Talk:Sigma SD14

message: I think the wording in the paragraph with the RAW file size is a little bit awkward, specifically the "2640 × 1760 × 3 samples" phrasing, which is inconsistent with the phrasing used for the JPEG file size and the SD10 RAW file size, both of which are quoted in terms of megapixels. If we changed those phrasings to match, then the whole paragraph would be horribly awkward, so I favor changing it back to "4.6 megapixels, or 2640 x 1760 pixels". I think that once sample photos are available, and reviews appear, we will be able to firmly establish how the per pixel IQ compares between the SD14 and other DSLRs. RanmaSaotome 21:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it can get awkward.  But the important thing is to be clear and correct.  With JPEG files there's no difficulty in comparing "pixels" since they all contain RGB pixels.  With sensors, the meaning of the term "pixel" is often debated, so we can report what is there, and what Sigma calls it.  In the case of the raw file, same things, except that as far as I know Sigma doesn't call it anything.  What's important is to report the full truth, which is that the SD14 raw file has 14 million measurements stored in it, in a different organization from Bayer raw files; choose a neutral terminology to describe it so that the debate about the meaning of pixel is not dragged into it.  I don't see where the SD10 raw file size quoted in terms of megapixels; if it is, perhaps it should be fixed. Dicklyon 21:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The thing is the only purpose of the RAW file is to produce a TIFF or a JPEG, both of which have a clear definition of pixel. If the RAW conversion software works like the previous version, the user will have the option of half size, 1320 x 880 (1.2 megapixels), full size, 2640 x 1760 (4.6 megapixels) or double size, 5280 x 3520 (18.6 megapixels). It has been demonstrated with the SD10 that the double size output is no better than taking the full size (3.4 megapixel in this case) output and then upscaling in Photoshop. (On the other hand, it is clearly better than taking the 3.4 megapixel output of a Bayer-sensor camera and upscaling to the same double size). On the other hand, we know that the SD14 will be able to produce a 14 megapixel JPEG file in-camera, but so far we know nothing about the quality of that file. I would say that unless and until we can source some evidence that the RAW conversion software for the SD14 can take the RAW file and output a TIFF with greater than 4.6 megapixels, and that TIFF is actually better quality than what you would get if you upscaled the 4.6 megapixel output in Photoshop; we should call the RAW file 4.6 megapixels. RanmaSaotome 13:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your logic makes no sense; there is no definition of pixel counting that depends on subjective image quality.  We just need to describe what's in the raw file, since the JPEG that can result from processing can be any size. Dicklyon 16:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I found where you referred to about the SD10 raw file being called 3.4 MP, and removed the ambiguous pixel count language from that one, too, replacing it with 10.2 M samples. Dicklyon 17:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Once you have the file in the PC, you are in a realm where "pixel" is solidly defined, and unless you are prepared to say that in TIFF file you need to count each sub-pixel as a pixel, then the X3F file has 4.6 megapixels. Wikipedia is not a place for blindly accepting any companies marketing-speak, so I will revert any attempt you make to muddle the straight forward wording, unless you are prepaired to offer a bona fide improvement. Oh, and RAW is usually capitalized in this context, even though it is not an acronym. Good job on the information table, though, and on the clarification to the Super CCD reference.RanmaSaotome 20:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Once you have an "image" file I might agree.  But a "raw" file is different.  A Bayer raw file does not contain ANY RGB pixels, so they are still difficult to compare.  Take a look at ISO 12231 Photography -- Electronic still picture imaging -- Vocabulary, 2005-02-01, which says the digitized photoelement values are pixels: "2.1 addressable photoelements — number of active photoelements on an image sensor. This is equal to the number of active lines of photoelements times the number of active photoelements per line. NOTE  The term resolution should not be used when referring to the number of addressable photoelements on an image sensor. 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." I have no problem with people having dissenting opinions to this, but if we use the term "pixel" where its meaning is ambiguous, the article will become a debate forum, and that what we should seek to avoid.  So we need to use a more neutral terminology that is clear and explicit without taking sides on the pixel debate.  Right? Dicklyon 20:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a very sketchy semantic argument, and it falls down because while the RAW file data isn't in terms of R, G, and B, (note that many image formats are in CMYK or LAB or some other color space) anyway, while the RAW file data isn't in terms of R, G, and B, it is in a form that is one simple mathamatical transfomation away from RGB. Calling each location here a pixel is on solid rational ground, and I argue that the way I wrote that paragraph is clear, concise, honest, and in a language that most people can understand.RanmaSaotome 20:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I had read it before reverting, and found it contained not only the presumed pixel definitions but also two expressed opinions about quality.  So this time instead of reverting I edited all that.  It's a bit awkward, and can use some improvement, but using terminology that takes sides on the semantic issue will not stand. What you wrote may have been rational, clear, concise, and honest, but was not WP:NPOV nor WP:V.  I have cited a source; if you find one the supports the other interpretation in camera raw files, and feel compelled to rely on it in the article, then we'll have to also put the other side in.  Is that where we want to go?  Why not just use a more neutral terminology? Dicklyon 21:04, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good call on the POV statement, “contrasts with” reads better than “is superior than” anyway. Nevertheless, the source you have quoted from regarding pixels in RAW files is not available for free, so I cannot evaluate the context of your excerpt. I did, however find this source:  which is a specification for the X3F file format, and from that there is this excerpt: “To decompress the pixel data, use the following algorithm for each row of each color channel, where Ci is the unsigned 8-bit value of a color channel in the ith pixel on that row and Di is the unsigned 8-bit decompressed value of that color channel for that pixel”. That seems to imply to me anyway that a pixel may have more than one color channel in an X3F file, and it proves that Foveon considers X3F files to have pixels.RanmaSaotome 22:50, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That document does not say how to decode the raw data.  The passage you found refers to reading the 8-bit RGB preview image, not the raw data.  Sorry about the ISO standard; it's been a while since I've seen a copy, too.  The bit I quoted was the entirety of the section 2.1, addressable photoelements; no other section attempted to define pixel. Dicklyon 23:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: RAW File Size

message: It would be best to avoid the debates common in the forums about what should be counted as a "pixel" in cameras and sensors.  User:RanmaSaotome has added the words "pixel count of 4.7 megapixels" which very clearly is not WP:NPOV, by taking one side on this issue, just as calling it "14.1 megapixels" would take the other side.  We all have our opinions, but wikipedia is not the place for them.  Instead, we just need to be clear about what is there, and also report what Sigma calls it (they call it 14 MP, in case anyone was wondering).  I'd prefer that someone else take a crack at the wording... Dicklyon 21:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When I noticed the change in the article, I wanted some precise information. I went to the megapixel (redirected to pixel) article and haven't found this. So I rewrote the section, with cited references. And lost one hour of work by accidentally closing the window. Ouch. I will redo it. --Marc Lacoste 22:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

text: So far here I have been accused of having a "Sigma-fanboy perspective" and now you are accusing me of the opposite? It is not appropriate for any "side" to be taken here, the proper thing to do is report both the 4.7 and 14 megapixel figures and then explain in the article where they come from and why. This is what I have attempted to do. Sigma, of course, has an interest in maintaining a consistent marketing message that the SD14 is a 14 megapixel camera, but the mission of Wikipedia is orthogonal to that. RanmaSaotome 13:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The only thing I'm accusing you of is expressing one of two opposing points of view on the pixel count.  It's not about you, but about how to describe the camera in the article.  We agree on what needs to be done. Dicklyon 16:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The pixel debates

message: See sensor data.  
Total Pixels 14.5M, 2688 x 1792 x 3 -- 
Effective Pixels 14.1M, 2652 x 1768 x 3 -- for definition of effective pixels see DPReview. So it's 4.7 M x 3, not 4.6 M x 3, at least at the "effective" RAW data level. The total raw data probably is more than that, possibly the full "total" 14.5 M, but that's not the preferred number to mention. Dicklyon 21:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The specifications on the DPReview site say that effective pixels are 2640 x 1760, which is clearly 4.6 million, but obviously the Foveon reference contradicts that. We shall see what the X3F file has when sample images are released.RanmaSaotome 22:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The sensor has 2652 × 1768 active elements, and a few more in the borders for dark level calculation. This is visible using dcraw in "dark frame dump mode", for example. Sigma Photo Pro only outputs 2640 x 1760, but that's a software choice, not a hardware fact - Rnbc 11:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Actual sensor counts

message: I agree the presentation should be as neutral as possible. However, there is an agreement among almost all Sigma users why they prefer a RGB pixel stacked sensor based cameras image over that of a Bayer sensor based camera. I feel there should be a section where those opinions should be listed (particulary color-richtum, pixel sharpness, 3D look, lack of soft noise effects causing 3D look). Unfortunately the SD14 is still not very useable for action photography, and to my experience limited action can be rather slow on a random base. While the low light capabilities of the SD14 are improved about one to two stop over the SD10, the latest DSLRs should be also much better than the SD14 for extreme poor (low) light situations.
More or less there is no perfect camera (cheap, fast, DR, best IQ...) so the Sigma fanboys would agree the SD14 is best used for still photography and when image quality matters.
Regarding numbers of pixels - the common indication as a resolution indicator is unfortunately wrong IMO. The SD14 has true 4.7 MPixel full color pixel resolution, and a 12 MPixel Bayer sensor camera has a resolution of 4.7-5.2(well, thats a guess) full RGB pixel sensor. On the other hand one can say the SD14 has a resolution of a 10-12 Mpixel Bayer camera. For real prints there are good experiences with surprisingly big formats.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spalbird (talk • contribs) 23:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sigma Fanboys 

message: Someone can clean up this mess? Format the article at least... otherwise i'll just undo the last changes to the article nex time I come up here.  Rnbc (talk) 23:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I cleaned it up a little bit, but this article needs more than formatting help. There's odd phraseology here and there that makes it seem... we'll, I can't put my finger on it. 63.230.167.170 (talk) 03:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The second half of the opening paragraph reads like advertising.   Without references it doesn't read like an encyclopedia entry...    EyeExplore (talk) 04:09, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've cleaned the article a bit... It still looks like a mess, but less like advertising. Rnbc (talk) 00:40, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The article is a Mess!!!