Munged SD10 peacock

OK, peacock wars!

Since posting an unadjusted, unsharpened, effectively raw image elicits
misunderstanding, here's a messed up variant -

http://www.freelancephotographer.co....xelsharped.jpg

Waht I've done here is just a quick adjustment to the 8bit file, but it
balances the English impoverished grass colour to Alan's Bronx Zoo
colour (both are probably wrong - I warmed up a dull day shot, he shot
in open shade on a sunny day) and changes the profile to sRGB for those
who simply don't have colour-management enabled browsers, and upscales
the file to 18 megabytes expanded (to match 6 megapixel cameras) and
adds some sharpening to the normal parameters - actually, I've allowed
levels to be 0, which tends to boost noise a lot, but I felt that even
at ISO 400 and enlarged to a 1.5X size file, the Sigma noise was not
excessive.

Well, it ain't much, but at least it's a composition. If I shoot a pic,
I frame it. I don't press the shutter unless its tight as a gnat's
posterior for composition. I never have.

Mythology: in the first year I set out in photography, at the age of 19,
I had over 260 pictures printed in the UK photo press. Every single one
was black and white, because the year was 1971. Tight composition -
nothing wasted, but everything balanced - is 90 per cent of the battle.

I doubt I could do it now. I am not so lucky or so hopeful and 50x is
very different from 19!

Serious advice: I remember not long after that period seeing Jesus
Christ Superstar. Fair old rubbish in its own time... but one line stuck
in my mind - 'Take him away, he has nothing to say'. As an editor, I get
countless articles sent to me, and even more pictures, which have
nothing to say. They add nothing to what has gone before. Any image must
have something to say, even if it's just a witty one-liner or a casual
comment. If the photographer has not composed the picture to make its
point, it fails.

Just remember this; even in a family snap. Give the image an angle, give
it a statement, an attitude. Make it speak, make it connect. nuffsaid.

DK

Much better. Should I sharpen and upsize my picture as retaliation?

Brian C. Baird wrote:

Much better. Should I sharpen and upsize my picture as retaliation?


How did you manage to see it?

I forgot to check to filesize and as a top quality JPEG it was nearly 10
megabytes, and timed out on uploading.

It did place a file on the server but 2mb short of the total and I would
have expected it not to have functioned properly.

I made a version at quality 8 - so no longer as accurate, but not a bad
representation - and this is 1.8 mb - that's on the server now.

You could always crop down to the central part - 3.4 megapixels worth -
and lose the twigs and stuff and try upsizing that back to the original.
That would be a direct comparison of the sensor images.

My hope is that Foveon will produce a larger size - 1.4 or even 1.3X
factor - 5.6 megapixel sensor, without making the pitch smaller, and
will be able to address some of the impurity issues which cause
blotchiness at extreme calculated colour points (where most of the
colour information is obtained by subtracting other channels). If they
do, there's a way forward; if not, improvements to full frame Bayer or
other filter array sensors are likely get there first.

David

Brian C. Baird wrote:

Much better. Should I sharpen and upsize my picture as retaliation?

And I meant Brian not Alan in the post. Late night...

David

In article ,
says...
If they do, there's a way forward; if not, improvements to full frame Bayer or
other filter array sensors are likely get there first.

What I don't get is this:

Foveon has the technology to put 10.3 million sensors in a small chip
and have the street price of the final camera be about $1500.
Admittedly, their method is more intensive and complicated than a
single-layer sensor. Why don't they just build a 10.3 megapixel Bayer
sensor? After all, the 11 megapixel Canon 1Ds is still at the top in
terms of resolution and low noise and certainly trumps the Foveon
sensors currently found in Sigma dSLRs.

Brian C. Baird wrote:

In article ,
says...

If they do, there's a way forward; if not, improvements to full frame Bayer or
other filter array sensors are likely get there first.


What I don't get is this:

Foveon has the technology to put 10.3 million sensors in a small chip
and have the street price of the final camera be about $1500.
Admittedly, their method is more intensive and complicated than a
single-layer sensor. Why don't they just build a 10.3 megapixel Bayer
sensor? After all, the 11 megapixel Canon 1Ds is still at the top in
terms of resolution and low noise and certainly trumps the Foveon
sensors currently found in Sigma dSLRs.

I think the price difference, and holding a patent, may explain why. I
don't know if any royalty or fee is payable for Bayer pattern image
algorithm usage, but Foveon must be (for their own use) free of any
payments for licenses to outside patent holders.

I have never really understood why much larger pitch, big sensors can't
be made covering say the whole of 6 x 4.5cm rollfilm with loads of space
between each pixel and maybe just 12 megapixels in total. A Foveon
12x12x12 stacked like that would be very interesting.

The other interesting possibility given by coincident points on the
sensor for virtual RGB would be to create a random (stochastic) sensor
which gets 'mapped' using some kind of target system, and thus avoids
all the problems of grid-based pixel arrays.

David

In article ,
says...
I think the price difference, and holding a patent, may explain why. I
don't know if any royalty or fee is payable for Bayer pattern image
algorithm usage, but Foveon must be (for their own use) free of any
payments for licenses to outside patent holders.

But Foveon has manufactured other sensor types in the past, doesn't
really make much sense.

I have never really understood why much larger pitch, big sensors can't
be made covering say the whole of 6 x 4.5cm rollfilm with loads of space
between each pixel and maybe just 12 megapixels in total. A Foveon
12x12x12 stacked like that would be very interesting.

Limitations of the silicon chip manufacturing process. This probably
will be overcome in time.

The other interesting possibility given by coincident points on the
sensor for virtual RGB would be to create a random (stochastic) sensor
which gets 'mapped' using some kind of target system, and thus avoids
all the problems of grid-based pixel arrays.

It would probably create its own problems in the end. Frequency
modulation works great for lightjets and inkjets, it doesn't look very
good on your monitor.

David Kilpatrick writes:

Brian C. Baird wrote:

Much better. Should I sharpen and upsize my picture as retaliation?


How did you manage to see it?

I forgot to check to filesize and as a top quality JPEG it was nearly
10 megabytes, and timed out on uploading.

Ah, that probably explains why the bottom was cropped off relative to
the full version when I looked at it yesterday. Actually, it was a
fairly effective crop -- everything was the tail, with the body
sticking up into the middle of it, but no ground below it.

I guess it wasn't a progressive jpeg, eh?
--
David Dyer-Bennet, , http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
RKBA: http://noguns-nomoney.com/ http://www.dd-b.net/carry/
Pics: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/
Dragaera/Steven Brust: http://dragaera.info/

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

David Kilpatrick writes:


Brian C. Baird wrote:


Much better. Should I sharpen and upsize my picture as retaliation?


How did you manage to see it?

I forgot to check to filesize and as a top quality JPEG it was nearly
10 megabytes, and timed out on uploading.


Ah, that probably explains why the bottom was cropped off relative to
the full version when I looked at it yesterday. Actually, it was a
fairly effective crop -- everything was the tail, with the body
sticking up into the middle of it, but no ground below it.

I guess it wasn't a progressive jpeg, eh?

Funny that - because for a long time PageMaker and InDesign would not
place progressive JPEGs, I avoid them - I used to end up with the
Photoshop default on progressive from doing web work, and then end up
saving JPEGs I could not place!

David