It's a good analogy, however, D800 catches all light with the same type of pixels, whereas Foveon sensors use three layers of pixels, each reacting to different color.  The bottom layer records red, the middle layer records green, and the top layer records blue.
To confuse it even further, in practical terms, the 46MP raw image translates into a very sharp 15MP JPG or TIF image which would be equivalent to about 28MP taken with a conventional CMOS sensor.

I agree with you that today there are plenty of new APS-sized pocket cameras that will produce pretty good image quality without the quirks of Sigma. After all, DP2M Model is now almost two years old.

RGB .. means nothing .. these CCDs record a precise range of light emissions, you could make CCDs using 7-8 different light ranges instead of RGB and then make a conversion via software to sRGB, same same ..

what makes the difference here is probably Foveon producing a better gamut with single RGB layers than any other sensor, i don't say the difference is big, maybe 10-20% but it's noticeable especially in some samples i've seen.

it's not so revolutionary actually, even Sony sold "3 CCD" camcorders ages ago, the concept was different but the idea not so much ..

the big limit of these sensors is always the operating space, canon and nikon should seriously think about 72mm or even 144mm sensors as 35mm is already pushed to the limit.

YES ! it's a ripoff and if you ask any illustrator in many cases they start from a photo !

however, it's a very gray area as the illustrator didn't do a carbon copy of the image but he changed the orientation of the faces and a few other details.

besides, it's being used for a "vanity press book" that probably sold what .. 5 copies ? vanity books are self-printed and self-distributed, he might even have lost money with this illustration.

no one will ever make big bucks from services like Instagram or Flickr, the money is just not there and nobody found a better working business model so far in the last 15 yrs.

the ugly truth is no one would use the internet if everything was pay-per-use.

i remember very well at the beginning they tried everything to get people buy a 33.6 modem, even giveaways and free unlimited connections with free email and all (AOL and many others), they only got troubles despite making billions with the Ponzi scheme running up in wall street during the "dot-boom".

the money was in providing services, consulting, custom software, infrastructure, hardware.
that's where the money is, not in photo sharing whatever.

i know, 500px now got backed by VC for a few millions but it's still a Ponzi .. they aint making any money, their goal is to be sold at a premium to the next su-cker, that's what VC is all about, not real profits or real companies with stable business models.

i mean look at the e-commerce world leader, Amazon.com, it's now making profits finally but it took them almost 20 yrs to reach the point where they are now and yet they're very small in net terms compared to a traditional distributor.

people have this illusion that the internet allows to cut the distribution costs to the bone and therefore to make bigger profits.

but it's wrong, it just cuts profits even more.
apple is making a sh-itload of money selling hardware for instance.

google selling advertising and services.

ebay selling classifieds and ecommerce services.

the list goes on, none of the top tier Nasdaq companies is actually selling free photo sharing services unless we take FB as a photo sharing site ?

the phenomenal success of Youtube never ever translated in phenomenal profits, quite the opposite only recently the managed to make some small profits out of it because their volumes are now so big that a few hollywood majors decided to jump ship and using Youtube as a promotional tool.

it's all indirect, nobody is making money selling the actual digital product they produce or distribute.

i see the same fate for the poor musicians, they will have to make good songs and give them away for free in order to make some money selling t-shirts ! and so their business will be in merchandising, not in music unless they also make live gigs.

At least they admit it and offer a way to remove images -

Disclaimer
Disclaimer : We do not own any of these products. All the images are not under our Copyrights and belong to their respective owners. All Pictures have been taken from different sources, If any Graphic / Image is offensive or under your Copyrights then please contact us via contact form below to get it removed.

being hosted on Blogspot maybe all you need is to report this site to Google as piracy is against their TOS.

maybe using Magic Lantern there's an ISO fix ?

i can't see what the fuss is all about.

SS just signed a distributor deal with FB, so what ?

that's what agencies are supposed to in order to expand their market share, it only shows that SS salesmen have more balls than the competition.

of course what is good for SS is not necessarily good for us, or it can be even a stab in the back, but in this specific scenario it looks good to me, as others pointed out already we're talking about thumbnails, not full size images.

find me another agencies willing to monetize thumbnails, can't remeber a single one.

we're indeed mediocre, i've seen amazing stuff done by famous illustrators all using photos, brushes, textures, Archicad and Photoshop, just .. wow .. F ing brilliant, that's ART 100%, and the techniques they use are quite complex, not suitable for the average random stocker.

nice article but talent doesn't grow on trees, no matter if the guy now will burn his Xbox and work 24x7 on shooting bands.

americans love these inspirational things, the slogans like "man up!" or "the I CAN attitude".

well, it may work for some but not for all .. and he's right suggesting to focus only on one of two things, too many try to do everything from landscape to fashion to lifestyle shots but you better stick to what you're better at.

as for the "plenty of suckers having success", yes especially in fine-art photography you'll be amazed why what kind of junk is being sold and being awarded, but i noticed they all specialize in their field, b/w or dreamy landscapes or portraits or whatever, none of them try to be "complete", not at all, and maybe actually because of technical limitations, because they can't do anything else but the one single thing they do good is pretty good.

Quote from: gillian on August 21, 2013, 18:36

I don't understand, why didn't the Samsung judges use Tineye (or whatever) to do a quick search? Samsung don't really care either, they're only in this for the publicity, they need to be publicly shamed over this also.

I don't get the feeling that they're ashamed at all. Maybe they're shameless?

I thought Asian leaders are supposed to be personally ashamed whenever they bring shame on themselves and their companies/countries.

It will be a shame if the original photographer doesn't receive more than an apology from Samsung. They owe him that and more.

in the past photo contests required PRINTS and the finalists were also eventually required to provide the RAW files.

but this contest was just requiring JPGs posted on instagram so of course anyone can cheat.
who has the time to double check ? and services like TinEye are very very limited, many photographers use Flash to display images for instance and so they can't be found on TinEye or Google images but thieves can steal doing screenshots.

+1, but let's hope there's an official shoot released at some point.

it's a worrying sign, and i see less and less people able to judge a good photo from an ugly snapshot, for them they're all "good enough".

The problem for contributors is getting a fair share of the profits but that's the same for content providers in lots of online industries.  I'd be more concerned about the traditional sites.  I don't understand the Getty finances, how much are the hedge funds taking out of them?  If they're being run by the same people that are wrecking istock, what's their future prospects?  Will alamy carry on cutting commissions and lowering prices?

with the actual trend it's gotta be more and more difficult for suppliers to stay afloat, how will small stockers with a few 1000s images in portfolio compete with all the image factories and the global oversupply ?

traditional RM agencies are not in the same business, they're not selling the same image 100 times or even just twice, you shoot a large set and you're lucky to sell once but the payout will justify the production costs, you can also upload in other agencies including micros and see what sticks on the wall, i'm all for giving micros a chance and a few leftovers of course, many times it's quite hard to know what will sell or not.