across the chip, it simply combines single color sensors on chip. All that has proven to do is be is a wasteful way to design CMOS imaging sensors.
dcmiller wrote:
It Foeveon was competitive it would have been successful.
It doesn't measure all colors across the chip, it simply combines single color sensors on chip. All that has proven to do is be is a wasteful way to design CMOS imaging sensors.
Not 100% sure about that but I do think that the sharpness of the DP1 obviously had to do with it's excellent lens, not just the sensor...
Beni wrote:
Look at panasonic, not exactly what you think of when the word 'camera' comes to mind buy they've done extremely well with that G1 because they know how to design products that sell and have the money to apply the necessary research to whatever field they choose.
Panasonic is smart -- they don't design their cameras by themselves... they get help from Leica, who's been designing cameras for decades.
Tamerlin wrote:
Panasonic is smart -- they don't design their cameras by themselves... they get help from Leica, who's been designing cameras for decades.
dcmiller wrote:
It Foeveon was competitive it would have been successful.
It doesn't measure all colors across the chip, it simply combines single color sensors on chip. All that has proven to do is be is a wasteful way to design CMOS imaging sensors.
dcmiller wrote:
It Foeveon was competitive it would have been successful.
That isn't necessarily true.
It doesn't measure all colors across the chip, it simply combines single color sensors on chip. All that has proven to do is be is a wasteful way to design CMOS imaging sensors.
The foveon sensor records all three colors at every photosite.
Alf Beharie wrote:
Actually, in the real world the SD9 and SD10 are equivalent to 10mp Bayer sensor using DSLR's and the SD14 is equivalent to 12mp Bayer sensor using DSLR's...As has been shown in several head to comparisons.
I've heard this claimed before, but every published test I've seen indicates no such thing. The SD9/10 were competitive with 6-8MP bayer sensors and the SD14 with 8-10MP bayer sensors. And much of the advantage is merely from the lack of AA filters on the Foveon's, not any real advantage of the 3-layer Foveon sensor. The Foveon sensors seem to have about a 2x advantage in resolution over Bayer, pixel vs pixel. They've also got less issues with colour (due to the lack of colour interpolation) but distinctly inferior noise performance.
Tamerlin wrote:
The foveon sensor records all three colors at every photosite.
No, the Foveon sensor has 3 photosites per pixel, each with a different colour filter, on a different layer. This is different from bayer sensors which records a single colour at each photosite, but has one photosite per pixel (In an RG/BG 2 line grid) and interpolates colour from the data.
mawz wrote:
No, the Foveon sensor has 3 photosites per pixel, each with a different colour filter, on a different layer. This is different from bayer sensors which records a single colour at each photosite, but has one photosite per pixel (In an RG/BG 2 line grid) and interpolates colour from the data.
Actually that not exactly right either. The Foveon does not have any filters. Each of the 3 photosites or layers is sensitive to a different range of wavelengths.
Lotusm50 wrote:
Actually that not exactly right either. The Foveon does not have any filters. Each of the 3 photosites or layers is sensitive to a different range of wavelengths. Differen
That's not quite right either. There are 3 layers and each layer captures specifically R, G & B photons, and each layer has multiple sensors or photosites that are stacked to create your pixels. How deep the photon goes within your sandwiched layers within the array determines the color. This will explain it better. http://www.foveon.com/article.php?a=67 Maybe well get this right. In other words different wave lengths travel a certain distance within silicon. They are not filters.
The real simple concept with the Foveon is by looking at the ocean. When you go diving you realize the color under is very different than the color on the surface. Red is a shorter wavelength so red get absorbed by the seawater first. Then comes green and finally blue.
A Foveon sensor is a stack of sensors in a layer of optical material like silica. The red light is absorb first so the red sensor is placed highest. The red sensor is also an optical material so the remaining light passes through the red sensor. If there is any green light in the photo site the green sensor is placed below the red sensor. The green sensor is also another optical material that let the light of longer wavelength through. Now you have the last sensor that will sense the remainder of the light energy which is the longer wavelength like blue or ultraviolet etc.
So a Foveon sensor relies on the energy of the light waves at different wavelength to penetrate a specific depth to reach the appropriate sensors.
It is a very viable technology and is a lot more elegant then the Bayer mosaic type sensor where the best case is four sensors in a cluster.
Foveon plays games with words. They stack the sensor but each area with a photosite is only sensitive to one color. Their magic silica is only the color filters used by everyone. It's an inefficient design sold with a lot of BS.
I wonder if Canon's cyclic sensor will ever hit the market to compete with the Foveon? I remember seeing their patent a few years ago where they rapidly cycle a single layer sensor to be sensitive to either R, G or B at any one point in time.
Time will tell I guess..... but it is my belief that we are perhaps only a few camera generations away from a major change in how we capture our images.
dcmiller wrote:
Foveon plays games with words. They stack the sensor but each area with a photosite is only sensitive to one color. Their magic silica is only the color filters used by everyone. It's an inefficient design sold with a lot of BS.
They only game they're playing is with resolution, although in the end that's the same game that all dSLR sensor makers are playing. None of them capture anywhere near the advertised resolution.
dcmiller wrote:
Foveon plays games with words. They stack the sensor but each area with a photosite is only sensitive to one color. Their magic silica is only the color filters used by everyone. It's an inefficient design sold with a lot of BS.
Yes, it is inefficient and that shows up as noise in high ISO. However is is not BS because the sensor does work. They don't use a color filter. The sensors are the filter. When you stack the filters the depth of the sensor acts as filters.
Bayer mosaic sensors are just as inefficient. You need four pixels to render a complete color space.
dcmiller wrote:
It sensitive to different wavelengths by using a color filter, just like bayer.
Lots of incorrect info in this thread. Thanks for adding to it!
And that EDsN article is just rediculous and offensive. Bayer MP counts aren't accurate either...
The thing that people continually fail to understand is that the Bayer output is already interpolated, shake-n-baked, and AA buttered before we get our hands on the file. Uprezzing a Foveon file is just performing ONE of those evils on much, much more accurate initial data. The inexperienced, unimaginative, and uninitiated continue to disagree.
HansenTsang wrote:
Yes, it is inefficient and that shows up as noise in high ISO. However is is not BS because the sensor does work. They don't use a color filter. The sensors are the filter. When you stack the filters the depth of the sensor acts as filters.
Bayer mosaic sensors are just as inefficient. You need four pixels to render a complete color space.
Even in the best case you claim a 14m sensor Sigma is the equivalent of a 12m sensor bayer, and the bayer camera is inefficient?
Also, why do you think the older diagrams from foveon show all layers exposed at the surface? It's because light "passing through" doesn't work. It was an interesting idea that was made into a product before it was proven to be sufficiently sensitive to be a competitive sensor. Foveon played games with the design and marketing to stretch the truth as far as they could.
Sigma now owns Foveon because they have money sunk into it.. The company failed because their product doesn't match their marketing.
HansenTsang wrote:
Bayer mosaic sensors are just as inefficient. You need four pixels to render a complete color space.
From what I've seen the Bayer filters are worse; they're inventing 2/3 of the color data that the camera produces through interpolation. At least the Foveon is recording real color.
