hpjfromdk said:
And here I thought that fluency in Japanese was a prerequisite for all CR members......
Upvote
0
Patent: Canon Foveon Sensor
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
- Status
And here I thought that fluency in Japanese was a prerequisite for all CR members......
Interesting .. wonder how Canon plans to incorporate this into their product line.
Will they start at the top or place it in a middle level camera?
Years ago introduced technology on a one off basis. For example eye control went no where, DO has stalled but may eventually go somewhere. Recently Canon seems to have upped their game regarding quality. Wonder how they will position a Foveon - type sensor.
Will they start at the top or place it in a middle level camera?
Years ago introduced technology on a one off basis. For example eye control went no where, DO has stalled but may eventually go somewhere. Recently Canon seems to have upped their game regarding quality. Wonder how they will position a Foveon - type sensor.
Upvote
0
P
paul13walnut5
Guest
RGF said:
Eye Control was on the A2E (5), 50e, 30e and 30v, and the 3, and one of the APS EOS cameras (as in APS film) It was sold on cameras between 1992-2007 (the latest the EOS 3 was listed as a current model by canon, the most recent new model to feature ECF was the 30v, launched in 2004) so it was far from a one off basis.
Widely revered, widely derided. It's hard to think of a more devisive feature amongst Canon users of a certain generation. I loved it and wish they would bring it back. It had an off switch. I never use spot average flash metering, but I don't get upset by cameras having it.
Upvote
0
paul13walnut5 said:
Point was not to deride eye control, but to point out that starts with technology which it tests in the marketplace. They seem to stopped that process in the last 5 yrs and I wonder if they will make intrude the foreon sensor too early?
Upvote
0
ankorwatt said:ecka said:Foveon rocks! ;D
FF+Foveon=FFF
FFF+mirrorless=me happy
foveon dont rock, if so there have been a good foveon sensor out by now with good high iso properties and easy to to convert to color true pictures with out tons of mathematical calculations.
se my earlier answer:
a Foveon solution with different layers is not a good solution, there are already other solutions tested, a single cell with prismatic properties that divides the RGB to surfaces that are equal and not stratified
Foveon is NOT about high ISO.
Leica is NOT about high ISO.
Medium format is NOT about high ISO.
Why so many people are going crazy about high ISO? I understand that it's useful, specially when you are shooting for money and you need to deliver. I'm not a pro, I shoot for pleasure and I prefer noise-free low ISO camera with better DR and resolution. Sigma Merrill series Foveon is not perfect, but (correct me if I'm wrong) it is only 3-rd generation sensor and at ISO100 it kicks the color-guessing CMOS technology in their balls.
Upvote
0
ankorwatt said:ecka said:ankorwatt said:ecka said:Foveon rocks! ;D
FF+Foveon=FFF
FFF+mirrorless=me happy
foveon dont rock, if so there have been a good foveon sensor out by now with good high iso properties and easy to to convert to color true pictures with out tons of mathematical calculations.
se my earlier answer:
a Foveon solution with different layers is not a good solution, there are already other solutions tested, a single cell with prismatic properties that divides the RGB to surfaces that are equal and not stratified
Foveon is NOT about high ISO.
Leica is NOT about high ISO.
Medium format is NOT about high ISO.
Why so many people are going crazy about high ISO? I understand that it's useful, specially when you are shooting for money and you need to deliver. I'm not a pro, I shoot for pleasure and I prefer noise-free low ISO camera with better DR and resolution. Sigma Merrill series Foveon is not perfect, but (correct me if I'm wrong) it is only 3-rd generation sensor and at ISO100 it kicks the color-guessing CMOS technology in their balls.
no it doesn't regarding colors and how we se colors. Bayer sensors don't have a lower limit on color accuracy, they can achieve literally perfect (100% match to human eye perception) color.
http://alt-vision.com/documentation/AeroSense-2003-Oral.pdf
Diagrams that can help make sense of this can you found on pages 20, 21, and 22.
The diagram on page 22 is the one that will give you the true, better insight. Look at the human eye curves (upper left graph) and the Bayer camera curves (lower left graph)
Pay attention to their shapes, and how they interact with each other. The Bayer curves is similar to the eye curves. Blue barely crosses red, and green is definitely a hump in the middle. All the slopes are similar.
Now look at the Foveon (upper right) curve. Its nowhere close. Look at where red and blue cross. Instead of being below 10% of their peak values, they're at 50%. Blue should have been finished (totally out of the picture) by about 550n, but it's still going strong all the way to 660nm (pretty deep red). Green and red should both be sloping downward from 600nm on, but instead red is sloping up. This is example why the Foveon sensors have considerable difficulty discriminating many colors.
Eric Fossum ones wrote, clarity and richness from the Foveon image is a equal wonder as when a jumbo jet taking off.
Diagrams are just diagrams. I don't pick lenses by looking at MTF diagrams, I look at RAW images. Same with cameras. Those signals must be filtered, corrected and processed before you get a picture. Canon CMOS and Sony CMOS deliver different results, why do you think that Sigma Foveon and Canon Foveon should be the same?
Upvote
0
ankorwatt said:
Got any diagrams on how those problems are/should be solved?
I think that scientific method is the best, except when people start using it religiously, like "... this is the only way, now and forever, amen" or "... my book says X, so your book is wrong, because my religion is the right one".
Perhaps one of the reasons why Foveon is not very popular, is that it requires more in-camera processing power, which results in slow shooting speed and short battery life.
Upvote
0
In my practical usage, I will state again, that despite what the above tests might or might not show, the color saturation and variation I achieved with the older DP2, was quite usable, and did deliver a wide color palette. And when boosting color and vibrance sliders in post, there was no apparent color noise, and the variety of color did not diminish...at least with shots done at ISO 100 or ISO 50. This is not true of all the bayer-sensored cameras whose RAW files I have edited, including the 5D3 and my 6D. Of course overall, the file is better from those two than from the DP2 (not even discussing the file's resolution dimensions here). Their sensors are huge by comparison, and their implementation is far more developed and evolved.
But it's really just something you have to be open minded and experience for yourself. You can't judge Sigma's sensor alone, based on tests and charts. I suspect the Merrill sensor is significantly better, as well.
Basically what I am saying, is that when editing RAW files, the primary colors, become blown out very quickly, when you apply boosted saturation in post editing of the files in Lightroom or ACR...with bayer sensors...where they do not with the foveon sensor I used (again at low ISO...at higher ISO, yes it was not usable for color...but no one has said it is).
You can attempt to discredit what I just said, or say it's not a valid point. I don't care. It's still the reality of using the foveon sensor. Sure, you could argue that such boosted color saturation is not a realistic interpretation of the reality the camera was capturing...but I could argue that a big part of what it captured IS REALITY, it is just representing it in a way that flies in the face of the philosophies you adhere to, and thus you close your mind to other interpretations that exist in reality, whether you like it or not.
Again, thus far, the only digital camera sensor that has achieved an interpretation of "true color" in the lateral plane, is the foveon. Film did it in the lateral plane, and essentially in the longitudinal plane (since the emulsion layer was very thin). Bayer sensors certainly rely on math to determine color...to argue the opposite is to lie and ignore the obvious. So an argument based on the supposed "flawed math" needed to produce an image with a foveon sensor, is a flawed argument itself.
But it's really just something you have to be open minded and experience for yourself. You can't judge Sigma's sensor alone, based on tests and charts. I suspect the Merrill sensor is significantly better, as well.
Basically what I am saying, is that when editing RAW files, the primary colors, become blown out very quickly, when you apply boosted saturation in post editing of the files in Lightroom or ACR...with bayer sensors...where they do not with the foveon sensor I used (again at low ISO...at higher ISO, yes it was not usable for color...but no one has said it is).
You can attempt to discredit what I just said, or say it's not a valid point. I don't care. It's still the reality of using the foveon sensor. Sure, you could argue that such boosted color saturation is not a realistic interpretation of the reality the camera was capturing...but I could argue that a big part of what it captured IS REALITY, it is just representing it in a way that flies in the face of the philosophies you adhere to, and thus you close your mind to other interpretations that exist in reality, whether you like it or not.
Again, thus far, the only digital camera sensor that has achieved an interpretation of "true color" in the lateral plane, is the foveon. Film did it in the lateral plane, and essentially in the longitudinal plane (since the emulsion layer was very thin). Bayer sensors certainly rely on math to determine color...to argue the opposite is to lie and ignore the obvious. So an argument based on the supposed "flawed math" needed to produce an image with a foveon sensor, is a flawed argument itself.
Upvote
0
ecka said:
I would say the biggest reason Foveon doesn't sell is they are stuck in Sigma cameras. Sigma is NOT known for producing a high quality camera body, nor is it know for high quality or high end DSLR features and functionality. Their menu system is a joke. Foveon has some EXCELLENT strengths, and for types of photography that do not require high ISO (i.e. landscapes), it is an excellent design. The problem is that Sigma owns it, and they just plain and simply don't make a very good camera. Personally, I find that to be a sad state of affairs. I think Sigma purchased Foveon thinking the sensor itself would bring in the sales.
I think the Foveon+Sigma story is an excellent example of how camera BODY and its functionality overall is significantly more important than just the sensor.
Upvote
0
jrista said:
That might be true, but then that's why I like to purchase the sensor in Sigma's smaller and less costly DP series body (or I should say "camera"). Certainly the initial price of the SD-1 was absurd, and a bit of a fiasco...and the current SD Merrill is still not enough camera for the money.
And certainly Sigma makes very few lenses that are capable of making full use of the Merrill sensor's resolution. Perhaps the new 35mm f/1.4, and a couple of their superteles...Again, that's why I like to purchase the DP series camera, because their lenses can and do impart the full resolution onto the sensor.
But I thought this discussion was really more about the sensor itself, rather than a convenient opportunity to slam Sigma for producing less than competitive DSLR's...So it's kind of sad that it has suddenly gone in that direction.
Upvote
0
ecka said:
Are you saying you can't process the foveon's RAW images with third party software? Because myself and most others who used it, did so with no trouble. I have not heard of a lack of support for the new Merrill sensor, if that is what you're saying. So that's news to me. You're saying Lightroom 4 cannot open Merrill RAW files?
Upvote
0
CarlTN said:
Please, don't assume you know my intent, and don't put words in my mouth. I was not being opportunistic or gleeful about the option to slam Sigma, I was simply stating a fact. The FACT is, they produce an inferior DSLR. It isn't a slam, I am not sadistically getting a rise for bringing the point up. It's just a fact (even according to DPReview, the SD-1 is a real mixed bag, and has some very glaring flaws, quirky dial functionality, etc.) I know certain people like them, but numbers speak loudly, and if Sigma's cameras were better, the numbers would speak to that. The people I know who own Sigma DSLRs own them for the sole purpose of having Foveon. Few ever really bring up the body features or functionality unless the discussion takes a turn for the worse, and they enter full blown defensive mode. Interestingly, but not really surprisingly, nearly every single person I know who owns a Sigma DSLR with a Foveon is a landscape photographer, with one who does portraiture.
In the current flow of discussion, a point was made about why Sigma's Foveon isn't selling because the technology is inferior for one reason or another. I simply wanted to point out that it is less likely that the technology is inferior in general (it most certainly has its strengths, and it excels where it is strong), but Sigma isn't really the company that can bring Foveon to full bear on the market against giants like Nikon, Canon, and Sony. The truly SAD thing is that it is Sigma who owns Foveon, and that they can't seem to execute it's success. Again...I'm not opportunistically trying to bash Sigma here...its just an empirical fact (something based on years of observing Sigma fumble around with their priceless Foveon football, and never really making it, nor the camera bodies that house it, into the end zone...to my own dismay, I might add.)
Upvote
0
M
M.ST
Guest
Each pixel of the new Canon prototype sensor can capture all the colors.
This is made possible by the physical fact that long-wave (infrared) light penetrates deeper into Silicon than shortwave blue light.
Red light penetrates most deeply into Silicon, green light penetrates only up to the middle and blue light reaches just below the surface of the Silicon.
With the sensor informations the camera system can calculate, which color the pixel see.
The sensor filter is no rasterized like the Bayer pattern. You don´t need a anti-aliasing filter that blur the image. And you don´t need to sharpen the picture to get an usable image. The full performance of the attached lens is available in the image after taking the picture.
Cons: All are talking about High-ISO-Images. You get outstanding low-light images, but over ISO 1600 (maybe ISO 3200) the sensor with the Bayer pattern beats the new prototype sensor.
Why make the new sensor design sense?
You get sharp images, fine details, perfect realistic colors and no moire.
The question is, what you want to shoot. The new sensor is very good, but not good for all. If Canon put the new sensor on the market they have also products with the normal sensor design on the market.
It´s a little bit like AF-systems. the phase-AF is faster but the contrast-AF has a bigger hitrate. I see that the future of the AF-systems is a combination of both passive AF-systems.
This is made possible by the physical fact that long-wave (infrared) light penetrates deeper into Silicon than shortwave blue light.
Red light penetrates most deeply into Silicon, green light penetrates only up to the middle and blue light reaches just below the surface of the Silicon.
With the sensor informations the camera system can calculate, which color the pixel see.
The sensor filter is no rasterized like the Bayer pattern. You don´t need a anti-aliasing filter that blur the image. And you don´t need to sharpen the picture to get an usable image. The full performance of the attached lens is available in the image after taking the picture.
Cons: All are talking about High-ISO-Images. You get outstanding low-light images, but over ISO 1600 (maybe ISO 3200) the sensor with the Bayer pattern beats the new prototype sensor.
Why make the new sensor design sense?
You get sharp images, fine details, perfect realistic colors and no moire.
The question is, what you want to shoot. The new sensor is very good, but not good for all. If Canon put the new sensor on the market they have also products with the normal sensor design on the market.
It´s a little bit like AF-systems. the phase-AF is faster but the contrast-AF has a bigger hitrate. I see that the future of the AF-systems is a combination of both passive AF-systems.
Upvote
0
M.ST said:
Not quite accurate. "Full performance" is a non-linear factor when it comes to lenses. A high quality lens, such as one of Canon or Nikon's super telephoto lenses, offers maximum resolution at their maximum aperture. With say a 600mm f/4 lens, at f/4, the maximum potential spatial resolution is 173 lp/mm. Currently, no sensor on earth offers comparable spatial resolution. The highest resolution DSLR sensors, Canon's 18mp APS-C and Sony's 24mp APS-C, offer (with the most optimistic measure) 116 lp/mm and 129 lp/mm. Neither of those sensors bring out the "full performance" of any lens, especially not top of the line professional gear.
M.ST said:
All of these facts, except the "fine details" one, are true. Simple fact of the matter is, with three sensels at every pixel, you have a lot more raw data points to process in any given read than with a bayer type sensor. That affects how fast you can read, which limits how how far you can push spatial resolution with a foveon design. Currently, the fastest DSLR's process at ~500mb/s. A 36.3mp Foveon would need 200mb/s just to read out ONE SINGLE FRAME in a SINGLE SECOND! You DO get full color information at every pixel, but there are bayer sensors capable of resolving nearly as good color information, just as sharply, with FAR more fine detail.
This is one of the fundamental drawbacks of foveon-style sensors. They are sensel dense, but not pixel dense. From a spatial resolution standpoint, foveon is about 2/3rds LESS capable of resolving fine colored detail than a the top bayer sensors (factoring in the spotty spatial resolution of the red and blue channels). From a purely luminance standpoint, Foveon is about half as good or worse than the best bayer sensors.
The argument for Foveon is often made in the form of: "You can always scale Foveon up and get just as good IQ as a bayer". To some degree, this is true...with the exception of the spatial resolution (fine detail) factor. However the inverse is most definitely true: "You can always scale bayer down and get just as good or better IQ than Foveon."
M.ST said:
I would agree with this...assuming Canon ever puts the sensor on the market. I think MCS designs will probably ultimately take over in the long run. Increasing SNR will be critical to achieving higher and higher usable ISO settings, and I think any sensor design that relies on the filtration of light will eventually fall in favor of designs that maximize how much light is used, eliminating the need to filter at all.
M.ST said:
Sorry, but the AF system comparison is no longer true. According to LensRentals, modern Canon equipment (newly released lenses paired with a new body like the 5D III or 1D X) is capable of producing just as high a hit rate with PD-AF as with CD-AF. PD-AF is now just as accurate as contrast methods, but considerably faster. For the types of photography that rely heavily on high speed AF lock and tracking, contrast detection will NEVER be sufficient, even when paired with phase detection. The raw performance of PD-AF with a dedicated sensor will never be surpassed, and I do not see AF-critical photographers ever choosing a camera that combines PD-AF with CD-AF.
Upvote
0
- Status
