I kind of wonder if Sigma might have been doing binning of color data in their raw processor with the Merrill series.For binning to make sense, I believe that you have to do it in the analog domain (prior to ADC).
hjulenissen, it may stand to reason then why did not Sigma opt for a user selectable option to bin sub-layer data as opposed to a permanent 1:1:4 layout. I guess a simple answer again is lower R&D cost, though not that satisfying. :)This design _may_ mean lower cost, lower defect rates, higher throughput, smaller file sizes,...
Now, this architecture might be very interesting because it merge speed and foveon advantages. It is probably now possible to go full frame.
That last comment must both be generating amounts of saliva dwarfing the throughput of Niagara falls while sending shrivers of concerns in more than a few camera company HQs... ;D
That last comment must both be generating amounts of saliva dwarfing the throughput of Niagara falls while sending shrivers of concerns in more than a few camera company HQs... ;D
Cheers,
Bernard
That last comment must both be generating amounts of saliva dwarfing the throughput of Niagara falls while sending shrivers of concerns in more than a few camera company HQs... ;D
So they say it's a 39MP equivalent (bogopixels)? 39 x 2.25 = 87.75MP bogopixels full frame. It'd take a little work to make the most of the sub-diffraction layer, but it's promising.
The whole Megapixel-metric is silly. You can crop out portions of Foveon-images and use them. When I look at any other pictures that's simply not possible. I always end up scaling them down, then sharpening them in Photoshop. So the pixel-size of an image without additional info on the quality of the file is useless. That being said I would personally describe that 4x1x1-sensor layout as having 20 Megapixel, because that's the pixel in the raw ouput.
From the press release:
"Newly developed Foveon X3 Quattro direct image sensor / Now featuring 39 megapixel-equivalent ultrahigh resolution"
They call it a "Super High" mode. It can deliver 39MP JPGs out of the camera. I suppose their raw platform can deliver a 39MP TIF as well.
I agree with you though. There are significant qualitative differences in the pixel level data between the Quattro and a bayer sensor, and sensors beyond.
[The use of the name Quattro probably irritates Audi just a little bit, though what can they do about it. It's not an all-wheel drive camera.]
I understand Sigma. In a way Megapixels is THE number one metric for the general public. It's the number that gets reported and it's what most people use to form an opinion on a camera. Now pretending that a camera that produces 5424*3616 pixel images is 39 MP is bullshit, because actually it's 19 MP.
I was one of the earliest adopters of the current DPxM series. One must assume that the new cameras improve on the old, otherwise what is the point? Based on this reasonable assumption, count me in. The "old" models were superb in many ways; I cant wait for the new.
What would be the fact of the matter as to how many pixels the Quatto produces? Bayer pixels are bogopixels as well, and the MTF of a bayer sensor suggests that they don't produce the number of pixels advertised. At the same time, the Quattro might be entitled to advertise more than 19MP -- using Bayer pixels as a reference -- if one can produce from it a greater number of interpolated pixels having the necessary degree of (veridical) discrimination.
I was one of the earliest adopters of the current DPxM series. One must assume that the new cameras improve on the old, otherwise what is the point? Based on this reasonable assumption, count me in. The "old" models were superb in many ways; I cant wait for the new.
Hulyss,
It sounds like you are going to be an early adopter of the Quattro. Can we assume you'll post comparison images here when possible, i.e. DP2 Merrill v DP2 Quattro?
I will review it with an expert as soon as it hit SIGMA base in my country. Comparison with the DP2m and the DP2x (and A7r, for the PPers).
Let me be that expert.
Uwe ;D
Could somebody with technical knowledge please shed some light on why they don't do exchangeable lenses?
They do: SD1 (http://www.sigmaphoto.com/product/sd1-merrill-digital-slr-camera-0).
'ex' is the once was, 'spurt' is the drip under pressure.
just give it to a photographer and let the take pictures (no brick walls or charts)
;)
Though I am not sure how I feel about the "Quattro" layout of the blue pixels vs the green and red sub-layers. Typical Bayer arrays rely on the green channel for luminance while this Foveon Quattro will rely on a blue channel.That does seem strange, but it helps to note that the Foveon style sensor does not really detect separate blue, green and red signals. It is a more complicated mix than that; something like:
Woo-hoo! Cable release, finally. No more setting to timer. Maybe the LCD screen is better as well. I am going to be very curious about the files from this Quattro, especially about the claims of increased dynamic range.
Now if they would do the simple stuff with the software - add "crop" and "rotate" for instance - let's hear it for a new version of SPP.
Is it true that this new sensor will be prone to moire, compared to the Merrill sensors, where moire isn't a problem?
No. Do not listen at legends :p
It's interesting to me that the "new" battery is the same spec as one used on numerous Canon DSLRs (such as my old 40D). And the new filter ring size is 58mm, also a common Canon spec. Combine that with the frequent rumors that Canon is working on a Foveon-like sensor, and you really start to wonder...
What if they improved the battery life, processing speed, noise performance, etc. but the image quality suffers somehow ?
That's what I am wondering too. I would expect issues on the edges in the image where the color might bleed behind the edge. I guess they will try to fix it in the postprocessing, but not sure how well that will work.
Sigma aren't likely to introduce an interchangeable lens variant when they've successfully managed to bamboozle people into buying multiple cameras in order to cover the focal length range. Now that's what you can really describe as "retro" - never mind a faux prism hump.
Roy
I haven't seen much about processing the raw files. With the whack-a-doodle "different megapixels on different layers" approach, what are the chances that anyone (Adobe?) will be able to process these files? I'm still waiting for options (other than DPP), to process the files from the DP2m.
I'm guessing $1,599.99 a piece. I HOPE I'M WRONG.
I'm guessing $1,599.99 a piece. I HOPE I'M WRONG.
I seriously doubt that image quality will be worse. Here's why:
1) Sigma's DP cameras are a serious niche market. The only reason those sell is Foveon-aficionados which have, by definition, very high demands on image color, sharpness, contrast, and so on. To release a new camera with worse quality than the last generation would literally constitute suicide on Sigma's part.
2) Foveon is not simply three sensors stacked above each other where each sensors takes one color. Instead the different layers all take portions of most of the spectrum after which some algorithm calculates the global color information. The way I understand it this is why high ISO doesn't work (different noise on different sensors layers) and why in-camera JPGs look so bad (processor not powerful enough). Now it's perfectly possible that in the last generation Sigma simply collected too much data which was actually never used. So potentially the three times 15 MP of the Merrills was 15 MP from the top layer and then some from the bottom layers.
It'd have to be pretty eathshattering IQ-wise if that is the case.
Even if it is only a slight improvement at base ISO it will remain the camera delivering the second best absolute image quality short of a D800/a7r or digital backs. You can put 1 M$ on a lens for your 5DIII and will still not get that level of image quality...
So what we have is an incredibly under priced DPx Merrill. It seems only natural for Sigma to charge an amount more un line with the value delivered.
Cheers,
Bernard
Even if it is only a slight improvement at base ISO it will remain the camera delivering the second best absolute image quality short of a D800/a7r or digital backs. You can put 1 M$ on a lens for your 5DIII and will still not get that level of image quality...
Though with a 5d3 I could track moving subjects, shoot in near dark, shoot at 6fps etc etc. The difference in IQ wont be noticeable to most or in anything but very large prints.
The difference in IQ wont be noticeable to most or in anything but very large prints.
So the worst thing that can happen is DPXM selling at $400. That's fine with me. Funny though how you get middle format + digital back quality for the price of a bad dslr....
"Resolution is 30 percent higher" according to the "technology" tab on the Sigma-global website, so less really is more if this claim can be made good in practice.
2.2 Spectral characteristics
Even with the large changes in absorption depth with wavelength, the response curves of devices using the
semiconductor material overlap considerably (Figure 2) 3. The steep slope in the silicon curve in the 400-475 nm range
provides substantial separation of the blue signal from the red and green below, but the relatively shallow slope above
475 nm results in a significant contribution of longer wavelength illumination to the top two signals. Fortunately, the
relatively thin absorption regions of the top two diodes minimize this. In addition, some of the short-wavelength
photons will make their way into the middle diode. It is this overlap that makes possible the discrimination of
wavelength below 450 nm that is so difficult using color filters.The extended response at both ends of the visible
spectrum also makes incorporation of a sharp-cut visible filter essential. The curves in figure 6 include the effects of a
filter with cutoffs at 400 and 660 nm.
"1-4-1" arrays of VCF sensor groups have an advantage in that their green channel response is not very far from a theoretically ideal luminance spectral sensitivity curve, and thus they can adequately capture high frequency luminance information while also realizing their implementation advantages relative to 4-4-4 arrays having red, green, and blue sensors of the same size as the green sensors of the 1-4-1 arrays. However, the full-resolution readout of green in such 1-4-1 arrays undesirably requires four separate contacts to the green layer (per each contact to the red layer). Each contact to the red or green layer undesirably occupies much space in the array.
U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/738,484 discloses an array of VCF sensor groups in which each group includes a blue sensor, a green sensor, and a red sensor. Each of the red sensor and green sensor of each group is larger than the group's blue sensor and is shared with at least one other VCF sensor group. The blue sensors are typically implemented near the top surface of a semiconductor wafer and the red sensors deeper in the wafer. The size of each red sensor is roughly four times the size of each blue sensor, and sets of four adjacent VCF sensor groups share a single red sensor. Each green sensor's size can be about half the size of each red sensor (or can be the same as each blue sensor's size or can be any of a variety of other sizes). An implementation of such an array in which the each red sensor's size is four times the size of each blue sensor, the size of each green sensor is about half the size of each red sensor, the top layer is the blue layer, and the bottom layer is the red layer is a "1-2-4" array (or an array having "1-2-4" organization) in the sense that the resolution of its green layer is higher by a factor of two than that of its red layer and the resolution of its blue layer is higher by a factor of four than that of the red layer.
In some such embodiments, the array consists essentially of solid material including a semiconductor substrate, each low layer of sensors is implemented between the substrate and the top surface, and a contact (e.g., plug or trench contact) extends from each sensor in each low layer to the readout circuitry. For example, a "1-1-4" implementation of such an array having two low layers (a bottom layer and an intermediate layer between the top and bottom layers) can include 4Y blue sensors in the top layer, Y green sensors in the intermediate layer, and Y red sensors in the bottom layer, and a total of 2Y vertical contacts between the red and green sensors and the readout circuitry.
...
For example, when S=4, each cell can include six sensor selection switches: one coupled to a shared sensor in a first low layer; another coupled to a shared sensor in a second low layer below the first low layer; and each of the other four coupled to different non-shared, top layer sensor. In this example, the sensor selection switches are controlled during readout to accomplish sequential readout of the four non-shared sensors and two shared sensors of each set by circuitry coupled to the sense node. Such use of sensor selection switches for each cell can allow the array to be implemented with much simpler surface layer geometry than can a conventional VCF sensor group array having the same number of VCF sensor groups.
The relatively low resolution at which each low layer of the inventive array is read out allows the array to be implemented on a semiconductor substrate with fewer contacts (e.g., plug or trench contacts) to the low layer(s) than if each low layer were configured to be read out with full resolution, and can result in a better signal-to-noise ratio than can be achieved by conventional arrays. Because each plug, trench, or other contact to a low layer undesirably occupies space in the array and typically increases the array's cost and complexity, it is desirable to minimize the number of such contacts.
In preferred implementations in this class in which each top sensor is a blue sensor, full resolution readout of the blue (top) layer and lower resolution readout of green and red layers can generate luminance information having the same spatial frequency for incident blue light and incident green light, although the blue channel's spectral response is less ideal (farther from a theoretically ideal luminance spectral sensitivity curve) than is the green channel's spectral response, because the full resolution blue layer of each such implementation responds to green and red light as well as blue light. These implementations of the invention can adequately capture high resolution luminance information, while their full resolution readout of the top (blue) layer and lower resolution readout of the other (green and red) layers also provides advantages (e.g., compactness, noise improvement, and reduction in the number of contacts that must be provided to sensors in the green and red layers) that cannot be realized by full resolution readout of the intermediate (green) layer of a "1-4-1" array and lower resolution readout of the blue and red layers of the "1-4-1" array.
What makes these cameras particularly significant is they use an exciting new sensor not manufactured or designed by Sony.Agreed: even if no camera with a Foveon "X3" style sensor has yet won me over as a customer, I am happy that Sigma continues to pursue alternatives to "Sony, and a bit of Canon".
Sony are everywhere. They are even making 50mp CMOS sensors for use in new backs from Hasselblad and Phase One. That's great but it's good to have a different option. More strength to Sigma.
How was the af in the previous models?
Of course the question we really want answered is when will we be able to buy them and at what price?
For you guys :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFdDblbHmRQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2JJrn66A80
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BgRufVCCAAA8d2H.jpg:large)
Something not yet commented upon (that I can find) is the little sensor lens/amber dot in the lens face.
Any guesses or special insight?
Rand
I'm psyched about these cameras. There will be tons of comparisons to the Merrills when these bad boys come out, and I think the forums will be in a frenzy (cough, dpreview, cough)...
Any reason why the lensese can not be bought separately to just one body?That is very much my preference, but it does seem that an integrated design can be distinctly smaller and lighter than a modular body and lens combination with the same sensor size and a lens of the same focal length(s) and maximum aperture(s). For example, the new Canon G1X Mk II combines a 5x zoom lens that reaches 62.5mm/3.9 at the long end with a slightly-larger-than 4/3" sensor in a package smaller than any comparable combination of Micro Four Thirds body and lens.
OK, Merrillistas - did anyone notice that the DP2M Quattro lens is a different size and a different filter size (58mm) than the current DP2M lens? It may or may not be the same optical design in a new housing.
I'm sooo pumped up about these cameras. This time I'll buy all three of them. My DP2M and DP3M have brought me so much joy I can't wait to try the next gen.
On the resolution of the quattro sensor :
(https://scontent-b-cdg.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/t31/1801117_456691534456891_716465549_o.jpg)
That chart corresponds completely with the Merrill sensor being 15mp and the Quattro being 19mp.
I respectfully suggest you don't try marriage, then.
Rob C
OK, Merrillistas - did anyone notice that the DP2M Quattro lens is a different size and a different filter size (58mm) than the current DP2M lens? It may or may not be the same optical design in a new housing.IMHO the idea is to have the same filter diameter for all three cameras. I like that.
Anyone speak Japanese? Towards the end of the video, when he talks about the lenses, does he say whether the 19mm is the same, or updated?
Anyone speak Japanese? Towards the end of the video, when he talks about the lenses, does he say whether the 19mm is the same, or updated?
I do.
I have only watched the 10 last minutes or so, here is what the guy says (he is pretty funny):
- around 37:00, he explains that the spatial resolution of the quattro is similar to that of an unspecified 36mp camera and that the lack of moire in the quattro image compared to the DSLR is a clear proof that Sigma's image processing is able to compute real colour information at each pixel from the Quattro sensor. His point is that there is no loss of colour quality compared to the X3 sensor of the DPx Merrill,
- the lenses used in the Quattro DP2 and DP3 are the same as those of the DP2m and the DP3m, but the lens of the DP1 quattro was indeed re-designed compared to that of the DP1 Merrill,
- the design of the body was thought out with the intent of holding the camera with the left hand under the lens so as to maximise hand held stability and optimize image quality,
- the slightly larger size of the bodies results from the amount of high performance/memory chips embedded, said to be at the same level as the Canon 1Dx,
- the alignment of the lens and sensor is tuned/verified on the assembly line for each and every unit which ensures an image quality hard to match with interchangeable lens cameras such as DSLRs,
- the usage of a lens shutter also contributes to lower vibrations and less image quality loss compared to the plane shutter equipped DSLRs.
Overall, although they don't spell it out per se, they seem confident that the real world image quality of the Quattro series is basically currently un-matched.
Cheers,
Bernard
Personally, I still feel that bayer with smaller pixels and proper OLP filtering makes more sense, but it is nice that Sigma develop their designs so consistently.
I do.
Ii yo Bernard!
I can't wait until a technical paper becomes available.
I have only watched the 10 last minutes or so, here is what the guy says (he is pretty funny):
- around 37:00, he explains that the spatial resolution of the quattro is similar to that of an unspecified 36mp camera and that the lack of moire in the quattro image compared to the DSLR is a clear proof that Sigma's image processing is able to compute real colour information at each pixel from the Quattro sensor.
His point is that there is no loss of colour quality compared to the X3 sensor of the DPx Merrill,
Overall, although they don't spell it out per se, they seem confident that the real world image quality of the Quattro series is basically currently un-matched.
Since I currently only own a DP2 Merrill, a DP3 Quattro seems a logical addition and may replace my D800 as stitching camera when bulk is an important criteria.
However, it samples luminance at 5424 x 3616 sensel positions, and therefore 19.6 MP is the native output size.
There's a bit of a leap there from sensels to pixels.
When we're talking either about the Bayer sensor or the Foveon, sensels do not equal pixels.
Somewhere along the way, it pays to remember that this is not a real Nyquist domain. This is not a discrete time-sampled domain. There is no /true/ wave reconstruction going on in the same way that audio samples can be used to /uniquely/ determine the original waveform.
It might help us to understand just how the first generation of Merrill sensors, at somewhere around 15M sensels, somehow manages to yield so much more /perceivable/ detail than the number of sensels might lead us to naively assume?
Hi Bart,
We are both saying a number of true things, so it's worth doing a quick stock take.
We both agree that Nyquist theory can be, and is, fruitfully applied to spatial sampling problems.
However, there are some differences. There is no continuous function being reconstructed in digital photography. The positioning of sensels has only a contingent relationship to pixel values in the output raster, not a necessary one!
I maintain the there is an important distinction between sensels and pixels. Pixels are positionally-coordinated tristimulus values. Sensels are abstract detectors. Nothing a priori necessitates a 1-to-1 mapping of positional sensels with raster positions.
In my view, there is nothing to suggest a determinate answer to "what is the resolution of the Foveon sensor, in /pixels/?" And I believe that to define the resolution of the Foveon sensor as the number of top-layer sensels is a naive view. As with /all/ digital image sensors, there is a certain amount of confabulation.
By my observations, the lack of an AA filter does not explain the differences between a 24MP APS-C sensor without an AA filter, and the output of a DPxM. Where do the extra locations in a super-large rendering come from?
Hi Bart,
...
Which is not entirely true either. It's just that the Merrill middle and bottom layers are more blurry than the top layer, so the loss of color resolution is not that large in the Quattro design. But in order to avoid false color artifacting, that requires to use the 4 binned color clues from the top layer in the Quattro design, which reduces the color resolution of that layer. In other words, there will be some loss of color resolution, but not much.
...
Hi Bart,
Where is the information about "blurring" of middle and bottom layers coming from for Merrill type x3 sensors?
The large area of the lower-level pixels is the ideal anti-aliasing filter for those layers; the top layer is not compromised by the extra spatial blurring in the lower layers, so it provides the extra high frequencies needed to make a full-res image.
Anyway, the top layer is not white, not luminance, not blue, but a sort of panchromatic blueish that turns out to work well enough for getting a high-frequency luminance signal. We did a lot of experiments and amazed ourselves how "well enough" the 1:1:4 worked; it was not obviously going to be a good thing, but turned out awesome.
Sensel position becomes pixel position, although signal processing will alter the amplitude value (amongst others by White balancing, Gamma precompensation, and in case of Bayer CFA samples by demosaicing, i.e. reconstruction of the missing information which is a bit less accurate than a direct sample, and in case of a Foveon sensor by channel separation).
And I contrast this with classical Nyquist theory, which is for continuous functions.
Compare the case of digital audio with the case of digital photography. Digital audio begins as a continuous function in the continuous variations in signal produced by a sound transducer. That continuous function is sampled into a discrete-time domain of course. But in the end, what comes to your speakers is a reconstruction of the continuous function. In ideal cases, where (i) the original signal lies entirely within the bandpass filter, and (ii) the precision is infinite, then the reconstruction should be identical to the original, as a matter of analytical fact. There is no confabulation in such cases. In digital photography, there is substantial confabulation.
Also, in the case of continuous Nyquist functions, there is no other information needed other than the samples themselves (along with sample rate) in order to perform an exact reconstruction. In digital photography, implied information content is exploited to whatever extent possible in order to enhance the believability of the results.
Hi,
It's from observation (check the largely monochrome individual 'channels' as obtainable from a simple DCRaw dissection of pure Raw channel data yourself), caused by scattering and defocus, and from one of the inventors of the Foveon sensor, Richard Lyon, himself (after he sold his interests in the technology he can speak more freely) here (http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/53099508) (although he might be referring to the new Quattro design in particular).
His comments here (http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/53098094) are also notable.
Unfortunately, which is why I hesitated to supply the link, even Dick Lyon (an electrical engineer) gets the DSP aspects of the Bayer CFA (for which Bryce Bayer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bryce_Bayer) deservedly a Nobel prize laureate) wrong (Bayer CFAs do not sample 25% of a pixel sampling aperture at best). His concept apparently involves 4 Bayer CFA input sensels per 1 output pixel (which is totally not what happens upon capture and subsequent Bayer CFA demosaicing).
Cheers,
Bart
I don't understand this, are you claiming that the light intensity in the spatial domain does not behave like a continuos function and Nyquist don't apply?
You guys sound more like electrical engineers than Photographers.
Interview w the CEO of Sigma:
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/2466682090/cp-sigma-interview-we-have-survived-because-we-make-unique-products
On the input side, I think the light intensity is a continuous function, and Nyquist applies. But in digital photography, there is no reconstruction into the continuous domain. The raster of output pixels is not a continuous domain, but it is a pretty good approximation.
To put it another way, when you listen to digitally encoded music you're doing so via a digital-to-analog converter, which reconstucts analog waveforms corresponding to the original recorded waveforms. When you look at a digitally encoded image on a screen, or even on paper, there is no DAC involved. The image remains an aggregate of discrete values.I disagree. The signal is d/a converted, but the postfilter is very poor in the case of displays.
-Dave-
Interview w the CEO of Sigma:
I disagree. The signal is d/a converted, but the postfilter is very poor in the case of displays.
I don't knop printers that well but I imaginære that then arena like 1-bit oversampled / dithered d/a converted.
As resolution exceeds human visjon, this starts to not matter.
Hmm. While there is a slippery slope in there, there are some further considerations.Regarding the question of whether digital imagery is really A/D and/or D/A converted, this discussion may be a slippery slope. One can for certain say that digital images are "digital". I believe it is fair to say that (quantum physics aside) visible light is, for all intents and purposes, "analog". Thus a visible scene is analog, so is a print or something viewed on your monitor. To capture a digital image (or render it), some kind of A/D or D/A operation is needed.
Consider that, in the case of the analog audio signal (or any such continuous function), that the digitized samples determine every single point, ad infinitum, of the input signal, as an analytical fact.Audio A/D converters use real-world pre-filtering of finite delay and finite stop-band attenuation. Thus, they too will have aliasing in the passband, and the original waveform cannot be recreated at infinite precision (even ignoring the issue of lossy quantization). But since they may be able to suppress this error by e.g. 80 or 100dB, it is generally not a problem.
All this gets back to the idea of where the claimed 39MP comes from. Being not a round number, one wonders how it was computed, and how veridical it is.
In addition to offering JPEGs at its 19.6MP luminance resolution, a 'Super-High' 39MP JPEG mode will also be offered (14-bit Raw files will include full 16.9+4.9+4.9MP data).
http://www.dpreview.com/news/2014/02/10/sigma-unveils-radical-dp2-quattro-with-re-thought-19-6mp-foveon-sensor
One possibility (wearing my marketing-hat):
The "luminance" resolution of this camera is 19.6MP or so. If you assume that non-OLPF filtered sensors produce luminance detail similar to a Bayer-sensor of sqrt(2) more sensels in each dimension, then a 19.6MP Foveon Quattro sensor is comparable to a 39MP Bayer sensor.
I think that such number games serve only to alienate the enthsiast crowd that they are targeting.
A somewhat more positive twist would be if they are doing heavy lens correction in camera, and found that they could do sharpening/CA removal better at a denser output grid. A fixed lens enthusiast camera has some possibilities when it comes to in-camera corrections.
-h
I took Dr. Hunt's colorimetry short course some years ago.Shure. If you are watching something like FullHD (1920x1080) bluray, color is only sampled at 960x540, and this usually does not matter.
First thing he said is that color is a low-resolution perception. He demonstrated by overlaying blurry color on a sharp monochrome image, yielding a very pleasant colorful picture.
So, I'm not offended when someone makes a camera like the Quattro. I expect it will give the detail of 20 MP Bayer equivalent images, with color that will be pleasant to look at. Which is just about the best one can expect at present from a camera with a fairly small sensor that costs less than a decent SLR lens.A good camera is a good camera, regardless of specs or marketing.
I have a dislike for overly creative marketing nonetheless.
-h
Here's "A Brief History of the Pixel" by Richard F Lyon, from Foveon (direct PDF link).
http://www.foveon.com/files/ABriefHistoryofPixel2.pdf
More papers from Foveon:
http://www.foveon.com/article.php?a=74
Bryce Bayer's patent on the Bayer sensor. Notice that the sensels are referred to as luminance-sensitive elements and chrominance-sensitive elements. The G sensels are considered luminance elements. The word "pixel" doesn't appear for what it's worth.
http://www.google.com/patents/US3971065
3.4
addressable photoelements
number of active photoelements in an image, which is equal to the number of active lines of photoelements multiplied by the number of active photoelements per line
Note 1 to entry: It is possible that the number of addressable photoelements may be different for the different colour records of an image. When the signal values of the photoelements are digitized, the digitized code values may be referred to as picture elements, or pixels.
Note 2 to entry: This term is also defined in ISO 16067-1, ISO 16067-2 and ISO 21550.
[SOURCE: ISO 12233:2000, definition 3.1]
3.147
raw DSC image data
image data produced by, or internal to, a DSC that has not been processed, except for A/D conversion and the following optional steps: linearization, dark current/frame subtraction, shading and sensitivity (flat field) correction, flare removal, white balancing (e.g. so the adopted white produces equal RGB values or no chrominance), missing colour pixel reconstruction (without colour transformations)
[SOURCE: ISO 17321-1:2006, definition 3.4]
All this gets back to the idea of where the claimed 39MP comes from. Being not a round number, one wonders how it was computed, and how veridical it is.
Hi Luke,
It's pretty unclear where that number comes from, other than from one of the interpolated JPEG output sizes. According to the DPReview article: "In addition to offering JPEGs at its 19.6MP luminance resolution, a 'Super-High' 39MP JPEG mode will also be offered (14-bit Raw files will include full 16.9+4.9+4.9MP data)." I suppose that to be a typo, they intended to write 19.6+4.9+4.9, but got confused by the 16:9 aspect ratio from which the 39 Megapixel dimensions seem to stem. 39 MP would require some 8320 x 4688 pixels for a 16:9 aspect ratio.
Cheers,
Bart
The only place the 39mp comes into play is with the SuperHigh 3:2 jpeg output which is 7,680×5,120 pixels or 39.3 mpixels. Just how Sigma ended up with a ~41.5% scale up from the top layer resolution of the raw file in both dimensions being the right number is anyone's guess (unless they come out and tell us at some point), but it could be their estimate of "Bayer equivalent resolution".
It's going to be a hard sell, but I don't think it's completely unfair to claim higher resolution. Bayer sensors don't have full resolution in any of the three colors anyway, but that's generally accepted as "true resolution" none the same.
Many comparisons between Bayer CFA sensors and Foveon designs are flawed by the use of an AA filter on the Bayer designs, and no AA-filter on the Foveons. It's sad, but simple to overlook that important fact.
I'd be interested to see an A/B comparison between, say, a Nikon/Toshiba 24MP APS-C sensor without OLPF, and a Quattro.
Then I'd like to see the same images rendered at 39MP. I wonder which one will fall apart first and why?
A second sine wave-based SFR metrology technique is introduced in this edition. Using a sine wave modulated target in a polar format (e.g. Siemens star), it is intended to provide an SFR response that is more resilient to ill-behaved spatial frequency signatures introduced by the image content driven processing of consumer digital cameras.
One day soon, we will see one of these 39MP images, and then we'll see how believable it looks, or not.
Hi Bart,
We're obviously both contributing true things.
I started with the claim that there is nothing that necessitates a 1:1 mapping between sensor elements and tricolor raster pixels. And I think the multilevel Foveon Quattro challenges our ideas of what a paradigmatic sensel is.
I think you agree on this much. You would say that Foveon Quattro has 19M "pixels" and not 29M. So you would count only the first level sensors as "pixels" but not the second and third levels. So there is no necessity for a 1:1 mapping in your view.
But I also claim that nothing necessitates that the number of final output pixels be equal or less than the number of sensels. It is an empirical question: a contingent matter of fact, not a necessary one. The number of output pixels might be greater than the number of sensels.
This is especially the case here because the digital photography sensors, of those that we know so far, commit one to confabulation, unlike in classical Nyquist theory. As such, judgments of being "believable" or "convincing" enter into the picture.
And for some reason, Sigma claims a capability of 39M pixels from this sensor. Why 39M, and not 38M or 40M? What is it a function of? Whatever the case, I suspect that there is something both convincing and believable about those 39M pixels in just the way that attempting to derive 39M pixels from a 12MP Bayer sensor would look neither believable nor convincing.
Notes
For historical reasons, I dug up Bayer's patent, and took an interest in the way that he named his sensor elements as luminance-sensitive and chrominance-sensitive. I do not take this as a counterargument against the idea that they are also "pixels" in some practical sense, so we're not in real disagreement here. The key word here is "practical".
Sometimes organizations adopt "standards" or institutionalized definitions as a practical way to regulate discourse in an active area of research and development. In some cases, these definitions do capture something essential about the subject of the definition.
In many cases, however, nominal definitions are applied to subjects that do not admit a nominal essence. And in some cases, a merely stipulative definition is used for purposes of social regulation, sometimes for political reasons. Unfortunately, often the stipulative definition offers no truth value; it is simply what we call a "nominal kind".
For me, the ISO definition of "pixel" falls into some of these areas. It is stipulative, though it does capture something of the subject. It is there to regulate discourse. It is clearly not authoritative in any scientific sense, nor immune to revision. Maybe this is the best it will get.
I think you could usefully employ the word normative, as in grandfathering in existing implementations by incumbents and providing barriers to entry, in the case of the ISO resolution measurement standard among others.
As for the discussion if 39MP is a "fair" description: Well the argument ist that the camera actually is only 19MP as the highest number of pixel on one sensor layer is 19MP. In a way that makes sense.
Then again I could argue that any Bayer image should only be 50% of the advertised Megapixels because that's the highest number of pixel for a given color.
Not only does it make sense, it's demonstrably correct. Just take a shot of a star target, if you need proof.
The ISO standards organization disagrees, but then what do they know about anything ...
And again, demonstrably the typical resolution limit of Red and Green and Blue channels approaches the Nyquist frequency, although at a lower modulation level (especially when an OLPF is used), and it may fluctuate between 50% and 100% of the limiting resolution depending on the Luminance differences between colors.
Cheers,
Bart
Could I not transfer this argument to vertical sensors and argue that this is explicitly why the middle and bottom layer should count for something?
You could measure resolution under specific circumstances, but if you do it in black and white you don't test color resolution, and for cameras with interchangable lenses how do you determine which lens to use?
Actually, I've found that when any RAW program can output a larger size, although you'd think it's the best way to upsize, it turns out to be no better than PS, and no where near PhotoZoom Pro...
It is possible to design a worst case scenario resolution target ...Indeed, as you probably know, red/blue test charts are out there, and often cited by X3 advocates. There's one used in this document from Foveon: http://www.foveon1.com/files/FrequencyResponse.pdf
Indeed, as you probably know, red/blue test charts are out there, and often cited by X3 advocates. There's one used in this document from Foveon: http://www.foveon1.com/files/FrequencyResponse.pdf
Indeed, and in that paper mr. Hubel makes a rather suspect mistake by comparing a sensor with AA-filter with a Foveon sensor, just to increase the 'benefit' of a Foveon design. When one has to stoop that low to proof a point, something is wrong, and it is. Apples and oranges.how many cameras w/o AA filter (except MFDB) were in 2003 ?
how many cameras w/o AA filter (except MFDB) were in 2003 ?
Assuming the Quattros release price will be about the same as when the Merrills were released ~$1000, any opinions on whether it is still a good deal to get the Merrill with prices dropping to ~$580? Or if waiting for the updated camera will be better. Thank you.
Wow, this is simply amazing, the 2nd sample in particular. Clearly by far the best file I have ever seen. This reminds me of 150 mp pano images downsized to 20 megapixel.
Look at the way the detail of the feathers is rendered without any visible color artifacts or moire. This conveys a sense of reality that is truly breathtaking. The file also feels very clean, certainly cleaner than my DP2m files.
We would have to see prints to judge with certainty, but it certainly feels like it may be superior to the D800E and 40mp class digital backs with the very best lenses available (Zeiss Otus/Nikon 200mm f2.0/Rodenstock digital).
Cheers,
Bernard
Wow, this is simply amazing, the 2nd sample in particular. Clearly by far the best file I have ever seen. This reminds me of 150 mp pano images downsized to 20 megapixel.
Look at the way the detail of the feathers is rendered without any visible color artifacts or moire. This conveys a sense of reality that is truly breathtaking. The file also feels very clean, certainly cleaner than my DP2m files.
We would have to see prints to judge with certainty, but it certainly feels like it may be superior to the D800E and 40mp class digital backs with the very best lenses available (Zeiss Otus/Nikon 200mm f2.0/Rodenstock digital).
Cheers,
Bernard
Wow, this is simply amazing, the 2nd sample in particular. Clearly by far the best file I have ever seen. This reminds me of 150 mp pano images downsized to 20 megapixel.
Look at the way the detail of the feathers is rendered without any visible color artifacts or moire. This conveys a sense of reality that is truly breathtaking. The file also feels very clean, certainly cleaner than my DP2m files.
We would have to see prints to judge with certainty, but it certainly feels like it may be superior to the D800E and 40mp class digital backs with the very best lenses available (Zeiss Otus/Nikon 200mm f2.0/Rodenstock digital).
Cheers,
Bernard
http://www.sigma-photo.co.jp/english/camera/dp-feature/
not sure about D800E but seems to be superior to D800.
Are you sure that the SLR image is coming from a D800?
Cheers,
Bernard
Are you sure that the SLR image is coming from a D800?
It's unknown, as is the lens used. These web comparisons are usually flawed in one way or another. A bit of post-processing, even on these JPEG crops, makes a world of difference, and can make either crop look better than the other.
The DP Quattro images do seem to look good at the ISOs I've seen results from. Of course, it requires more from a camera to make it suitable for a given task. Getting the shot to begin with, is likely to be more important than how the image looks under ideal circumstances.
Cheers,
Bart
Bart,
I think we may have missed something: the top layer may be diffusing what gets passed down, so they don't get visible color Moiré because effectively chroma is low-pass filtered. They will still get some slow moving color casts though, probably. Essentially they have a hirez blue chan image with painted over color. Which actually corresponds a bit to human perception.
When I took Hunt's course, he showed a monochrome hirez image and a low rez color overlay. Wonderful old man btw.
When I took Hunt's course, he showed a monochrome hirez image and a low rez color overlay. Wonderful old man btw.And this is exploited in pretty much every "natural input" still-image and video codec out there.
Do we know it isn't a mirrorless camera?
I don't know, there is something wrong with these samples. Detail is there, but look at the greenish noise all over the feathers. Could do better, let's wait for more samples.
Sigma is doing a try before you buy. http://www.sigmaphoto.com/sigma-dp2-test-shoot I signed up and got an email from them that mine will ship on Monday, need to have it back to them by the middle of the following week. It will be interesting to try it.
Alan
In Germany it seems that more and more stores have them now.
My local dealer in Hamburg has the Camera...
So I have it now :)
It is very cool the design works very good in terms of handling at least for me!
Build quality is superb in my opinion, like Fuji x-t1.
Even though it is not the smallest camera people do not seem to notice it much.
To prove it some pictures below.
One is of course from my phone. The others are straight out after turning it on.
Nothing special straight JPGs output of the cam with autofocus.
Out of the box the full resolution for JPGs is not set. Sorry for that.
The 'top layer' of the Foveon Quattro sensor captures mostly a monochrome image, good for luminance resolution. The lower layers (indeed with lower sampling density of a more blurred signal) are somewhat biased towards Green and Red dominant signals respectively.
Whatever, Quattro is not my cup of tea after 8 years of foveon usage. If consumers find joy in using it there is absolutely no problem at all. The thing is I can express my opinion and my disappointment (as well as I can express my joy). When you use multiple brands you can compare, as I do (Nikon, Fuji, Sigma, Leica, without counting what I rent).
The thing is the Quattro lack of the original magic, those little twisted colors that made the legend of the foveon. It is now standard and sharpness, resolution or whatever are not the only key of the foveon magic.
I think that this is a bit harsh. I would agree that something may be missing in the quattro file compared to the Merrill when looked at 100%, but the pixels remain in my view clearly superior to those of my D800. So overall I feel that a lot of the Merrill magic is still there, but yes, not all of it.
On all other fronts, the Quattro is a much better camera with a usage enveloppe significantly expanded.
I could personnally never quite get over the battery life issues of the DP2m and it was seeing very little usage in the end.
Cheers,
Bernard
Hello Bernard (and sorry for your Otus :/),
I do not seek the perfect pixel. I seek colors and even, not real colors. For accuracy I have what I want. The thing with the foveon, let's take the original DP2, is that the color are almost unreal. The original DP2 outputted his own rendering, like a film. The DP3m output his own rendering, like a film. The quattro is purely digital.
The previous foveon iterations was "organic" like.
The magic is not at pixel level. The magic is in the "overall" image.
Bart, the top layer is blue-weighted. The second layer is much closer to luminance. Thus, without assumptions about the way spatial frequencies of the luminance and chromaticity of the original scene vary, is is not possible to "develop" a colorimetric RGB image with implicit luminance at the resolution of the top layer.
The top layer has its peak at a wavelength that plays almost no part in calculating luminance from spectra.
In all of the above, I am defining luminance as the Y component of 1931 CIE XYZ.
http://blog.kasson.com/?p=6117
Jim
OK, I understand what you mean. As far as I am concerned, I kind of like what I see with the Quattro still, but it is indeed a bit different compared to the Merrill.
(https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2906/14346856648_4c17e053e2_o.jpg)
The second image would have been better with D800 + Otus (had both of them not been under repair, thanks btw :P), but the Merrill would simply have stayed in the bag. This image is pretty usable and I sort of like the rendering at ISO800.
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3881/14522113621_df7d2dd9c8_o.jpg)
Cheers,
Bernard
Bart, the top layer is blue-weighted. The second layer is much closer to luminance. Thus, without assumptions about the way spatial frequencies of the luminance and chromaticity of the original scene vary, is is not possible to "develop" a colorimetric RGB image with implicit luminance at the resolution of the top layer.
The top layer has its peak at a wavelength that plays almost no part in calculating luminance from spectra.
In all of the above, I am defining luminance as the Y component of 1931 CIE XYZ.
Hi Jim,
I agree that the top layer doesn't strictly record Luminance, that's why I said "The 'top layer' of the Foveon Quattro sensor captures mostly a monochrome image, good for luminance resolution." Good is to be understood as useful, but not accurate. I know it is relatively Blue weighted in sensitivity, but Blue contributes very little to the image's Luminance component (Blue is typically weighted as contributing 7.2% to total Luminance).
So it still makes a nice, not accurate (because overweighted in Blue and Red) but nice, substitute for Luminance from which a useful contribution to the other channels can be calculated. Blue wavelengths are also relatively the least affected by diffraction, and the top layer exhibits the least diffusion/scatter.
Cliff Rames made a nice simulation (http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/53158507) that shows how the top channel can be (ab)used to copy its high spatial frequency signal to the other layers, resulting in only a bit of inaccuracy at sharp edge transitions but visually still acceptable.
Correct, colorimetrically it is not the same, but then again it's still useful enough. As Clif said, it "might work because it is known that high-frequencies in natural images are highly correlated among the RGB channels."
Cheers,
Bart
I think some experimental ground truth will be welcome.
Hi Edmund,
I agree. Donations of a Quattro (preferably DP3) will not be rejected. ;)
Cheers,
Bart
I'm not convinced by the samples of the Quattro I've seen so far. I agree with Hulyss that what makes the Merrills unique is the film-like rendering, with their intriguing and atypical color rendering. By applying some basic filters, the photos can look like medium format film shots, which is quite exceptional (e.g. see selfie below, taken with DP2M and processed using Color Efex Pro).
It seems like Sigma wanted to improve camera speed and iso performance with the Quattro sensor due to complaints from impatient and spoiled consumers, but this is wrong. It is not a purely direct image sensor any more, and that's disappointing. I don't think I will buy the Quattro, but a DP1M for 400 Euros instead to complete my Merrill collection. I've learned how to live with the quirks and in the end it is also what makes this camera unique: if you develop the dexterity to use it properly it is an amazing and unique tool.
(https://scontent-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xap1/t31.0-8/10001123_10152290509914000_8957022136787943843_o.jpg)
I've found this on the interwebz:
http://maros-images.sakura.ne.jp/lens_test_quattro/dp2q4dp2m_f28.jpg
http://maros-images.sakura.ne.jp/lens_test_quattro/dp2m4dp2q_f28.jpg
Looks like the Q has more resolution but less contrast in the colors. The foliage looks mushy on the Q shot.
Just ordered a DP1M for 350 euros ;D . In my opinion, the Merrills are becoming legendary cameras.
I was/am considering the DP1M, but the lens is not as good as DP3/DP2 so I had hoped for the DP1Q.
After having seen Q results, I'm tempted to get the DP1M.
what do people think of the DP1M regarding lens and overall performance?
thanks!
PS: I think the mushiness of the Q pictures could also be down to increased noise reduction in SPP, not sure though.
For those who have not seen the new diglloyd.com (paid subscription required) mosaic scene images and review, they have turned me around from the previous ones posted. I'm now thinking that at non-closeup distances, the Quattros are matching the Merrills, at least for resolution and color. For micro-contrast they are still a notch behind (by my eyes), but overall the Quattros are looking very good indeed.
Yes, the Quattro is very good, I find the negative comments a bit exagarated.
Cheers,
Bernard
Hi Bernard, don't get me wrong, the Quattro is certainly very good, even excellent. But what makes the Merrill astonishing is the pure Foveon look, and apparently most people are willing to live with the drawbacks of the technology to get these results. In the case of the Quattro, I'm not sure it's worth it. I'd rather have the Merrills plus a Fuji x100 for instance, for low light, instead of the Quattro. What I mean is that the look of Quattro shots are not special enough for me to forgive its below average iso performance and usability compared to other cameras.
I just received mine today too. I will be taking it to Svalbard and use it on the Svalbard, Polar Bear workshop we are running. When I get back I'll turn it over to Michael and he will do his thing with it and we will have a report here on LuLa.
It certainly is a different feeling camera. Not all all ergonomic, Seems slow to display an image after exposure. Rear panel controls are set up different. I'll dive into the manual as well as take some images during the day. Not thrilled about having to use their software.
Let's see how it does in the arctic.
Kevin Raber
My DP2 Quattro arrived this morning. My initial walk around shots are very encouraging. Its a weird design, but arguably better build quality than the Merrills.
Quentin
My DP2 Quattro arrived this morning. My initial walk around shots are very encouraging. Its a weird design, but arguably better build quality than the Merrills.
Quentin
Quentin,
I was hoping you'd get the Quattro! I am most anxious to have your opinion of "pure image quality" compared to the DP2 Merrill. I'm content w/ the slow, idiosyncratic operation of the Merrills so improvements there are of no great concern to me. What I really want to know is if the amazing detail rendering of the Merrill has been "one upped" enough for me to take the plunge.
Thanks in advance for what I know will be a well considered opinion from someone who knows how to get the very best from the Merrills.
Best regards,
Rand
Note: It seems that Imaging resource did not evaluate the DP2M and are comparing the DP2Q to the DP1M. I'm not sure I'd want to use the DP1M as a proxy for the DP2M. Just my 2 cents.
Also, the DP1M images they have are not representative of it's capabilities, at least not what I've seen, IMO. It's a stupid comparison anyway.
DP2Q looks good, I just prefer the Merrill. I hope software/firmware improves it.
Here is my initial write up about using the camera for a few days before I had to send it back to Sigma. An interesting camera, since I had not used the Merrills I had nothing to base the experience on other than reading about the previous cameras. So in some ways it is similar from what I have read about them. It has a lot of resolution compared to what I have been using. I might rent a Merrill now and see what the differences are and if they matter to me. I am on the fence about ordering one. It has some potential and some drawbacks.
http://www.aps-photo.com/2014/07/sigma-dp2-quattro-high-resolution-niche-camera/
Alan
A couple comments, first, the cable release, I think they are going to come out with one
Will miracles never cease? Sigma has gotten the message - landscape photographers want cable or wireless releases.
Bernard, do you see an improvement in image quality from the DP2M to the DP2Q? Is it worth it to upgrade?
Bernard, do you see an improvement in image quality from the DP2M to the DP2Q? Is it worth it to upgrade?
I have found the best output solution for me is export from SPP as a S-HI (39mp), TIFF-16, Sharpening and NR turned "off", sharpening to taste in Photoshop using the tool of your choice.
I am sitting on the fence somewhat regarding the Quattro (especially since I have just bought a backup DP2M). However I am puzzled by your comments about exporting as an S-Hi 16 bit Tiff and saying that this represents 39mp). My 16 bit tiffs from the DP2M are all around 88MB. What exactly are you doing? Can you elaborate a bit?
Thanks
So, in-camera, turn off any noise reduction (or set it to lowest setting), set sharpening to zero, take a JPEG + RAW, and process the RAW with the same settings and compare it to the JPEG. This would be very helpful...
Tried to do a macro comparison.
I have to give the nod to the DP2M, it has better user ease of use when zooming to 10x. For some reason Sigma Corp have regressed here and only allow 8x magnification on screen for the DP2Q. The difference in nailing focus is tremendous when dealing with minute details. I tried this setup on two different days taking a number of shots on each camera, this was the better result for the DP2Q. I tried both 8x manual focus and auto focus, there might still be improvement focus-wise, but the DP2Q seems harder to manage getting a good hit ratio versus the DP2M. I think perhaps the only thing going for the Q is color rendering of this scene.
So some detail about processing, exported from SPP with all NR sharpness settings at minimum values. Took both Q & M files into Photoshop and applied two rounds of sharpening first at higher radius then a lower radius of about half the first pass. Then on the Q file to match the "grit" I did a low level % unsharp mask w. a radius of about 9 pixels.
I have another scene waiting to be processed that has a lot of fine red details in highlights and shadow that I hope to post soon, perhaps someone out there wants to give the x3f raws a try to make sure I am doing this processing as fairly as possible.
I agree that the top layer doesn't strictly record Luminance, ..., still makes a nice, not accurate (because overweighted in Blue and Red) but nice, substitute for Luminance from which a useful contribution to the other channels can be calculated. Blue wavelengths are also relatively the least affected by diffraction, and the top layer exhibits the least diffusion/scatter.
Trying to further refine on Quattro output.
Any opinion on the Beer Garden SPP output versus this test process?
Note: No noise reduction and No sharpening on SPP or Test process.
Also included in the last set is a comparison in reds in highlight shadow detail between DP2Q & DP2M, again, no noise reduction, no sharpening, also a comparison using the test process.
So I've been doing some deeper explorations of X3F raw files, comparing the Quattro and the Merrill. Sigma opened a totally new window into Foveon when they released a new x3f layout and as such we could begin to explore what Sigma's SPP software might or might not be doing to the outputted tiifs. I have been doing some "black box" testing and I think even at the lowest detent sharpening setting the Merrill files are getting a kick of sharpening on the order less than a pixel and about 50-70% or so. I think I already demonstrated in part how Sigma really fell short in the SPP rendering with the Beer Garden comparison above and what the actual data is "saying". Some examples to follow. Soon.
Ok, so the image below has 3 images, X Y Z.
Choices are as follows: Sigma DP2Q or Sigma DP2M for each X Y and Z. Can you spot the Quattro or Merrill or are they all the same camera?
Okay so for those who guessing which is which.
A: DP2M Test Process, yes I tried out the test process on Merrill files to make sure for sanity checking.
B: DP2Q Test Process then downsized nearest neighbor to match Merrill output. As some have noted black pixel artifacts in the test process I think those are actually dead pixels which are not mapped out of the RAW data, and would normally be handled by SPP post processing.
C: DP2M SPP 5.5.3 Output with lowest settings of NR/Sharpening.
Some observations:
-Native SPP contrast curves of DP2Q and DP2M are different but you can attempt to match them.
-Lowest sharpening setting of SPP actually still sharpens Merrill output.
-Shadows of Quattro files have more color, even at base ISO.
-Quattro files seem to have a tad more luminance noise even at base ISO.
-SPP 6.0.5 and earlier introduce a slight sub-pixel level blurring by the current SPP algorithm. The effect is so subtle I thought I was imaging it. So I am rewriting this sub-headline observation with a more concrete example. The effect seems to shave off the peak intensity of highlights, so it may be partly contrast curve issue but it may be an interpolation issue. Capture sharpening and clarity applied to an SPP exported tiff do not recover the slight sub-pixel level blurring introduced by the current SPP algorithm. Below is a example using raw X3f luminance data in comparison to the SPP 6.0.5 output, both images have received the same two-step smart sharpening (55% Radius 0.8, then 52% Radius 0.3) set to lens blur. You can also see in the image below the interpolation issue most clearly on a man-made object.
Some wishlist items:
-Would be nice if Sigma will release a Merrill rendering mode for the Q with both contrast and color matching.
-Would be nice if Sigma fully optimizes SPP to extract every last bit resolution from their raw files.
Hi Edmund,
My endeavors were largely focused on looking at the behavior of Quattro vs Merrill from SPP 6.0.x (Quattro) and SPP 5.5.3 (Merrill).
I did try exporting some Merrill X3Fs from 6.0.4 but did not notice any thing outstanding. I am holding off moving to processing my Merrill files in version 6 of SPP because at present if you save metadata into a Merrill X3F from SPP6 you can't then reopen in SPP 5.5.3.
Different people have different preferences for sharpness settings, but usually backing down to -1 to -2 in SPP 5.5.3 is a good place to start, also turning noise reduction settings to their lowest is also good for maximum detail extraction.
Finally, there is also a dedicated thread to DP3 Experiences in this sub-forum.
Dali @ 400 ISO and 100% crop using Foveon Classic Blue & SPP 6.0.6.It appears she was painted on top of the landscape.
SPP 6.0.6 brings back details from beer garden and appears to have less noise reduction applied at lowest setting. Not sure why Sigma ever released SPP6.0.5 and prior with a very dumb noise reduction algorithm that applies luminance smoothing if the grey tone is about 80 (out of 256) or lower even when noise reduction was turned all the way down.
Now on to Dali, anyone know why there is a distinct blue line at the woman's upper chest even though in the full context of the original painting she is sitting in ankle deep water?
The attached is a section from a 360 degree pano that I shot a couple of days ago with a DP2 Q intended to show late-Christmas party decorations, but which also shows blown out highlights.
Working with Merrel DP3 frames in SPP I developed a preferance for leaving the Highlight Control slider in the middle at .5.
With the DP2 Q it seems I am better off moving it all the way to the left at Neutralize, as I did here.
Sadly the DP2Q suffers from irrecoverable, harsh clipping of the highlights which your shot seems to show. The Merrills are the exact reverse. For this reason the Merrills are a better bet for panoramas.
It appears she was painted on top of the landscape.
All oil color no matter how opaque will become increasingly transparent over time.
Peter
So we agree that the Quattro is almost, if not totally, a fail ?
I mean that with what we used to output out of the "tiny" Merrilland even with the pre-Merrill, the Quattro fall short. First, the compactness is gone, by a large margin. We assume that if compactness is trashed it is for a good reason such as noise issue, bigger batteries, new features ... but no, only bigger batteries. Odd design, kinda awkward, uncontrollable noise even at base ISO, blown highlights, no video anymore; I used to shoot old school videos with DP - http://youtu.be/OCepB3snYBE (http://youtu.be/OCepB3snYBE) same as other folks around the world - http://youtu.be/WIlkgU7Et1o (http://youtu.be/WIlkgU7Et1o) - http://youtu.be/wUvxwl-8umc (http://youtu.be/wUvxwl-8umc) ...
The video output was not stargazing but creativity was here. Video should have been pushed with foveon because of no moiré ... In the Q it is gone. We lost IQ and features such as flash, rear wheel for manual focus (far more useful and precise than lens ring manual focus...).
What more to say ? Deception. They lost the plot and the sensitivity behind what was foveon devices, the world's first APS-C compact camera. How to trash a legacy !
Listen SIGMA. Hire back Shinzo Fukui and return to the basics please ...
Your little game at following MP race is just useless. In facts, It's actually killing your products and your reputation, a reputation who was carved for years by happy, inspired consumers, focussed more on Art than technology. So now you focus on hype and provide prototype crippled products, trying to hook technogearheads around the world but here again, you failed.
You had free evangelists, now you will need to pay them or finding naive guys to follow you on events like Paris photo, CP+ ... Foveon was to photography what apple used to be for computers : a niche with a lot of room for development : UNIQUE.
Hi Hulyss, If I may ask, what are points in favor of the SD15 over your Fuji?
I myself, after getting the DP2M, decided to buy a DP1s. What a marvel. Though I am unsure about getting a pre merrill SD. Live-view is quite indispensable these days, and no SD camera has it.