Attached Link: http://www.kenappleton.com

This is the first time that I've posted on the forum so let me just say Hello! I'm a freelance photographer/graphic designer. All my photography is shot with conventional film and then I scan the images via a film scanner and digitally manipulate them after that into various designs.

I've toyed with the idea of getting a digital camera for a long time. However, the problem with going fully digital has always been the image quality. I guess at this point I should say even if I got one I would still use conventional film too - simply because it's fun in the darkroom.

Anyway, the last couple of days I've been hearing about a great digital technology breakthrough and thought I'd share the info with the forum. I'm SURE it'll be of interest to some of you too.

By Rick Sammon / Associated Press
Sunday, March 24, 2002

Recently, I attended the 2002 Photo Marketing Convention in Orlando, Fla., where dozens of way-cool digital photographic products were introduced - from easy to use point-and-shoot cameras to digital picture stations for retail stores.

In addition, new 35-mm films and film cameras were being shown for consumers who want to stick with traditional photography.

The press conferences were nonstop. One of the more interesting was held by a company called Foveon http://www.foveon.com. The Foveon team, headed by Dr. Carver Mead, a physicist, talked about their new digital camera image sensor that he developed, the Foveon X3. The sensor is said to capture improved digital pictures (three times better - hence the X3 designation) at a lower cost and with less battery consumption than the sensors in today's digital cameras.

The technology is brand new. Only one camera shown at the PMA convention, the Sigma SD9 (sigma-photo.com), incorporated the Foveon X3 chip. The SLR (single lens reflex) camera is expected to be available later this year and will sell for less than $3,000.

How does the sensor work? Well, in condensed, non-tech talk, conventional digital camera sensors have pixels that only record red, green or blue light - one color per pixel. Therefore, some information is not recorded when a picture is taken - because not every pixel records all the colors. The
Foveon X3 sensor has pixels that record all three colors - so all the color information is recorded.

Foveon uses a sensor (CMOS) that uses less battery power and is less expensive to produce than the sensors (CCDs) in most of today's digital cameras. (Some current digital cameras use CMOS technology.)

Special software, which comes with Foveon sensor-equipped cameras, is needed to transfer pictures into a computer. That's because Foveon images are recorded in what's called a RAW file, unlike most consumer digital cameras that record pictures in the popular JPEG format, which can be
transferred to a computer with a memory card reader. (Pro digital cameras have the RAW file option, as well as the JPEG option.)

At the press event, Mead showed impressive comparison photographs of Foveon vs. conventional image sensors - images that were hand-picked to show the differences between the two technologies. But the big surprise was a videotape he shared with the audience.

The expert on the tape said, "Foveon shares our passion for pushing the envelope, and Foveon's new approach to image capture and rendering demonstrates this." The expert went on: "Foveon's X3's sensor technology promises to take digital imaging to the next level." So who was the expert
backing Foveon? None other than Microsoft's Bill Gates.

In case you were wondering where Foveon got its name, Foveon's Eric Zarakov explains: "The fovea is the part of the human eye's retina that records the sharpest detail, and the 'eon' in the name stands for electronics. Basically we feel that the sensor will see what our eyes see."

Um, in response to Rick "way-cool" Sammon, since when is Bill
Gates an expert in digital imaging technology? The only
expertise Bill Gates has, that I know of, is in buying out
his competition... But enough of that. This new technology
is interesting in that it can produce much denser photo-
sensors; three times as dense as current tech.

What I'd love to see this company do is to produce a line
of affordable "digital backs" for popular 35mm SLRs. The
sensor would have to be the size of a 35mm frame (36x24mm)
and would be embedded in a replacement back cover for
SLRs such as Nikon N- and F- series cameras, and of course
my Pentax K1000! The empty space where the film cartidge
would go could provide space for the support electronics.

The difficulty in this, and hence the expence, would be in
growing substrates large enough to fill a 35mm frame. I
guess the only thing I can hope for then is that the Foveon
technology will drive the price of current CMOS tech down
to the point that CMOS sensors of 36x24mm size will become
affordable enough to produce inexpensive digital backs.

You know, I still don't see any real reason to move to digital....it probably just depends on what kind of work you do. From my personal point of view, I still don't see a good reason to move up to a $8000 D1x system from my existing F4. For that kind of money I might as well move up to large format, like a nice linhoff or sinar :P

Rork, for me it's a matter of necessity. The biggest advantage that (small format) film offers over digital is the level of creative control you get in the darkroom. I simply have no space here for a darkroom setup. The biggest disadvantage of most digital cameras, for me, is that you can't use the nice 35mm lenses with them (unless, as you say, you're willing to spend lots of money for a D1x). That's why, for my purposes, a good solution would be a digital conversion of a regular SLR. P.S. I really would like to set up a darkroom. So much so that I'm tempted to set one up in my bathroom! :-)

I read about the X3 a little while ago. As far as I recall from the website, it interpolates the images captured to make them bigger. The interpolation is nothing that Genuine Fractals and similar software can't do, minus the hefty price tag. Also Salina, as far as i know (could be wrong here) all nikon digital cameras can use lens that fit nikon flm cameras... could be wrong though. And the bathroom is the PERFECT place to set one up if u have the space, if not theen the kitchen is equally as goood.

I hear the same thing about Nikon's. A co-worker has one. She had made a remark that her husband already had leses for the "normal" camera so he didn't need new lenses. However I also found the lense to be rather small. ( Actually I thought the entire camera to be rather small. ) But then my Sony ir rather large. Bsteph

Well, the problem for me is that I only use E6 film for my work, which is virtually impossible for me to develop myself anyway. Fuji Provia (the RPDIII, RHPIII, etc) and Velvia are the only choices, simple cause there are no alternatives. And that's got nothing to do with the usual discussion we have here, about likes & dislikes ;) Well, if I stick my camera on my tripod (manfrotto, not even an earthquake will move it =) the slides are just so incredibly sharp..... So, I personally am still waiting for digital to catch up on that level of photography. :)

This is a post from a magazine. I never realized how poor the print was until I got it on my scanner, but anyway, I took out the color on the text areas to make it easier to read. It shows a good description on the difference between existing digital and the X3. I'm excited about it because it captures more information. So far, my digital is fun and damn convenient, but for real shooting, it's still film for me. The X3 may challenge my ideas, maybe not (I hope it does), but it's definitely the next step! Hope you can read the scan. By the way Asalina (with all due respect), I think you cut Bill Gates way short. A lot of people slam him because he was successful at what he did. Slamming success?!? That may be good liberal ideology, but not only did he shape the direction of computers and the Internet, he's also donated millions upon millions to charity. Not bad for someone who started out dirt poor!

Thanks Phrank- I did not know that todays generation of digitals work this way! Guess I should have, but never really thought about it. This puts an entirely different factor into the calculations we did here a while back for pixels vs image size for a digital. [BTW, Gates only started out "dirt poor" relative to where he is now. But still have to give him the praise he deserves. He has been interested in digital imaging for quite some time.]