For those inquiring about the Foveon, it sure is nice isn't it? Too bad it's also $$$. No consumer camera would use the 3 megapixel version of the CCD, and the 1.x version really is a bit too small.
Note the yellowness in a few of the photos...the only visual weakpoint of the pre-production Foveon imagers I've seen. As it's just a saturation issue, I think camera manufacturers can easily fix that if it's not already fixed at the CCD level.
Over-all, some pretty amazing photographs as far as digital is concerned.
If I were to buy a camera this summer though, I'd probably just stick with the Nikon D100...It seems to best the D60 in terms of detailed resolution by just a smidge...and it's cheaper here...
<strong>For those inquiring about the Foveon, it sure is nice isn't it? Too bad it's also $$$. No consumer camera would use the 3 megapixel version of the CCD, and the 1.x version really is a bit too small.
Note the yellowness in a few of the photos...the only visual weakpoint of the pre-production Foveon imagers I've seen. As it's just a saturation issue, I think camera manufacturers can easily fix that if it's not already fixed at the CCD level.
Over-all, some pretty amazing photographs as far as digital is concerned.
If I were to buy a camera this summer though, I'd probably just stick with the Nikon D100...It seems to best the D60 in terms of detailed resolution by just a smidge...and it's cheaper here...</strong><hr></blockquote>
yes i have see the images and the Foveon's web site : wonderfull tech. The detail of the skin of the young ladie was wonderfull : the eyelid the eye.
Something using the Fovean would be cool. I take a lot of digital camera pictures and the ones on their site are outstanding. However, you can expect a lot of companies to start using this chip once they bring it to the consumer level. Apple might, however, have in mind a special application that requires a combination of characteristics not found in current cameras. They might then manufacture their own camera for a few years till it is no longer special, like their history with laser printers.
Regarding licensing, doesn't Apple already supply some sort of site license to schools and companies? Perhaps they are thinking of making the terms more favorable?
I doubt they would make the OS nearly free. Hardware will continue to get cheaper and cheaper. The only thing left with value will be the intellectual property (the OS and apps). How much profit can Dull get when peecee hardware costs $10 each? However, even if the hardware is nearly free you would still be willing to shell out another few bucks for a cool OS and useful apps.
OK, what if the waterproof part is not designed for Eugene to take on his next expedition to a deep sea volcano, but for the family around the pool, at the lake, etc.. I've almost dropped my camcorder in a Koi pond, ducked splashes near the pool and been in the middle of a water fight while using it. (Don?t judge me, Eugene. To me this is living on the edge.) The point is its more durable than other cameras. If, as an added bonus, you can catch your kids dog paddling beneath the water, well, what parent wouldn't want that shot? That's a much bigger market than the Cousteau heirs and Eugene. As for this just being a selling point, most of the features like special effects on cameras and camcorders are just that. They probably never get used, but they help sell the camera.
<strong>OK, what if the waterproof part is not designed for Eugene to take on his next expedition to a deep sea volcano, but for the family around the pool, at the lake, etc.. I've almost dropped my camcorder in a Koi pond, ducked splashes near the pool and been in the middle of a water fight while using it. (Don?t judge me, Eugene. To me this is living on the edge.) The point is its more durable than other cameras. If, as an added bonus, you can catch your kids dog paddling beneath the water, well, what parent wouldn't want that shot? That's a much bigger market than the Cousteau heirs and Eugene. As for this just being a selling point, most of the features like special effects on cameras and camcorders are just that. They probably never get used, but they help sell the camera.
Exactly! I've got a cannon that is waterproof to I believe 18 feet, and I love it. If apple (or anyone, I don't care who) did that with a digital camera, it'd be sweet!
The underwater ability could be a built-in marketing gimick more than an actual useful feature. I can see the commercials now.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Commercial idea submitted by murk:
Fade in. A wimpy guy steps out of a pool. The camera cuts to his trunks. They are filled with water and the water gushes out. Cut to the door of the posh hotel he is at. The door opens, and out walks a bevy of Sports Illustrated swimsuit models in skimpy bikinis. As the first model walks past the wimpy guy, she looks down at his trunks. She laughs and asks, "Is that a Lucida in your trunks, or are you just happy to see us?" The guy reaches into his trunks and pulls out the tube shaped Lucida camera and starts shooting photos of the models. Cut to a through the lens view was the models pose for him. Fade to Apple logo.
Fade in. A wimpy guy steps out of a pool. The camera cuts to his trunks.....</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually you know it would prolly be of some guy standing in the pool shooting pictures of his kid swimming around and having fun. Most of the audience is thinking "what nitwit gets in the pool with a camcorder" (and the fun part is when he ducks under water and shoots some footage). then as everyone is toweling off he hooks up to the iMac and sucks the footage into iMovie. Fade to Apple Logo
If it was reasonably priced I'd buy one. (It'd go great with a Superdrive Mac and iMovie)
When the iPod came out: a) no one thought for a second Apple would really do an MP3 player. b) iPod, as an MP3 player did not really blow the competition away in any ONE dimension (well...maybe the FireWire). Not size (there are others as small). Not in capacity. Not in price. What they DID do is to combinae ALL of this together in ONE package...small size/weight...large capacity...fast txfr...easy to use...integrattion w/iTunes...fair price (considering all you get).
So...do the same with "iCamera" (or whatever...supposing this is even true)...
- reduce the size (or at least streamline the design)...and make the design incredible (yeah right...like Apple could do THAT.)
- increase the capacity
- add FireWire
- make it incredibly easy to use (yeah right...like Apple could do THAT.)
I don't know... I have a canon digital elph... and it's small, takes acceptable pictures, I have a 256MB flash card for it that holds hundreds of pictures on the highest resolution, it can record video, and it's tiny. It *is* USB based, but it integrates flawlessly with iPhoto already.
I wouldn't be surprised if Apple built a digital camera, but really, the Elph already has everything I need in a consumer digital camera. I used to have a Rio 800 before the iPod, and I always wanted more storage space... but with the Elph, really, how many pictures do I need to carry around with me? the 256MB flash cards aren't that pricey, and hold tons of pictures.
What's the lowest price Apple could offer it for if it had a Foveon? Would it be too much? What if it takes the place both of a high end consumer camcorder and a high end still digital camera? Would you pay more for this combination?
If they make a camera, very few people will really care if it is waterproof, and honestly does it really matter if it has a hard drive? Why not a digital camera that stores images on very cheap digital video tape of the type camcorders use? Makes a lot more sense than using a hard drive. What about Firewire on a damn camera. It is annoying as hell to dl off of a USB camera a lot of large pictures.
Murk, that just wouldn't be worth it, and it wouldn't imagine what kind of concessions Apple would have to make to add the functionality. It just makes so much more sense to make a cheap plastic housing as Canon and Nikon have done. And like I said, submersibility is highly exaggerated most of the time. This camera's going to need a battery slot and a card slot. It's also going to need a FireWire or USB port...possibly video out and such...If it's going to do video, it's also going to need a microphone...Don't you see how impossible a task this is going to be?
---
And regarding the Foveon vs Bayer pattern images, good god no, Matsu. Just look at photos of chain-link fences or guys in patterned suits/shirts. Look at any photo where lines of detail are necessary. You'll see all kinds of off colors...yellow, blue, purple...
Now check out the sheer detail in the Foveon images. Check out the crispness of the power lines in the foggy shot, or the veins in the flower...or the fur on the cat.
Your assertion that bayer pattern imagers are equally impressive is ludicrous. There's a reason why Sigma must charge >$3000 for its SD9 while Canon and Nikon are finally able to break into the sub $2000 level with their offerings.
Now given a body made by Canon, Pentax or Nikon coupled with the Foveon, and I would snap one up in a heartbeat.
Foveon sounds all well and good now, but you should wait untill you can see a real image. Yes, the stuff floating around the net look great, but it is no doubt taken under ideal conditions, and you don't know for sure how much manipulation they've recieved. Even simple cropping/resizing may take distort your impression of how much resolution is really available.
I certainly didn't mean that a pro/consumer digital created such perfect images (maybe an e20N), but I'll bet that any of the new 6+ MP pro Digital SLR's compete. You can see the results from these cameras all over the net, independently tested, published in magazines, working in the hands of professionals.
Foveon sounds like a worthy concept. But untill we have people really using them, we don't know. So far 'big' (pro, not the tiny 2/3" consumer sensors) Bayer pattern sensor has shown very good light gathering and dynamic shooting abilities (many of the sports pages are now shot in digital, and for print publication no less!)
You should wait untill a few people who know what they're doing have had a chance to use it extensively before you declare it the greatest thing out there.
Comments
If you want to see some amazing shots from a Foveon based imager, <a href="http://www.sjphoto.com/web-special/"; target="_blank">http://www.sjphoto.com/web-special/</a>;
Note the yellowness in a few of the photos...the only visual weakpoint of the pre-production Foveon imagers I've seen. As it's just a saturation issue, I think camera manufacturers can easily fix that if it's not already fixed at the CCD level.
Over-all, some pretty amazing photographs as far as digital is concerned.
If I were to buy a camera this summer though, I'd probably just stick with the Nikon D100...It seems to best the D60 in terms of detailed resolution by just a smidge...and it's cheaper here...
<strong>For those inquiring about the Foveon, it sure is nice isn't it? Too bad it's also $$$. No consumer camera would use the 3 megapixel version of the CCD, and the 1.x version really is a bit too small.
If you want to see some amazing shots from a Foveon based imager, <a href="http://www.sjphoto.com/web-special/"; target="_blank">http://www.sjphoto.com/web-special/</a>;
Note the yellowness in a few of the photos...the only visual weakpoint of the pre-production Foveon imagers I've seen. As it's just a saturation issue, I think camera manufacturers can easily fix that if it's not already fixed at the CCD level.
Over-all, some pretty amazing photographs as far as digital is concerned.
If I were to buy a camera this summer though, I'd probably just stick with the Nikon D100...It seems to best the D60 in terms of detailed resolution by just a smidge...and it's cheaper here...</strong><hr></blockquote>
yes i have see the images and the Foveon's web site : wonderfull tech. The detail of the skin of the young ladie was wonderfull : the eyelid the eye.
What will be thre prize of a 3 M foveon Eugene ?
Perhaps in the future the prize will drop down.
Regarding licensing, doesn't Apple already supply some sort of site license to schools and companies? Perhaps they are thinking of making the terms more favorable?
I doubt they would make the OS nearly free. Hardware will continue to get cheaper and cheaper. The only thing left with value will be the intellectual property (the OS and apps). How much profit can Dull get when peecee hardware costs $10 each? However, even if the hardware is nearly free you would still be willing to shell out another few bucks for a cool OS and useful apps.
[ 05-26-2002: Message edited by: murk ]</p>
<strong>OK, what if the waterproof part is not designed for Eugene to take on his next expedition to a deep sea volcano, but for the family around the pool, at the lake, etc.. I've almost dropped my camcorder in a Koi pond, ducked splashes near the pool and been in the middle of a water fight while using it. (Don?t judge me, Eugene. To me this is living on the edge.) The point is its more durable than other cameras. If, as an added bonus, you can catch your kids dog paddling beneath the water, well, what parent wouldn't want that shot? That's a much bigger market than the Cousteau heirs and Eugene.
[ 05-26-2002: Message edited by: murk ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Exactly! I've got a cannon that is waterproof to I believe 18 feet, and I love it. If apple (or anyone, I don't care who) did that with a digital camera, it'd be sweet!
<strong>
The underwater ability could be a built-in marketing gimick more than an actual useful feature. I can see the commercials now.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Commercial idea submitted by murk:
Fade in. A wimpy guy steps out of a pool. The camera cuts to his trunks. They are filled with water and the water gushes out. Cut to the door of the posh hotel he is at. The door opens, and out walks a bevy of Sports Illustrated swimsuit models in skimpy bikinis. As the first model walks past the wimpy guy, she looks down at his trunks. She laughs and asks, "Is that a Lucida in your trunks, or are you just happy to see us?" The guy reaches into his trunks and pulls out the tube shaped Lucida camera and starts shooting photos of the models. Cut to a through the lens view was the models pose for him. Fade to Apple logo.
[ 05-26-2002: Message edited by: murk ]</p>
<strong>
Commercial idea submitted by murk:
Fade in. A wimpy guy steps out of a pool. The camera cuts to his trunks.....</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually you know it would prolly be of some guy standing in the pool shooting pictures of his kid swimming around and having fun. Most of the audience is thinking "what nitwit gets in the pool with a camcorder" (and the fun part is when he ducks under water and shoots some footage). then as everyone is toweling off he hooks up to the iMac and sucks the footage into iMovie. Fade to Apple Logo
If it was reasonably priced I'd buy one. (It'd go great with a Superdrive Mac and iMovie)
When the iPod came out: a) no one thought for a second Apple would really do an MP3 player. b) iPod, as an MP3 player did not really blow the competition away in any ONE dimension (well...maybe the FireWire). Not size (there are others as small). Not in capacity. Not in price. What they DID do is to combinae ALL of this together in ONE package...small size/weight...large capacity...fast txfr...easy to use...integrattion w/iTunes...fair price (considering all you get).
So...do the same with "iCamera" (or whatever...supposing this is even true)...
- reduce the size (or at least streamline the design)...and make the design incredible (yeah right...like Apple could do THAT.)
- increase the capacity
- add FireWire
- make it incredibly easy to use (yeah right...like Apple could do THAT.)
- integrate w/QuickTime, iMovie and iPhoto.
- price it fairly (but not cheaply)
There's your product.
I wouldn't be surprised if Apple built a digital camera, but really, the Elph already has everything I need in a consumer digital camera. I used to have a Rio 800 before the iPod, and I always wanted more storage space... but with the Elph, really, how many pictures do I need to carry around with me? the 256MB flash cards aren't that pricey, and hold tons of pictures.
my two cents...
<strong>
Buy a Rolex submariner
Nope--that money is hold for überMac
<strong>
Nope--that money is hold for überMac
Congratulations you are a true Apple-insider
---
And regarding the Foveon vs Bayer pattern images, good god no, Matsu. Just look at photos of chain-link fences or guys in patterned suits/shirts. Look at any photo where lines of detail are necessary. You'll see all kinds of off colors...yellow, blue, purple...
Now check out the sheer detail in the Foveon images. Check out the crispness of the power lines in the foggy shot, or the veins in the flower...or the fur on the cat.
Your assertion that bayer pattern imagers are equally impressive is ludicrous. There's a reason why Sigma must charge >$3000 for its SD9 while Canon and Nikon are finally able to break into the sub $2000 level with their offerings.
Now given a body made by Canon, Pentax or Nikon coupled with the Foveon, and I would snap one up in a heartbeat.
[ 05-26-2002: Message edited by: Eugene ]</p>
don't know if anyone can check who owns this address <a href="http://www.glove.org"; target="_blank">www.glove.com</a>
interesting.....
[ 05-26-2002: Message edited by: Ape_Man ]</p>
Registrar: TUCOWS, INC.
Whois Server: whois.opensrs.net
Referral URL: <a href="http://www.opensrs.org"; target="_blank">http://www.opensrs.org</a>;
Name Server: AUTH01.NS.TWISTER.COM
Name Server: AUTH02.NS.TWISTER.COM
Updated Date: 05-nov-2001</pre><hr></blockquote>
<strong>Hi,
don't know if anyone can check who owns this address <a href="http://www.glove.org"; target="_blank">www.glove.com</a>
interesting.....
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Domain Name: GLOVE.COM
Registrar: TUCOWS, INC.
Whois Server: whois.opensrs.net
Referral URL: <a href="http://www.opensrs.org"; target="_blank">http://www.opensrs.org</a>;
Name Server: AUTH01.NS.TWISTER.COM
Name Server: AUTH02.NS.TWISTER.COM
Updated Date: 05-nov-2001
And??
J :cool:
I certainly didn't mean that a pro/consumer digital created such perfect images (maybe an e20N), but I'll bet that any of the new 6+ MP pro Digital SLR's compete. You can see the results from these cameras all over the net, independently tested, published in magazines, working in the hands of professionals.
Foveon sounds like a worthy concept. But untill we have people really using them, we don't know. So far 'big' (pro, not the tiny 2/3" consumer sensors) Bayer pattern sensor has shown very good light gathering and dynamic shooting abilities (many of the sports pages are now shot in digital, and for print publication no less!)
You should wait untill a few people who know what they're doing have had a chance to use it extensively before you declare it the greatest thing out there.