Talk:Foveon X3 sensor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Advantages & Disadvantages? Diagrams?

Diagrams of the sensor would really help this article, and listing the major advantages & disadvantages as bullet points might also clean it up.

Dicklyon, do you think Foveon would have an objection to the use of its diagrams in this article? Who should be contacted on this issue? Anoneditor 00:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at their press downloads page. I doubt that they could give a wikipedia-compatible license for their trademarks, but they could probably be used as fair use for identification. You could write their marketing guy, richard.turner at foveon, and see what he says. Dicklyon 01:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Dicklyon, I thought about your advice of a contact person but have also thought a different kind of diagram might be as useful and not run afoul of intellectual property rights. Do you think this diagram is an accurate representation of the essence of the sensor? If not, what should be changed?

Diagrammatic depiction of Foveon X3 sensor function.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Anoneditor (talk • contribs) 23:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

I think you've got a good idea there. The scale's not accurate, and the discreteness of it is a bit misleading. It could be fixed up by making a continuous version, where each wavelength is attentuated at its own rate as it penetrates the silicon. The trick is showing what's absorbed, and hence sensed, in each layer. I might try to find time to work on it... Dicklyon 00:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Is this any better, or should I give up? I added a stylized version of the color sensing wells. I noticed that the lateral dimension of the wells get wider as the frequency of the light decreases. Does this mean that the light spreads out in some inverse proportion to it's frequency as it diffuses through the silicon? If so, I guess that could be shown by spatially broadening the spectrum as it goes through the silicon. One of the artifacts of this kind of graphical representation is that it makes it look as if the the light color gathered by each sensor layer is reduced in its lateral dimensions. But I don't know how that can be fixed and keep the same representational scheme. Anoneditor 18:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I've something half-baked in matlab that might be a good starting place. That different-sized-wells thing is long obsolete; see Foveon's more recent patents. Dicklyon 21:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

"matlab"? Are you planning to do something on this or shall I slog through the swamp? If the latter, can you post your bakery goods so I cans see what I can do with it? Anoneditor 23:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Attenuation of different wavelengths of light in silicon, and three depth regions, shallow, middle, and deep, where most of the blue, green, and red light is absorbed, respectively.

Try this as a starter. Let me know if you have a use for matlab code. Dicklyon 05:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, here's my last stab at it. If this still has technical problems that aren't easy to fix, someone else is going to have to do it; I've hit the wall with this one. If it's OK, my plan is to use the diagram below with the following textual explanation:

The diagram below shows how this works in graphic form. Depicted on the left is the absorbtion of colors of the spectrum according to their wavelength as they pass through the silicon wafer. On the right, a Foveon X3 layered sensor stack in the silicon wafer for each output pixel is shown depicting the colors it detects at each absorbtion level. The color purity and intensity of blue, green and red depicted for the sensors are for ease of illustration. In fact, these attributes of each output pixel reported by a camera using this sensor result from the camera's image processing algorithms.

Color absorbtion in silicon and the Foveon X3 sensor. See text for explanation.

Thanks for the offer of the matlab codes, but I don't think I'll be needing them. Anoneditor 22:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

That looks good. Just one issue: it's drawn taller than wide. In fact, the depth to the bottom of the red detection region is less than 5 microns, and the pixel size in the SD9 and SD10 is 9 microns (sensitive area somewhat less, like 6 or 7 microns). So it's wider than deep. By the way, in any ordinary CCD or CMOS image sensor, the light absorption is at these same depths, but the just don't segregate it vertically. Dicklyon 06:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I have greatly appreciate your assistance. Anoneditor 18:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Van der Hoorn, for catching the spelling error. I've fixed it in the graphic.Anoneditor 18:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Don't understand the complaint

I don't understand the complaint that the article reads like an advertisement. It seems to me that it gives the relevant technical details on the differences between this sensor and the Bayer-pattern sensors and its advantages and disadvantages. It also makes a reference to an EDN article that is not wholly complementary. The fact that it exposits the theoretically superior nature of the chip seems justified to me because it is theoretically superior. Also, its practical superiority has been shown in the review of the Sigma SD10 in dpreview.com (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sigmasd10/), which seems to be a fairly neutral reviewer.

How else could such an article be written to avoid the complaint?

For the record, I don't own a camera with one of these sensors nor do I have any economic interest in the manuracturer. Anoneditor 18:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Nature of the Dispute

It is precisely the "technical details" which are a matter of the greatest dispute.

First of all, dpreview.com in its new announcment of the forthcoming 14-megapixel DSLR (for an astonishing $1599 at Amazon.com) makes a clear distinction between number of effective pixels and number of photo detectors. To my knowledge, Phil Askey of dpreview.com has always been careful to make that distinction.

The March, 2004 review in Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com) alluded to by the previous contributor does not offer an endorsement of the technical claims made. Rather, it reports the claims made. In any case, Phil Askey of dpreview.com tries to evaluate cameras based on performance. He does not, to my knowledge, offer sufficiently technical explanations that could either confirm or refute technical claims such as those made for the Foveon sensor, nor is that the purpose of his site. The review cited is almost three years old, in any case, and Phil Askey gave the camera in question a "Recommended" rating, not a "Highly Recommeneded" one. He also cited some problems that, in retrospect, could possibly contradict technical claims made about color and digital artifacts.

I have tried to indicate the disputed claims in my edits of the article. Someone with much greater technical expertise than myself would be needed in order to assess the validity of the claims made.

I have never used a camera with such a sensor, but I have used a number of cameras that use either CCD or CMOS sensors. I have no financial stake in this discussion. I certainly have nothing against the Sigma corporation (the primary user of the Foveon sensor), and I use their lenses from time to time. I like them. I certainly do not want to pan their products or components of such products if they have made revolutionary breakthroughs. Rather, I would buy one.

One thing is troubling to me, however, and that is what brought me to Wikipedia to check on the Foveon sensor. Just hours agao, I saw the new forthcoming Sigma 14-megapixel camera advertised on Amazon.com, which is taking orders in advance. I also consulted dpreview.com, which also contains an announcement of the camera just alluded to. What I read from Sigma did not even mention the sensor size, only that the new camera uses the Foveon sensor. Failure to mention sensor size in a new product description is most unusual, and it suggests the possibility that Sigma does not want to be drawn into a discussion of the merits of the sensor. That is a red flag for me in and of itself, but all the more so since the only 14-megapixel or higher sensors so far used have been 24mm x36mm designs (used by both Canon and Kodak). The avoidance of the sensor size issue suggests that the sensor used in the new camera is not a "full-frame" (24x36) sensor, implying that Sigma is claiming to get 14-megapixels from a smaller sensor. That raises questions immediately about pixel count, which is at the core of the dispute about Foveon sensors. Since lots of pixels on small sensors has been linked to claims (unresolved) about digital noise, the possible suggestion is that some of the techinical claims made about the Foveon sensor fly in the face of what has been considered technologically feasible to this point.

I would like to believe the claims made for the Foveon sensor, but any claim that virtually doubles the effective sensor count has to be viewed as being extremely suspect. The Foveon sensor certainly has its zealous adherents, and perhaps they are on to something, but so far the claims made are suspect and probably exaggerated, if not specious.

Readers are referred to Amazon.com (search "Sigma camera") and to dpreview.com under "Sigma." A camera using a revolutionary new sensor that offers 14 megapixels (on a small sensor?) and costs only $1599 is perhaps too good to be true. Even if it should be true, one would want to know about digital noise, low light capability, and high ISO effects on noise. Since the Foveon sensor is used in the camera in question, claims about its actual pixel count are of the utmost importance, as are claims about low noise and other digital artifacts.

I don't think that the entry on the Foveon sensor should be pulled just yet, since the element of doubt has been raised. Even so, questions remain as to whether readers might still read the entry as being an endorsement of products based on Foveon technology.

Other contributors/editors, especially those who understand all technical issues at stake, could be most useful on this one. I am not quite up to the task of doing the kind of rewrite that is really needed.

Landrumkelly 10:44, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Landrumkelly, I looked over your changes. Thanks for making clear the items you are skeptical about. However, your changes need to be turned into "citation needed" tags, instead of WP:weasel words like "it is claimed." Then, editors can go through and try to fix those items, either adding WP:V refs, or change to "Foveon claims" with a link to where the claim is made, and maybe refs to counter claims when they can be found, or just remove it if it's not verifiable. Where you've said "extremely controversial claims are made" presumably is an example of a place where links to claims and counter claims can be found; it would be much better to have "Foveon claims X" and "Phil Askey disputes it", than your opinion that it's extremely controversial; see Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles. Please fix your edits promptly, or I will revert to a state before the widespread changes to "it is claimed." Dicklyon 17:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

As to the sensor size and other technical details of the Sigma SD14, have you considered consulting a neutral source such as wikipedia? Dicklyon 17:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Due to the demands of the holiday season, I will not be able to do this. I will be leaving town later today. It might be better to pull the entry, in my opinion, or let it revert with its caveat that it reads like an advertisement. I have used the phrases only to indicate that the claims are not neutral claims, and to specify which claims are in doubt. If I had the sources at my fingertips, I could make the changes that you request. Unfortunately, though I have followed this controversy for some years now (countng the earlier Foveon sensors), I do not have the sources readily available. If I say "Foveon claims" (which is indeed what I mean), then I will have to back that up, and I cannot do that quickly. Nor can I cite the numerous sources of competing claims (regarding "controversy") in the time available. Some of the controversy can be found in the sources cited for the article. I am sorry that the author of this entry did not incorporate those competing claims into his original article. Revert or change as you will. Thanks.

Landrumkelly 18:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I reverted to the pre-weasel-word state. At this point, we're not asking you to provide sources, just to tag the places that you think need them. That will help others to address your concerns. When you have time, put the {{citationneeded}} (or {{cn}} or {{fact}}) tags after any statements that need to be verified or removed, and others will then be guided to help. Or someone else might help if you're off for a while. Dicklyon 18:39, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to add the "citation needed" tag. Perhaps I can find this out upon my return.

Landrumkelly 18:47, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Just put the text I indicated above, where a reference would go; the double squiggly brackets mean that a template is envoked. See Template:Citationneeded, which also lists some other templates you can consider. Dicklyon 21:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Landrumkelly, I agree that Mr. Askey has always been careful to make the distinction between the number of effective pixels and number of photo detectors. However, in my opinion, the way he does it doesn't support your argument. In the opening paragraph of the review of the SD10, he states, "...in our previous experience the X3 sensor delivers approximately twice the resolution of a standard mosaic sensor with the same number of horizontal and vertical pixel locations." Strictly construed, that statement would mean that the X3 sensor has a Bayer equivalent resolution of 13.7 megapixels (the product of twice each dimension. However, I think his meaning is that it equals a Bayer sensor with twice as many pixels. This would amount to a Beyer-equivalent resolution of approximately 4.9 megapixels (sqrt(2)* each dimension) or 3207 x 2138. This comports nicely with the results of his comparison with the 6 megapixel Canon EOS 10D in the review. As he states on p. 15 of the SD10 review, "What's clear to see from these comparisons is that the X3 sensor technology achieves amazing levels of detail and resolution pixel per pixel compared to the six megapixel sensor of the EOS 10D. Indeed it's fair to say that the EOS 10D doesn't truly exhibit any more visible detail than the SD10 (just a larger image, which we'll examine more on the next pages)."

Moreover, contrary to the statement made in your second paragraph, with respect to the X3's resolution, Mr. Askey does offer sufficiently technical explanation to confirm the technical claims made for this sensor. For instance, in the second paragraph of the commentary on p. 18 of the SD10 review, he states that the higher resolution of the Foveon sensor results from its lack of an anti-aliasing filter.

To me, your speculation about the size of the sensor in the newly announced SD14 is interesting but irrelevant to the question of whether or not the sensor technology is better. (I have no doubt that it is smaller than a full frame sensor.)

Finally, I don't think the fact that the SD10 was not rated "Highly Recommended" helps your argument much. That rating probably had more to do with perceived deficiencies in the camera other than deficiencies with its sensor: seven of the nine "Cons" in the review's conclusion relate to other aspects of the camera.

It still doesn't read like an advertisement to me. I don't think it should be pulled at all. Anoneditor 22:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The previous editorial complaint about this article was that it read like an advertisement. I responded to that in two prior postings. The first noted that the article gave both pros and cons on the sensor involved and that the sensor was fairly well reviewed by one independent reviewer. That brought on an editorial response that I thought was not well reasoned and misread the material it used as its purported basis and I mentioned this in my second posting.

Now, the article is accused of using "peacock words" and advancing a "limited or personal interpretation" of the subject matter.

Peacock words. After following the link to the definition of "peacock words," I find that the only words in the article that could possibly be classified thus are: The word "advantage," in the first sentence of the fifth paragraph and the word "elegant" in the last paragraph. Couldn't these words simply have been changed rather than make all the fuss with the multi-colored headline banners?

Limited or personal interpretation. How does this assessment square with the text of the article?

• Paragraphs 1 & 2: Provide factual information on the subject sensor.
• Paragraph 3: Notes the difficulties in comparing the resolution of the sensor with the conventional Bayer sensor, setting out the way different pixel counting methods may underestimate or overestimate the sensor's resolution.
• Paragraph 4: Notes the factual reality that demosaicing, anti-aliasing and sharpening are not required due to the design of the filter.
• Paragraph 5: Notes the technical differences between the two designs with respect to color absorption, and the advantages and disadvantages of the subject sensor in this respect.
• Paragraph 6: Takes up the pixel count resolution issue again, comparing the two types of sensors from a different perspective.
• Paragraph 7: Notes how the physical characteristics of the subject sensor affect its performance respecting focusing, chromatic aberration and sharpness in longer wavelengths.
• Paragraph 8: Notes a book written on the subject.
• Paragraph 9: Notes one reason for the lack of great commercial success of the subject sensor.

If this is a limited interpretation, then that appellation could be applied to any technical article that doesn't completely cover every facet of its subject. Also, I cannot understand why it would be categorized as personal as the vast majority of articles necessarily contain the opinions of their authors. Perhaps paragraph 8 should be a reference and paragraph 9 could mention other possible reasons.

As a result of my analysis above, and with all due respect, I think that the editorial response to this article has been quite disproportional to whatever defects it may have. Anoneditor 05:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. I probably should have explained myself earlier, but the holidays don't allow me much free time. While I'm not going so far as to directly question the validity of specific claims like Landrumkelly, I do agree that the article doesn't meet the standards of an encyclopedia entry, lacking the formal tone that is to be expected. NPOV policy is not "find what appears in your opinion to be a fair and balanced assessment of the subject, then endorse it." It is not the place in an encyclopedia to assert anything but objective fact. All opinionated or otherwise remotely disputable information should be attributed to external parties by name. Words like "difficult", "advantage", and "elegant" are subjective terms, and open to debate, hence the {{peacock}} template I added.

What criteria are being used to judge "better"? What common references are being used for comparison? Number of pixels based on RGB format conversion? Sensor size? Sensor cost? Device cost? Short-exposure performance? (From what I've read, cameras that use X3 sensors tend to produce prohibitively noisy images when using long exposures.) Energy efficiency? These would all produce different results. To me, "theoretically superior" often means "better under a particular set of conditions that exclude relevant real-world factors." Phrases such as "on the other hand" can imply primacy of one thing over another. Stating that "prospective camera buyers need to understand the pixel counting definition" is wrong. They don't need to understand anything.

As Dicklyon pointed, the real problem is the lack of rigorous verification of all the statements in the article. Each assertion should have a reliable source that directly asserts the claim. For example: "Regardless of the elegant design, the Foveon X3 sensor has not yet achieved great commercial success because most camera manufacturers use their own image sensors." Is that really why the sensor has not achieved great commercial success? Says who? How did they arrive at that conclusion? What is "great commercial success" anyway? Was this really regardless of the design? Was the design really that elegant? How elegant? You say that is valid as one reason. The article does not specify that it is just one reason, though. In truth, I didn't find that anything was provided to verify it as one possible factor.

Landrumkelly did try to fix things by changing the wording. Dicklyon was right in saying that it was merely weasel-wording that does nothing to address the real problem of attributing sources. Some of the statements are not supported by the existing references, and without sources, those statements could be construed as original research.

While you can probably find dozens of examples of personally asserted opinions found in Wikipedia articles (there is certainly a tendency towards among editors, in my experience), I dispute that they are there "necessarily". While I haven't checked myself, I'm betting the better articles manage to keep this to a minimum. As for other articles, if you look at my contributions, I doubt you'll find that I'm any less harsh on articles that I edit, and I don't think I should be held responsible for articles that I don't edit. The condition of this article should be argued on its own merits. Dancter 09:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Dancter, Please accept my apology; I should have realized that saying I thought the editorial position taken was unfair might be taken as a challenge to the editor's integrity. That was not my intent and I'm sorry if it came out that way.

Also, thank you for taking the time to fully explain the meaning of your tag, which now makes sense to me, and I greatly appreciate it. I would suggest that the definition of "peacock words" be expanded to include the terms you mention because, as it stands, they are those "that merely show off the subject of the article without imparting real information." Maybe a new category is necessary. Anoneditor 19:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

There are lots of sources to draw on to fix the article. Books, Foveon tech papers, other papers, patents. It shouldn't be hard to find sources for statements, to say which ones are Foveon claims, or someone else's claims, when they are not obviously factual, etc. Dicklyon 18:58, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

TOO MUCH EMOTION ON A TECHNICAL SUBJECT

I've gotten back from the holidays and read the above commentary, as well as seen the changes from "Reads like an advertisement" to references to "peacock words." Someone with more technical skill than I possess needs to work on this article. Unfortunately, in my opinion, the piece is clearly promotional, i.e., does sound either like an advertisement or a piece by an enthusiast of the cameras that use this sensor. In any case, I can't fix the article, but it definitely needs fixing. This is definitely not an encyclopedia entry. It can only come to be that if written by someone who is both (1) technically proficient and (2) neutral and objective. I shall have to leave this entire entry with commentary to someone else. Right now it is still a mess, and there is too much emotion in the discussion of claims that could be verified or disverified empirically. Citations will not solve the problem. I am not even sure that the topic deserves an entry at this point. Promotional literature of unproven technological innovations is surely not what Wikipedia is about. Barely disguised zealots can be expected to keep coming back to this one, creating an editorial nightmare. Right now this one is a laugher. Landrumkelly 04:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Landrumkelly, it's unclear to me why you sense emotion here. Seems like a reasonably dispassionate discussion to me, at least by comparison with other Foveon X3 discussions that I have seen. Why don't you go ahead and mark with fact tags the items that you see as needing sourcing or correction or removal? There's no need for you to take on the fixing, just point out the problems. I can help with the technical expertise and finding sources, but I've avoided doing a lot of editing here because I am not sufficiently neutral on it. I'll look for sources where requested, correct technical errors, and comment in the discussion, but I'm not going to rewrite the article. Dicklyon 04:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

One problem here, however, is that few people seem to be paying attention to this article, and nobody really working on it. So let me point out a few things, and we'll see if we should make some changes. First, as to the statement about the sharpening filter, I don't buy it; a sharpening filter is not REQUIRED with either Bayer or Foveon type images, but is usually used with both. So I'd leave that out. As to an AA fitler not being needed, that's more true; an AA filter is not used in the Sigma cameras, unless you count the anti-aliasing effect of the area over which the microlenses integrate the optical signal; their are plenty of sources to back up the ideas that this is close to the best that can be implemented for an image sensor, unlike the situation with Bayer sensors, though such sources might need considerable interpretation; would you like me to find one? As to the issue about "effective pixels", that's a tar pit; Askey has his own unique solution; it's probably best to just state what Foveon and Sigma say, and to state what Askey says as an alternative; at present, nothing in the article mentions effective pixels, but the question of how to count pixels is discussed (in a somewhat POV way, though, saying what a buyer needs to do). Most of the rest of what you had put "it is claimed" on are simple points of physics or optics, that as far as I can see are about right (for example, the depth of absorption of light in silicon is no different in Foveon's silicon than in anyone else's). Please feel free to ask here, or with tags, about any that you'd like to see sources on. One of the items you questioned already has a reference (on image comparisons) that I added a while back. Dicklyon 06:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Based on discussion here, I have removed the peacock and essay tags, and put a sources tag instead. Dicklyon 20:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Landrumkelly, if this topic doesn't deserve an entry, then neither do the CCD or CMOS sensors currently in use in digital photography. In my view, the X3 is clearly an important innovation in digital photosensor technology as it avoids the color interpolation of the current sensors. It may not be a perfect product, but it certainly is noteworthy. Moreover, I find it hard to see how this article falls in the class of "Promotional literature of unproven technological innovations." As to "unproven", the sensor is currently in use in a commercially marketed camera and at least one outside reviewer has demonstrated image sharpness equivalent to current 6MP Bayer sensors. As to "promotional," though the article may have some technical issues, it isn't as one-sided, as you would expect a promo piece to be. I think Dicklyon has done some good recent editing on the text and, contrary to your view, I think citations will help. Anoneditor 22:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Nobody has suggested removing the topic. Get over that misconception. Dicklyon 22:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't recall even hinting that anyone had suggested it. I was merely taking issue with Landrumkelly's observation. What prompts you to think I have a "misconception" about this? Anoneditor 23:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I was interpreting your earlier statement "I don't think it should be pulled at all" and your more recent "if this topic doesn't deserve an entry" as rebuttals to an imagined suggestion that this topic doesn't deserve an entry or should be removed. Sorry if I read you wrong. Dicklyon 23:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Dicklyon has indeed "done some good recent editing on the text," and it does indeed read much better than when I first saw it about a week ago. I'm sorry that I did not notice that before responding again. I do think that it should stay, and the sensor is indeed a promising development. Just how promising remains to be seen. I apologize for the confusion. Landrumkelly 02:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Dicklyon, I would like to remove the non-disclosure-of-sources tag on this article. In one of your replies to Landrum Kelly, with respect to anti-aliasing filters, you said, "...an AA filter is not used in the Sigma cameras, unless you count the anti-aliasing effect of the area over which the microlenses integrate the optical signal; their are plenty of sources to back up the ideas that this is close to the best that can be implemented for an image sensor, unlike the situation with Bayer sensors, though such sources might need considerable interpretation; would you like me to find one?" Would it be too much trouble for you to find one for me so I can see if this article can be finished? Anoneditor 03:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

See ref 2 of Anti-aliasing filter (first paragraph of section 26.5). If you need more, Pratt's book on Digital Image Procesing and Sequin & Thomsett's book on CCDs also make the point, if I recall correctly. Or see this video lecture on silicon image sensors (at 56:25). Dicklyon 05:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks so much. I'll run them down now that I've reorganized the article. Anoneditor 20:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Concluding Sentence Issues

"The Foveon X3 sensor has not yet achieved great commercial success because most camera manufacturers use their own image sensors or buy them from large semiconductor companies such as Sony."

The sentence above does not make sense. The reason most camera manufacturers prefer to "use their own image sensors or buy them from large semiconductor companies such as Sony" would be why the X3 is not successful. The article quoted for the concludimg statement even states that one of the few brands that DID adopt the Foveon was recalled due to "reported image-quality problems". So the reasons given by the article that the X3 is unsuccessful are that 1) Foveon is still an unproven technology and 2) the recall did not look good for this still unproven technology. 24.83.178.11 06:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)KnowledgeSeeker

I'm deleting this paragraph and its reference for the following reasons:

• "[G]reat commercial success" is undefined. (See comment by Dancter, above.)

• I think that the comment above, that the reference doesn't support the assertion made in the paragraph, is true.

• The reference itself is tainted because it doesn't cite any source for its assertion of the recall on quality issues of one of the cameras using the sensor, implying the sensor was at fault. (My quick research indicates it may have been based on the April 15, 2005 news item in Imaging Resource.com [1] which ascribed the report to an anonymous reader. It also raised the inference that the problem may have been with the image processing firmware used in early camera samples. If so, this doesn't equate to a problem inherent in the sensor itself.) Anoneditor 23:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article Reorganization

I have substantially reorganized the article for clarity by separating the description of the sensor and its operation from the comparison of the sensor to the Bayer sensor. Then, I broke that comparison down into three sub-categories. I've also eliminated the conceptual redundancy and lack of continuity formerly existing in the area of "megapixel" counting and supplied more references and more explanatory text.

However, there are still two matters that are unclear to me, both of which appear in the subsection on "Light gathering and low-light performance." First, Is there really a significant difference in difficulty between demosaicing the Bayer cell output and "matrixing" the Foveon X3 output? Second, does the "matrixing" really have anything to do with low light performance of the Foveon sensor, as also stated in that paragraph? The latter seems unlikely but, not being a scientist or engineer in this field, I don't know. I left those assertions in because they were in the earlier version of the article and there were no complaints about them. I've asked for citations for both. Anoneditor 20:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Claims of controversy

Anon, you've made much of so called controversies. I toned it down a bit, tried to explain better what the controversy might be about, and added citation needed tags. We really should find reliable sources if we're going to say such things. Furthermore, your calling the SD10 3.4 is taking sides against the published and accepted specs found on all retailer sites, so is rather POV. See if the way I fixed this discussion looks OK. The issue of the MP count needs to be discussed, and what the companies call it is certainly backed up by verifiable sources. But these should not be confused with issues of resolution. Dicklyon 05:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)