Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Polaroid, Foveon X3, 4.5Mp (hmm..)????

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
March 1, 2005 4:22:37 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Well, you can't say they don't keep trying... Strangely, it seems to
be out of stock...... but you never know:

http://www.argos.co.uk/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Produc...$cip=22129%3EC$Brand=Polaroid&categoryId=22129

(O:

Sorry about long link - if it doesn't work, just go to www.argos.co.uk,
Photography, and look around a bit..
Anonymous
March 1, 2005 8:30:32 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <1109668957.074450.302340@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
<chrlz@go.com> wrote:


Well, if you want to spend $300 on technology that's been proven to be
far less than satisfactory, be my guest.
Anonymous
March 1, 2005 5:53:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I should probably clarify - I am in no way considering buying it - I
just find it fascinating watching the Foveon... err... `situation`..
unfold.

It's a pity that the technology just isn't quite there - as it seems to
have great potential, but given that this is a new iteration of the
chip it would be prudent to withhold insults until we see some reviews.
The fact that Polaroid have adopted it - given their chequered history
of late - might just be a sign that they are willing to gamble on
anything...

Unfortunately, the camera also *looks* like one of those horrid
'Megxon'/`DXG` things that get flogged to death on e-bay (or at least
here in Australia they do).. I note those cameras have even more
inflated claims of 5 Mp (from a 2Mp chip!), etc... There's one born
every minute, I guess.
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
Anonymous
March 1, 2005 6:37:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Nice deal, if you have 300 pounds.But I got mine Kodak CX 7300 (99 euro)
Lexar sd 128 MB card (33 euro) orbit charger with 4 nicd sanyo aa batteries
(11 euro) and I heard from more experienced amateurs that it is not
necessary to get crispier photos with more megapixel it is the firmware that
makes for sharp pictures.

--
Tzortzakakis Dimitri?s
major in electrical engineering, freelance electrician
FH von Iraklion-Kreta, freiberuflicher Elektriker
dimtzort AT otenet DOT gr
? <chrlz@go.com> ?????? ??? ??????
news:1109668957.074450.302340@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Well, you can't say they don't keep trying... Strangely, it seems to
> be out of stock...... but you never know:
>
>
http://www.argos.co.uk/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Produc...
1&langId=-1&catalogId=3151&productId=129866&Trail=C$cip=22129%3EC$Brand=Pola
roid&categoryId=22129
>
> (O:
>
> Sorry about long link - if it doesn't work, just go to www.argos.co.uk,
> Photography, and look around a bit..
>
Anonymous
March 1, 2005 6:45:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Larry" <larrylynch3rd@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c8e4d6e4e5d1d85989724@news.individual.NET...

> There are Canon, Olympus, Sony, Pentax, and many others selling for the
same
> price (or less) with higher resolution, better color, and better overall
> features than this camera.. Why would anyone even consider it??

According to all accepted definitions of a pixel, the Polaroid x530 is a 1.5
megapixel camera (with three photosites per pixel).

In literature for the Sigma cameras, it's made pretty clear that it's a 3.42
megapixel camera (with three photosites per pixel), even though they try to
claim that this means 10.2 megapixels, everyone knows it's really not. I'm
afraid that the compact camera buyer may be less sophisticated and not
realize the true resolution of the Polaroid x530.
Anonymous
March 2, 2005 12:04:32 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Steven M. Scharf wrote:
> "Larry" <larrylynch3rd@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1c8e4d6e4e5d1d85989724@news.individual.NET...
>
>
>>There are Canon, Olympus, Sony, Pentax, and many others selling for the
>
> same
>
>>price (or less) with higher resolution, better color, and better overall
>>features than this camera.. Why would anyone even consider it??
>
>
> According to all accepted definitions of a pixel, the Polaroid x530 is a 1.5
> megapixel camera (with three photosites per pixel).
>
> In literature for the Sigma cameras, it's made pretty clear that it's a 3.42
> megapixel camera (with three photosites per pixel), even though they try to
> claim that this means 10.2 megapixels, everyone knows it's really not. I'm
> afraid that the compact camera buyer may be less sophisticated and not
> realize the true resolution of the Polaroid x530.
>
>

I'd say the Sigma is neither 3.42 nor 10.2 Mpixels as we have come to
perceive the notion of "pixel". Speaking for myself, I wouldn't compare
Foevon pixel with traditional pixel. Just watch the pictures and if you
are happy with them, fine.

göran
Anonymous
March 2, 2005 12:04:33 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"tuben" <tuben2.utsikt@wasadata.net> wrote in message
news:38k06iF5mp8jhU1@individual.net...
>
> I'd say the Sigma is neither 3.42 nor 10.2 Mpixels as we have come to
> perceive the notion of "pixel". Speaking for myself, I wouldn't compare
> Foevon pixel with traditional pixel. Just watch the pictures and if you
> are happy with them, fine.
>
> göran

If they did like the photos you would never get them to admit it. They have
a bias and they are interested in passing that bias on to others.
Anonymous
March 2, 2005 12:04:34 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <B06Vd.2997$4T3.335@fe09.lga>, Peter A. Stavrakoglou
<ntotrr@optonline.net> wrote:

> If they did like the photos you would never get them to admit it. They have
> a bias and they are interested in passing that bias on to others.

That's true, I do have a bias - against junk that doesn't work.
Anonymous
March 2, 2005 4:38:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I'm relatively new to this list, but in looking over the archives that
are within the recent past, you seem to have a very strong opinion about
the Foveon chip technology.

Could you explain in terms other than "it's junk" why you don't like it.
I'm speaking about in terms of image quality, not how the technology
is implemented or constructed, or how it is advertised or promoted, etc.

Have you ever worked with, owned, used a camera with a Foveon chip?
What is your area of expertise in digital imaging?

You sound like you have a very solid "opinion" about this technology,
but I'd like to understand beyond your opinion, what it is about this
product that you find so objectionable (again, in terms of image quality).

Art

Randall Ainsworth wrote:

> In article <B06Vd.2997$4T3.335@fe09.lga>, Peter A. Stavrakoglou
> <ntotrr@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>
>>If they did like the photos you would never get them to admit it. They have
>>a bias and they are interested in passing that bias on to others.
>
>
> That's true, I do have a bias - against junk that doesn't work.
Anonymous
March 2, 2005 4:38:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <iljVd.35597$_G.1881@clgrps12>, Arthur Entlich
<artistic@telus.net> wrote:

> I'm relatively new to this list, but in looking over the archives that
> are within the recent past, you seem to have a very strong opinion about
> the Foveon chip technology.
>
> Could you explain in terms other than "it's junk" why you don't like it.
> I'm speaking about in terms of image quality, not how the technology
> is implemented or constructed, or how it is advertised or promoted, etc.
>
> Have you ever worked with, owned, used a camera with a Foveon chip?
> What is your area of expertise in digital imaging?
>
> You sound like you have a very solid "opinion" about this technology,
> but I'd like to understand beyond your opinion, what it is about this
> product that you find so objectionable (again, in terms of image quality).

I have never touched a Sigma camera. I have seen their results though.
It's a 3.42MP camera regardless of how they try to spin the numbers.
Skin tones bear a striking similarity to Homer Simpson. What more do
you need? And they charge a fortune for the thing.

As for my experience, I have been doing photography since 1966 and had
my own portrait studio for 16+ years, photographing hundreds of
weddings and thousands of portraits. I have studied with some of the
best portrait photographers in North America, was one of the first
three CPPs in the State of WA, and earned my AFPh from PPW back about
1990.
Anonymous
March 2, 2005 11:40:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Randall Ainsworth wrote:

> I have never touched a Sigma camera. I have seen their results though.
> It's a 3.42MP camera regardless of how they try to spin the numbers.
> Skin tones bear a striking similarity to Homer Simpson. What more do
> you need? And they charge a fortune for the thing.
>
I'm curiuos about the skin tone issue. I looked upp the image gallery
for SD9 on dpreview and I couldn't see anything abnormal there.
Maybe my monitor or my eyes are compensating :-)

göran
Anonymous
March 2, 2005 11:40:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <38mj5bF5p19ipU1@individual.net>, tuben
<tuben2.utsikt@wasadata.net> wrote:

> Randall Ainsworth wrote:
>
> > I have never touched a Sigma camera. I have seen their results though.
> > It's a 3.42MP camera regardless of how they try to spin the numbers.
> > Skin tones bear a striking similarity to Homer Simpson. What more do
> > you need? And they charge a fortune for the thing.
> >
> I'm curiuos about the skin tone issue. I looked upp the image gallery
> for SD9 on dpreview and I couldn't see anything abnormal there.
> Maybe my monitor or my eyes are compensating :-)

Or maybe someone fixed 'em before they were posted?
Anonymous
March 3, 2005 1:08:03 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"tuben" <tuben2.utsikt@wasadata.net> wrote in message
news:38mj5bF5p19ipU1@individual.net...
> Randall Ainsworth wrote:
>
>> I have never touched a Sigma camera. I have seen their results though.
>> It's a 3.42MP camera regardless of how they try to spin the numbers.
>> Skin tones bear a striking similarity to Homer Simpson. What more do
>> you need? And they charge a fortune for the thing.
>>
> I'm curiuos about the skin tone issue. I looked upp the image gallery
> for SD9 on dpreview and I couldn't see anything abnormal there.
> Maybe my monitor or my eyes are compensating :-)
>
> göran

Your monitor and your eyes are fine, the photos speak for themselves.
Anonymous
March 3, 2005 1:08:04 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <fhvVd.3718$8j7.1408@fe09.lga>, Peter A. Stavrakoglou
<ntotrr@optonline.net> wrote:

> Your monitor and your eyes are fine, the photos speak for themselves.

Yes the do...bleeeech!

But then what do you expect from a 3.42MP toy?
Anonymous
March 3, 2005 7:37:10 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <fhvVd.3718$8j7.1408@fe09.lga>,
"Peter A. Stavrakoglou" <ntotrr@optonline.net> wrote:

>Your monitor and your eyes are fine, the photos speak for themselves.

You really don't see the green and magenta stipple in skies and water?
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
March 3, 2005 9:32:18 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<JPS@no.komm> wrote in message
news:tv4d211aktkeftdje0dn7n47qoh1e2f411@4ax.com...
> In message <fhvVd.3718$8j7.1408@fe09.lga>,
> "Peter A. Stavrakoglou" <ntotrr@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>Your monitor and your eyes are fine, the photos speak for themselves.
>
> You really don't see the green and magenta stipple in skies and water?
> --
>
> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

I've not claimed that the camera is perfect and without issues, I just don't
let the idiotic comments of Randall and the like go by without comment which
any subjective person can tell are over the top. No one can accuse me of
being a shill either unless they are being dishonest, they cannot produce
anything I've posted which makes me one. If they try, they might want to
check the posts in which I've commented on other's photos and cameras.

There are times when I get skies that are a bit noisy but not much at all.
I don't see that problem at all in water. Yellow skin tones are a problem
occassionally but easily correctible, I suspect it's a problem with the raw
converter rather than the sensor. Does no one else edit digital images?
Conditions are rarely, if ever, perfect for shooting.
Anonymous
March 3, 2005 9:32:19 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <CNCVd.11935$JH4.7775@fe10.lga>, Peter A. Stavrakoglou
<ntotrr@optonline.net> wrote:

> I've not claimed that the camera is perfect and without issues, I just don't
> let the idiotic comments of Randall and the like go by without comment which
> any subjective person can tell are over the top. No one can accuse me of
> being a shill either unless they are being dishonest, they cannot produce
> anything I've posted which makes me one. If they try, they might want to
> check the posts in which I've commented on other's photos and cameras.

*You're* the idiot for defending this poorly designed and overpriced
piece of junk.
March 3, 2005 1:20:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

chrlz@go.com wrote:

>Well, you can't say they don't keep trying... Strangely, it seems to
>be out of stock...... but you never know:
>
>http://www.argos.co.uk/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Produc...$cip=22129%3EC$Brand=Polaroid&categoryId=22129
>
>(O:
>
>Sorry about long link - if it doesn't work, just go to www.argos.co.uk,
>Photography, and look around a bit..


Are you Preddy?
Anonymous
March 3, 2005 3:14:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Randall Ainsworth" <rag@nospam.techline.com> wrote in message
news:020320051825515594%rag@nospam.techline.com...
> In article <38mj5bF5p19ipU1@individual.net>, tuben
> <tuben2.utsikt@wasadata.net> wrote:
SNIP
>> I'm curiuos about the skin tone issue. I looked upp the image
>> gallery for SD9 on dpreview and I couldn't see anything
>> abnormal there. Maybe my monitor or my eyes are
>> compensating :-)
>
> Or maybe someone fixed 'em before they were posted?

Very likely. In close-ups, the *blue* whites of the eye are the
result.
An example: http://www.pbase.com/sigmasd9/image/16932719

Bart
Anonymous
March 3, 2005 7:57:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Peter A. Stavrakoglou" <ntotrr@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:CNCVd.11935$JH4.7775@fe10.lga...
SNIP
> Yellow skin tones are a problem occassionally but easily
> correctible, I suspect it's a problem with the raw converter rather
> than the sensor.

It's more likely to be a sensor issue, for two reasons that have been
discussed here about a year ago. One reason is the lack of a "color
optimum pre-filter" to correct for the color difference between human
color matching functions and spectral sensor sensitivity. It could
have been corrected, but Foveon/Sigma chose to not include it (perhaps
to save cost, and prevent further loss of sensitivity).
See page 352 (page 4) in the following
http://www.foveon.com/docs/Century.pdf .

Another reason is that when one analyzes the Raw file data (by a
modified DCRAW version), it confirms that color separation is almost
non-existent, and the data has to be significantly processed to
separate the colors. Given that, it is short of a miracle that the
cameras reproduce color as they do, although with some shortcomings.

> Does no one else edit digital images?

Sure, but usually not to correct omissions in the sensor design
(leaving out the color filter).

> Conditions are rarely, if ever, perfect for shooting.

Such is a photographers fait ...

Bart
Anonymous
March 3, 2005 9:10:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Bart van der Wolf" <bvdwolf@no.spam> wrote in message
news:4227352d$0$28979$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...

> Another reason is that when one analyzes the Raw file data (by a
> modified DCRAW version), it confirms that color separation is almost
> non-existent, and the data has to be significantly processed to
> separate the colors. Given that, it is short of a miracle that the
> cameras reproduce color as they do, although with some shortcomings.

Very well stated. If you read the technical papers on the silicon color
separation, it becomes clear that it's amazing that they can even get to the
level of color accuracy that they get to, even with the tremendous amount of
post-processing (the post-processing requirements are what precluded the
inclusion of internal JPEG mode). You can read the paper at
http://www.x3f.info/technotes/X3SensorCharacteristics.p....

> > Does no one else edit digital images?
>
> Sure, but usually not to correct omissions in the sensor design
> (leaving out the color filter).

As you stated Sigma probably decided to leave out the color filter (even
though the paper on silicon color separation says that one should be used)
because using it would decrease the sensitivity too much.
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 12:12:11 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Steven M. Scharf wrote:
> "Bart van der Wolf" <bvdwolf@no.spam> wrote in message
> news:4227352d$0$28979$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
>
>
>>Another reason is that when one analyzes the Raw file data (by a
>>modified DCRAW version), it confirms that color separation is almost
>>non-existent, and the data has to be significantly processed to
>>separate the colors. Given that, it is short of a miracle that the
>>cameras reproduce color as they do, although with some shortcomings.
>
>
> Very well stated. If you read the technical papers on the silicon color
> separation, it becomes clear that it's amazing that they can even get to the
> level of color accuracy that they get to, even with the tremendous amount of
> post-processing (the post-processing requirements are what precluded the
> inclusion of internal JPEG mode). You can read the paper at
> http://www.x3f.info/technotes/X3SensorCharacteristics.p....
>
>
>>>Does no one else edit digital images?
>>
>>Sure, but usually not to correct omissions in the sensor design
>>(leaving out the color filter).
>
>
> As you stated Sigma probably decided to leave out the color filter (even
> though the paper on silicon color separation says that one should be used)
> because using it would decrease the sensitivity too much.
>
>
Well, I DO believe you guys, but technical papers don't interest me,
pictures do. Maybe someone kindly could point me to the famous yellow
skin pics.

regards
göran
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 1:02:23 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"tuben" <tuben2.utsikt@wasadata.net> wrote in message
news:38p9csF5mk0s3U1@individual.net...
SNIP
> Well, I DO believe you guys, but technical papers don't interest me,
> pictures do. Maybe someone kindly could point me to the famous
> yellow skin pics.

http://www.foveon.com/X3_images_7.html
http://www.pbase.com/image/24456213
or after "correction":
http://www.pbase.com/image/23094312


And if someone thinks it is something mentioned for the first time:
http://search.dpreview.com/forums/search.asp?query=yell...

Bart
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 9:42:13 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"tuben" <tuben2.utsikt@wasadata.net> wrote in message
news:38p9csF5mk0s3U1@individual.net...
>
> Well, I DO believe you guys, but technical papers don't interest me,
> pictures do. Maybe someone kindly could point me to the famous yellow
> skin pics.
>
> regards
> göran

Yellow skintones are an issue with the SDx camera but are easily
correctible. Not every photo requires correction on skintones but some do.
I've seem yellow skintones from other cameras too, even the beloved Canon
10D, but the Sigmas are known to produce yellow skintones moreso than
others.
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 6:15:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Peter A. Stavrakoglou" <ntotrr@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:sMXVd.6907$5m2.255@fe11.lga...
> "Bart van der Wolf" <bvdwolf@no.spam> wrote in message
> news:42277b61$0$28977$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
>>
> <snip>
>> or after "correction":
>> http://www.pbase.com/image/23094312
>
> This is a good image for you to link, it's from a real pro who uses
> a Sigma camera
> http://www.photographic.com/phototechniques/1104career/

Yes, he's a talented photographer. Unfortunately he didn't avoid
creating blue whites of the eye in the process of correcting yellow
skin color.

Bart
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 6:15:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <42286d9b$0$28988$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>, Bart van der
Wolf <bvdwolf@no.spam> wrote:

> Yes, he's a talented photographer. Unfortunately he didn't avoid
> creating blue whites of the eye in the process of correcting yellow
> skin color.

Picky, picky, picky...

Nothing like spending over $1,000 for a 3.42MP kiddie toy that only
takes the manufacturer's lenses.
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 8:39:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<clutch@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:112ean0kovfgv24@news.supernews.com...
> chrlz@go.com wrote:
>
>>Well, you can't say they don't keep trying... Strangely, it seems to
>>be out of stock...... but you never know:
>>
>>http://www.argos.co.uk/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Produc...$cip=22129%3EC$Brand=Polaroid&categoryId=22129
>>
>>(O:
>>
>>Sorry about long link - if it doesn't work, just go to www.argos.co.uk,
>>Photography, and look around a bit..
>
>
> Are you Preddy?

Please, if you think he and I are the same person you've not read many of my
posts.
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 8:44:01 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Bart van der Wolf" <bvdwolf@no.spam> wrote in message
news:4227352d$0$28979$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
>
> "Peter A. Stavrakoglou" <ntotrr@optonline.net> wrote in message
> news:CNCVd.11935$JH4.7775@fe10.lga...
> SNIP
>> Yellow skin tones are a problem occassionally but easily correctible, I
>> suspect it's a problem with the raw converter rather than the sensor.
>
> It's more likely to be a sensor issue, for two reasons that have been
> discussed here about a year ago. One reason is the lack of a "color
> optimum pre-filter" to correct for the color difference between human
> color matching functions and spectral sensor sensitivity. It could have
> been corrected, but Foveon/Sigma chose to not include it (perhaps to save
> cost, and prevent further loss of sensitivity).
> See page 352 (page 4) in the following
> http://www.foveon.com/docs/Century.pdf .
>

I'm no technical wiz, you obviously have ahandle on things of this nature.
Have you ever converted an X3F file using Sigma PhotoPro? If you were to
get yellow skintones in a photo you would get them after conversion - the
raw image has no yellow skintone. This leads some of us users to believe
that it is a software issue rather than a hardware issue.
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 8:44:33 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Randall Ainsworth" <rag@nospam.techline.com> wrote in message
news:030320050542298150%rag@nospam.techline.com...
> In article <CNCVd.11935$JH4.7775@fe10.lga>, Peter A. Stavrakoglou
> <ntotrr@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>> I've not claimed that the camera is perfect and without issues, I just
>> don't
>> let the idiotic comments of Randall and the like go by without comment
>> which
>> any subjective person can tell are over the top. No one can accuse me of
>> being a shill either unless they are being dishonest, they cannot produce
>> anything I've posted which makes me one. If they try, they might want to
>> check the posts in which I've commented on other's photos and cameras.
>
> *You're* the idiot for defending this poorly designed and overpriced
> piece of junk.

Your underwear is too tight again. Loosen up.
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 9:39:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <aD5Wd.7115$8A.1897@fe11.lga>, Peter A. Stavrakoglou
<ntotrr@optonline.net> wrote:

> Your underwear is too tight again. Loosen up.

Doesn't it piss you off that you wasted all that money on a 3.42MP
kiddie toy that takes only the manufacturer's lenses and renders colors
poorly? For what you spent, you could have bought a *real* camera.
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 10:09:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Bart van der Wolf wrote:
>
> "tuben" <tuben2.utsikt@wasadata.net> wrote in message
> news:38p9csF5mk0s3U1@individual.net...
> SNIP
>
>> Well, I DO believe you guys, but technical papers don't interest me,
>> pictures do. Maybe someone kindly could point me to the famous yellow
>> skin pics.
>
>
> http://www.foveon.com/X3_images_7.html
I actually like that picture. Looks more like the photographer
wanted to create a varm feeling with the lighting.

> http://www.pbase.com/image/24456213
NOW I see what you mean. Pretty ugly.

> or after "correction":
> http://www.pbase.com/image/23094312
If this was due to a color correction, it was way overdone!
The picture is blue all over. Maybe hence the citation marks
in your comment.

Regards göran
Anonymous
March 5, 2005 12:58:20 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <sMXVd.6907$5m2.255@fe11.lga>,
"Peter A. Stavrakoglou" <ntotrr@optonline.net> wrote:

>"Bart van der Wolf" <bvdwolf@no.spam> wrote in message
>news:42277b61$0$28977$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
>>
><snip>
>> or after "correction":
>> http://www.pbase.com/image/23094312
>
>This is a good image for you to link, it's from a real pro who uses a Sigma
>camera http://www.photographic.com/phototechniques/1104career/

B&W is something that the Sigmas are very good at. There is very little
noise from a SD9 or 10 greyscale, if you don't mind the aliasing and
relatively low resolution.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
March 5, 2005 1:04:28 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <38rmjbF5qdhfeU1@individual.net>,
tuben <tuben2.utsikt@wasadata.net> wrote:

>Bart van der Wolf wrote:
>>
>> "tuben" <tuben2.utsikt@wasadata.net> wrote in message
>> news:38p9csF5mk0s3U1@individual.net...
>> SNIP
>>
>>> Well, I DO believe you guys, but technical papers don't interest me,
>>> pictures do. Maybe someone kindly could point me to the famous yellow
>>> skin pics.
>>
>>
>> http://www.foveon.com/X3_images_7.html
>I actually like that picture. Looks more like the photographer
>wanted to create a varm feeling with the lighting.

When you look at it full res, though, there are bizarre color artifacts
in the specular highlights, and the image is quite aliased. The ends of
the woman's hairs often have a bright spot at the end of them, like a
fiber-optic tree. The small facial hairs alias in an obvious grid
pattern.

>> http://www.pbase.com/image/24456213
>NOW I see what you mean. Pretty ugly.

Besides the skin, there is clear aliasing in the background (the kids
are in front of the focal plane, and OOF).

--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
March 5, 2005 1:06:07 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <bWXVd.6909$1B2.1444@fe11.lga>,
"Peter A. Stavrakoglou" <ntotrr@optonline.net> wrote:

>Yellow skintones are an issue with the SDx camera but are easily
>correctible. Not every photo requires correction on skintones but some do.
>I've seem yellow skintones from other cameras too, even the beloved Canon
>10D, but the Sigmas are known to produce yellow skintones moreso than
>others.

The Canon 10D only produces yellow skin tones when the whole color
balance of the image is yellow. The whole image clears up after proper
white balancing. With the Sigmas, if you balance for a white object,
the skin is still yellow. This is not globally correctable.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
March 5, 2005 1:07:53 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Randall Ainsworth" <rag@nospam.techline.com> wrote in message
news:040320051839355042%rag@nospam.techline.com...
> In article <aD5Wd.7115$8A.1897@fe11.lga>, Peter A. Stavrakoglou
> <ntotrr@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>> Your underwear is too tight again. Loosen up.
>
> Doesn't it piss you off that you wasted all that money on a 3.42MP
> kiddie toy that takes only the manufacturer's lenses and renders colors
> poorly? For what you spent, you could have bought a *real* camera.

Doesn't it piss you off to be you?
March 20, 2005 3:40:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Peter A. Stavrakoglou" <ntotrr@optonline.net> wrote:

><clutch@lycos.com> wrote in message
>news:112ean0kovfgv24@news.supernews.com...
>> chrlz@go.com wrote:
>>
>>>Well, you can't say they don't keep trying... Strangely, it seems to
>>>be out of stock...... but you never know:
>>>
>>>http://www.argos.co.uk/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Produc...$cip=22129%3EC$Brand=Polaroid&categoryId=22129
>>>
>>>(O:
>>>
>>>Sorry about long link - if it doesn't work, just go to www.argos.co.uk,
>>>Photography, and look around a bit..
>>
>>
>> Are you Preddy?
>
>Please, if you think he and I are the same person you've not read many of my
>posts.


Sorry, tongue in cheek comment w/o checking your usenet history.

Please accept my apology

Wes

--
Reply to:
Whiskey Echo Sierra Sierra AT Gee Tee EYE EYE dot COM
Lycos address is a spam trap.
Anonymous
March 20, 2005 9:58:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<clutch@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:113rdf6p6chv445@news.supernews.com...
> "Peter A. Stavrakoglou" <ntotrr@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>><clutch@lycos.com> wrote in message
>>news:112ean0kovfgv24@news.supernews.com...
>>> chrlz@go.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>Well, you can't say they don't keep trying... Strangely, it seems to
>>>>be out of stock...... but you never know:
>>>>
>>>>http://www.argos.co.uk/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Produc...$cip=22129%3EC$Brand=Polaroid&categoryId=22129
>>>>
>>>>(O:
>>>>
>>>>Sorry about long link - if it doesn't work, just go to www.argos.co.uk,
>>>>Photography, and look around a bit..
>>>
>>>
>>> Are you Preddy?
>>
>>Please, if you think he and I are the same person you've not read many of
>>my
>>posts.
>
>
> Sorry, tongue in cheek comment w/o checking your usenet history.
>
> Please accept my apology
>
> Wes

Thanks Wes, apology accepted of course. There are a lot of Sigma users and
we like our cameras - and we fully know the pros and cons of them. Now that
doesn't mean that I don't like any other makes. My opinion is that I
couldn't go wrong with any other make of DSLR. At the time of $ 1500.00
DSLRs a year-and-a-half ago, I got my SD9 with kit lenses and a few other
items for almost half that amount. I considered it a good start for an
amateur like myself and I haven't regreted it. I wasn't locked in to any
system at the time so it was not as if I was putting a collection of lenses
on the shelf in order to "switch" to a Sigma.

As much as GP is to his view, there are sertainly a few posters in this
group who are the same as he except on the opposite side of the spectrum.
It's the automatic dismissal and untruths by those individual's who get my
ire up. Honest criticism is one thing, lies are another and I have no
tolerance for the lies.

As for the Polaroid camera, I have no use for it no matter how good it might
be. I don't have much faith in World Wide Licenses, which is the
manufacturer - who would after this overly long delay? Besides, my FinePix
S7000 is a fine second camera for me when I don't want to use my SD9.
Anonymous
March 20, 2005 9:58:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <F6o%d.1348$Dc2.671@fe09.lga>, Peter A. Stavrakoglou
<ntotrr@optonline.net> wrote:

> Thanks Wes, apology accepted of course. There are a lot of Sigma users and
> we like our cameras - and we fully know the pros and cons of them. Now that
> doesn't mean that I don't like any other makes. My opinion is that I
> couldn't go wrong with any other make of DSLR. At the time of $ 1500.00
> DSLRs a year-and-a-half ago, I got my SD9 with kit lenses and a few other
> items for almost half that amount. I considered it a good start for an
> amateur like myself and I haven't regreted it. I wasn't locked in to any
> system at the time so it was not as if I was putting a collection of lenses
> on the shelf in order to "switch" to a Sigma.

In May of 2003 (almost two years ago), I put my $1,500 down on a 10D
plus some more $$ for a couple of lenses. Never considered Sigma. And
what I got for my $1,500 is far superior to that 3.42MP kiddie toy.
!