Is it just me, or are the pictures excessively dark?

...cause that's the standard by which I judge safety, especially with this cell phone I stick next to my head

Why is over 50% of the video taken up by someone playing with the keyboard in a single app? Do the other icons/apps not work or something?

Jesus Christ, talk about plummeting straight down into the valley.

He's just happy to see you.

Actually, at best (pure white light), each Foveon pixel *in theory, at 100% efficiency* can get only the same amount of light as a bayer pattern pixel, it just splits it three ways through each layer. With any other color of light, you have varying degrees of light loss through leakage and imperfect efficiency in each layer, meaning that a Foveon pixel receives less light than a bayer pattern pixel, which gets 100% of the photons hitting it for any given dyed surface. So a red bayer pixel gets close to 100% of the red hitting it because nothing else obstructs it. However, if a Foveon pixel is designed with red at the lowest level, it may lose 5% through the green layer and 5% through the blue layer, giving it only 90% of the red light striking the top surface of the sensor.

This correlates with the decreased high-ISO performance from the X3 sensor, which is too bad. It's still a good idea, but as mentioned, they were too small to keep up with the R&D and manufacturing resources of Sony or Canon.

Salsa Shark,

Setting aside your flippant remark, I don't think you're really thought through what you are saying.

I have several Sigma lenses for my Nikon, and they're great, affordable products. But a sensor is not an end-buyer-purchased add-on device like a lens, it's a low-level systems component that a camera maker would need to contract for and build into their cameras. Does Nikon or Canon pay for or promote, or do they merely tolerate (perhaps through expiration of patents on E- and F-mount IP) 3rd party lenses sold by Sigma, Tokina and Tamron and purchased by their customers? Can you tell me if Nikon or Canon have purchased and used any Sigma ICs or designs in any of their cameras in the past?

I think it has more to do with the sensors and manufacturing than any lack of marketing. I remember back in the day, there was talk that Foveon was discussing with Nikon and some other large manufacturers. But as good as the sensor was in theory, it had problems with speed, scalability, low-light sensitivity and dynamic range compared to existing Bayer-pattern sensors. The processing required to extract the light data from a stacked sensor was significantly more intensive, and large camera manufacturers also had to consider the risks of going with a startup, as opposed to a large, stable manufacturer such as Sony, which has proven capacity and a fleshed-out future product pipeline. Foveon really never got off the ground, and couldn't keep up with the pace of bayer-pattern development, which was able to overcome the technical advantage of the X3 with cheaper brute force methods (more pixels to offset the resolution advantage).

So much for that. Best of luck to Sigma and Foveon, but it sounds like this officially ends the (longshot) bid for a truly revolutionary sensor technology to propagate beyond a single camera manufacturer.

This makes no sense. They don't need to do anything different than any DSLR with live view or video capture. No DSLR displays a video feed by actuating the reflex mirror or the mechanical shutter 24-30 times a second. The mirror goes up, locks up (same with the shutter) and the sensor captures at a framerate determined by the hardware/software, just like any camcorder. The "shutter speed" of all of these cameras in video or still mode is now handled via an electronic shutter; the mechanical shutter merely protects the glass in front of the sensor. Only when the video is done do the mirror and the shutter then unlock and come down.