• site home
  • blog home
  • galleries
  • contact
  • underwater
  • the bleeding edge

the last word

Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.

You are here: Home / The Last Word / More on Foveon image processing

More on Foveon image processing

November 28, 2023 JimK 6 Comments

I’ve never owned a Foveon camera, but I’ve owned many cameras that could capture 3 color channels at each pixel location. The cameras I’ve owned don’t produce images that look like a lot of Foveon camera images I’ve seen. I’ve been curious as to why, and have reported in this blog on some of the things I’ve found out during my explorations. Purely out of intellectual curiosity, since I don’t like the look of many of the Foveon images I’ve seen, I downloaded Sigma PhotoPro 6 (SPP from now on), and used it on the DPR studio scene raw file from the Sigma DP1 Merrill.

I’ll show you that, but first, I was curious as to what’s in the raw file, so I opened up the studio scene image in RawDigger and and exported it as a composite TIFF. Here’s what it looked like:

 

I white-balanced to the gray background in one of the portraits, and got this:

Then I ran the Imatest SFR test on the slanted edge in the lower center.

This is about what I would expect from such a camera. The MFT curve falls smoothly and monotonically from dc to the Nyquist frequency. There is no overshoot or undershoot on the edge profile. Contrast at the Nyquist frequency is a little higher than I’d like to see it, but this is a camera with a coarse pitch. The red and blue plane MTFs are differenet from the luminance MTF. I see nothing here that could cause the things I see in many Foveon images.

Now let’s look at the modulation transfer function of the same image developed in SPP:

Whoa! The MTF has received an enormous boost at about a third of a cycle per pixel, and the contrast at the Nyquist frequency is over 50%.

Let’s look at the default settings:

Sharpness is set to minus two, which is as low as it can go. All of the noise adjustments are set to off. It appears that there is no way to defeat the gratuitous sharpening.

If we put SPP in custom mode and set all the sliders in the left panel to zero and leave the right panel alone, wh get this:

Now the sharpening is extreme, and the contrast at Nyquist is 64%.

Adding lens profile correction, which is necessary to tame the lateral chromatic aberration  (LaCA) at the periphery of the image:

 

That doesn’t change the MTF much.

Adding maximum chroma noise reduction:

Also little MTF effect.

Adding maximum luminance noise reduction:

Things are a tiny bit better.

Adding maximum banding noise reduction:

Still about the same.

So the oversharpening isn’t coming from the camera itself, it’s coming from SPP. And I can’t figure out how to get SPP to stop oversharpening.

If you put SPP in monochromatic mode, zero all the sliders but sharpness, and set sharpness to -2, you get an image with little or no gratuitous sharpening:

 

 

The Last Word

← Sample variation in the Fujifilm GF 100-200 at 200mm, revisited Why Foveon images are so noisy →

Comments

  1. Anton says

    November 28, 2023 at 8:45 pm

    Hey Jim,

    Have you tried putting noise cancelling in 2, 3, and 4th positions and measuring MTF?
    I am suspecting Sigma welded together several algorithms into one set of sliders and you might be able to find the least “affected” position by testing each one separately.

    You can probably ask Sigma to put a “bypass noise cancelling/sharpness algorithms” button somewhere on the UI for the next release, but given that it is Merrill sensor, I doubt they will spend time on this.

    Reply
  2. JaapD says

    November 29, 2023 at 6:45 am

    Hi Jim, regarding SPP oversharpening: have you tried to de-activate the lens corrections / lens profile? This may initially sound weird but I’ve seen similar things from DXO’s lens profiles, implementing a kind of a reciprocal optics correction curve.

    All their best!
    JaapD.

    Reply
    • JimK says

      November 29, 2023 at 6:58 am

      Lens profile correction was deactivated for the first two SPP MTF curves.

      Reply
  3. Nikojorj says

    November 29, 2023 at 10:25 am

    SPP is not an obligation : the sigma raws can generally be converted to DNG with the kalpanika scripts, and then processed by your software of choice.
    https://github.com/Kalpanika/x3f

    Reply
    • JimK says

      November 29, 2023 at 10:36 am

      Is that what most people do? I’m looking for the source of the oversharpening that I see in a lot of Foveon images posted on line.

      Reply
      • Nikojorj says

        December 1, 2023 at 2:45 am

        I don’t think so either, and many people seem to appreciate the high acutance.

        I hesitated to buy a DP2M, and the possibility to process photos in Lightroom was an important criteria.

        Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

May 2025
S M T W T F S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031
« Apr    

Articles

  • About
    • Patents and papers about color
    • Who am I?
  • How to…
    • Backing up photographic images
    • How to change email providers
    • How to shoot slanted edge images for me
  • Lens screening testing
    • Equipment and Software
    • Examples
      • Bad and OK 200-600 at 600
      • Excellent 180-400 zoom
      • Fair 14-30mm zoom
      • Good 100-200 mm MF zoom
      • Good 100-400 zoom
      • Good 100mm lens on P1 P45+
      • Good 120mm MF lens
      • Good 18mm FF lens
      • Good 24-105 mm FF lens
      • Good 24-70 FF zoom
      • Good 35 mm FF lens
      • Good 35-70 MF lens
      • Good 60 mm lens on IQ3-100
      • Good 63 mm MF lens
      • Good 65 mm FF lens
      • Good 85 mm FF lens
      • Good and bad 25mm FF lenses
      • Good zoom at 24 mm
      • Marginal 18mm lens
      • Marginal 35mm FF lens
      • Mildly problematic 55 mm FF lens
      • OK 16-35mm zoom
      • OK 60mm lens on P1 P45+
      • OK Sony 600mm f/4
      • Pretty good 16-35 FF zoom
      • Pretty good 90mm FF lens
      • Problematic 400 mm FF lens
      • Tilted 20 mm f/1.8 FF lens
      • Tilted 30 mm MF lens
      • Tilted 50 mm FF lens
      • Two 15mm FF lenses
    • Found a problem – now what?
    • Goals for this test
    • Minimum target distances
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Printable Siemens Star targets
    • Target size on sensor
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Test instructions — postproduction
    • Test instructions — reading the images
    • Test instructions – capture
    • Theory of the test
    • What’s wrong with conventional lens screening?
  • Previsualization heresy
  • Privacy Policy
  • Recommended photographic web sites
  • Using in-camera histograms for ETTR
    • Acknowledgments
    • Why ETTR?
    • Normal in-camera histograms
    • Image processing for in-camera histograms
    • Making the in-camera histogram closely represent the raw histogram
    • Shortcuts to UniWB
    • Preparing for monitor-based UniWB
    • A one-step UniWB procedure
    • The math behind the one-step method
    • Iteration using Newton’s Method

Category List

Recent Comments

  • JimK on How Sensor Noise Scales with Exposure Time
  • Štěpán Kaňa on Calculating reach for wildlife photography
  • Štěpán Kaňa on How Sensor Noise Scales with Exposure Time
  • JimK on Calculating reach for wildlife photography
  • Geofrey on Calculating reach for wildlife photography
  • JimK on Calculating reach for wildlife photography
  • Geofrey on Calculating reach for wildlife photography
  • Javier Sanchez on The 16-Bit Fallacy: Why More Isn’t Always Better in Medium Format Cameras
  • Mike MacDonald on Your photograph looks like a painting?
  • Mike MacDonald on Your photograph looks like a painting?

Archives

Copyright © 2025 · Daily Dish Pro On Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

Unless otherwise noted, all images copyright Jim Kasson.