Talk:Super CCD

Photography Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Photography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of photography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhotographyWikipedia:WikiProject PhotographyTemplate:WikiProject PhotographyPhotography articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Brands Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

How is the Super CCD an X3 competitor any more than it is a conventional CCD or CMOS competitor? The X3 sensor uses the fact different wavelengths of light reflect at different depths in silicon to capture true RGB colour at every pixel location. The Super CCD is still a Bayer (mosaic) sensor, it simply has a different pixel shape to conventional sensors. This has a few advantages, but true colour image capture is not one of them.

Defsac 16:02, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The SuperCCD is not an X3 competitor; the Foveon sensor is the one of a kind I believe. From what I understand compared to regular Bayer sensors it has reduced moire patterns and has better contrast due to the layout packing larger photosites that are closer together

Sydtron 00:52, 31 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

F31fd is so not a 2007 model. neither is F30 2006. F50's out during 2007. F30 is something like 2005 or maybe even earlier.

Cassio 03:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008 PMA show superccd

This article needs to be updated with information from the 2008 PMA show. See here: [1] 68.49.45.29 (talk) 03:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Octogonal layout confuses 3rd party software

I have been testing various kinds of 3rd Party software on the Fuji S2 Pro, and discovered quite a quality difference between these. Most converters seem to rely on a common misconception, that the foto sensors are arranged at a 45 degree angle. The resulting images are blurry, and the detail level resembles a 4 mega pixel camera. This goes for Bibble, QImage Pro, dcraw and even Adobe RAW. They all deliver worse quality than in-camera jpeg. The only proper RAW conversion comes from Fuji's own software. I think this should somehow be mentioned in this article. JoaCHIP (talk) 13:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've since stuck in an example translated with DCRaw, which is mentioned above, although it's not used to illustrate the resolution but instead the unusual original format of the RAW files (which might explain why they're so large, too). -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 20:33, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Defunct

While I'm at it, Fuji seem to be quiet about Super CCD on their website, and the Fuji X100 uses a conventional Sony sensor. Do any current Fuji products use Super CCD sensors? -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 21:24, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]