July 29, 2014, 09:38:57 PM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - jrista

Pages: 1 ... 75 76 [77] 78 79 ... 250
I don't think it is a windows thing. It would depend on whether the browsers or for that matter the tools used to create the images use Windows ICM, or implement their own ICM. Photoshop, for example, can be configured to use it's own ICM or the platform ICM. The two do not produce the same results, so if you want Photoshop to render colors the same way browsers will render colors, you should change it from it's default (using it's own ICM engine) to using Windows ICM.

I suspect one or more of the browsers you are using is not using the Windows ICM engine, and is instead using it's own. Anything that uses the same ICM engine to render color should be producing identical results. I guess the one caveat would be untagged JPEG images...it is possible that different browsers are using slightly different sRGB color profiles (ICC profiles) to represent the sRGB space. They may still use Windows ICM, but are actually supplying slightly different ICC profiles to guide color conversion. If that's the case (honestly not sure how you might figure that out), there probably isn't anything you can do about it.

EOS Bodies / Re: 7D Mark II on Cameraegg
« on: January 19, 2014, 07:45:57 PM »
Single Digic 5+?
Single Digic 6?
Dual Digic 5+?
Dual Digic 6?

According to Wikipedia, the 1DX uses Dual Digic 5+ and a Separate Digic 4 for Intelligent Subject Analysis System. I don't own a 1DX so someone else can confirm.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DIGIC

I want Dual Digic 6, but it hasn't been put in DSLRs yet - may be its specific for P&S?
I strongly doubt it will be a single Digic 5+ but then again...

I seem to remember that previous rumours that talked about specs were saying dual digic5+, but I would not be surprised if it were dual Digic6.... each iteration of the processor seems to be a good jump in speed.. Digic6 probably beats dual Digic5+ so I kind of hope for dual Digic5+...

And to those who say that it cant be Dual Digic6 because that's better than the 1DX has, how come a powershot has Digic6 and the 5D3 does not :)

I don't think that DIGIC 6 is what people think it is. DIGIC 6 is used in PowerShot because its new features were designed for the kind of consumer-grade features PowerShot offers. It supports 9.3fps average frame rate (12.2fps continuous up to 5 frames, after which the rate slows), but that is its minor feature. The big features are the way it handles highlight preservation, noise reduction at high ISO, etc. DIGIC 6 is about DSP image processing features, I don't think Canon has ever intended it to be the real replacement for DIGIC 5/5+.

I suspect the 7D II will use dual DIGIC 5+. It doesn't seem all that logical for Canon to create a new DIGIC 7 for the 7D II yet, as the DIGIC 5+ still offers plenty of data processing throughput. Given the derivation of the throughput for a pair of DIGIC 5+ like so:

Code: [Select]
dataRate = (14fps * 19,100,000pixels * 14bit) / 8bit/byte + overhead
dataRate = 467,950,000bps + overhead
dataRate = 468mbps + overhead

Assuming Canon didn't create DIGIC 5+ with 234mb/s, it seems logical that each one is capable of 250mb/s (~32mbps overhead per second). At 24mp, we can derive the frame rate of the 7D II if we assume a 500mb/s data rate (Dual DIGIC 5+):

Code: [Select]
500,000,000bps = (fps * 25,200,000px * 14bit) / 8bit/byte + 32,050,000bps overhead
467,950,000bps = (fps * 25,200,000px * 14bit) / 8bit/byte
467,950,000bps * 8bit/byte = fps * 25,200,000px * 14bit
3,743,600,000bps / (25,200,000px * 14bit) = fps
fps = 3,743,600,000bps / 352,800,000px/bit
fps = 10.611fps

So, with a pair of DIGIC 5+, the 7D II with a 24mp APS-C sensor could easily reach 10fps, and have even more room left over for overhead than the 1D X. Unless Canon is intending to give the 7D II a 12fps frame rate, I don't see the need for a new DIGIC 6+ or DIGIC 7. Maybe some of the image processing features in the DIGIC 6 could be useful, however I am not exactly sure what it's data throughput rate is...however I am pretty sure it isn't actually quite as good as a single DIGIC 5+ (based on what I've been able to derive from a couple PowerShot megapixel counts and the frame rate for the first five frames, it seems like the DIGIC 6 is capable of 225mb/s, it it falls short of DIGIC 5+ by about 25mb/s.)

It is possible that Canon might create a DIGIC 6+. If they did, assuming they scale DIGIC 6+ the same way they scaled DIGIC 5+ over DIGIC 5, then a single DIGIC 6+ should be about 3x as powerful as a DIGIC 6. That would put it's data throughput rate somewhere around 640mb/s to 675mb/s. That would mean that a single DIGIC 6+ would be enough to give the 7D II a 14fps frame rate.

For some reason, I don't really see that happening...not sure why, just doesn't feel like Canon is ready to drop that particular improvement on us yet. I suspect such a new DIGIC 6+ chip (or maybe they call it DIGIC 7) will arrive with the big megapixel camera. A data throughput rate of 700mb/s would be enough to support 8fps for a 46.7mp FF sensor at 14bit, and even enough to support 7fps at full 16bit!

EOS Bodies / Re: Will Canon Answer the D4s? [CR2]
« on: January 19, 2014, 07:08:13 PM »
This is the most advanced imaging device I know of:


It uses true superconducting Titanium Nitride (at 0.1 Kelvin, basically absolute zero) to "detect time and energy (thus wavelength) of each photon in real time with zero intrinsic noise." Since it must operate at 0.1 K, it is WELL outside of the realm of consumer grade technology...it's only application at the moment is for space telescopes. The intriguing thing about it is the fact that it detects photon energy, so it knows the exact wavelength and therefor the true color of each and every photon encountered during an exposure. It also detects EVERY photon, so it has 100% Q.E., and it's design as a spectral power detector means there isn't any electronic noise (however, there would theoretically still be photon shot noise).

The readout mechanism uses a microwave frequency comb to "interrogate" each pixel 2500 times per second. This allows the sensor to be equally sensitive to color from about 100nm (deep ultraviolet) to 5000nm (very deep infrared.) Since the readout is basically achieved by multiple short interrogations, there is no reason that for longer exposures, dynamic range could effectively be infinite (however for shorter exposures, dynamic range would become limited...however I am unsure of what kind of signal strength this thing achieves for exposures at or below 1/2500th of a second. It would still offer more dynamic range than any current standard CMOS or CCD sensor, probably by several fold.)

If, at some point in the distant future, the ability to supercool electronics to absolute zero becomes "easy", this would basically be the ultimate pinnacle of image sensor technology. We would have perfect color reproduction, perfect electronic current, near-infinite dynamic range (basically only limited by exposure time), etc. The energy requirements for maintining temperature at 0.1K would probably drain even a high capacity DSLR battery like that found in the 1D X in seconds, so I suspect this kind of technology would need an always-on power source (i.e. outlet), or some kind of fuel cell that provided MASSIVE power.

Anyway...given the prior discussion, I remembered this sensor. Had to dig it up again, but it basically represents the ultimate in imaging sensor technology. I don't think you can get better than the ability to detect every single photon, it's sensor position, incident time, as well as it's exact energy frequency. I guess the only real improvement would be to increase the number of actual pixels in the device (the article uses a 2024 pixel (44x46) sensor for deep field astrophotography....that could probably be increased to megapixels.)

EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: Microadjustment Automated
« on: January 19, 2014, 03:56:37 PM »
Automation of the AF adjustment

Magic Lantern dot_tune module does this, cost: zero, availability: now ... there may be concerns over precisions and whatnow, but I'm positive it's quick & worth a shot, esp. over manual attempts. Works for me.

The dot tune approach is not accurate. I've tried using it on multiple occasions with all of my lenses in the 7D, and dot tune always results in incorrect AFMA (sometimes, wildly incorrect). Manually tuning and/or Focal are the best ways to tune so far. Automatic AFMA with CDAF+PDAF is probably the only way to really generate accurate AFMA settings.

EOS Bodies / Re: The Next DSLR Will Be Entry Level [CR3]
« on: January 19, 2014, 03:54:34 PM »
in the last 2 months, CR posted so many 7DII rumours that i really dont give a S___ anymore.

Not CR-guy's fault that his sources are sh*t.

Things are so much easier for the owners of Nikonrumors and Sonyalpharumors. :P

CR guy also rates the rumors, too. Most of that was all CR1, so you had to take them all with a grain of salt. This is a CR3, so it's the closest thing to fact we have.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon naming policy
« on: January 19, 2014, 03:53:14 PM »
Not sure about the 100D/SL1...that's a new thing, however historically I think Canon's xxxD line has started at 300, so who knows.

As for post 90D and 950D, Canon could always to the Mark II series. The 300D II, the 30D II, etc.

Software & Accessories / Re: Adobe Lightroom for iPad Coming Soon
« on: January 19, 2014, 01:11:03 AM »
LR for iPad sounds really good ... if it is anywhere near the feature set of LR5, $99 is a very reasonable price ... where I live right now, that's less then the price of a Big Mac + Coffee ... neither of them are good for my health, so, I'm sure I can forego 1 Big Mac & a Coffee every month to pay for the LR iPad subscription ... even if they double the price I will simply forego 2 Big Macs and 2 cups of coffee every month ... that way I might even be able to extend my life by a few minutes longer, to capture a beautiful sunset or a sexy lady ... then edit it on my iPad with LR, take a good look at my work, be proud of it and then die like a proud peacock ;D

It's not $99. It is $99/year. Big difference. One can buy LR5 and use it and sit on it for a couple years or more, getting more and more value out of the product, all for a single up-front cost of $149 (or $79 for upgraders, which is even better!) This iPad app is a subscription product...so it isn't $99, it is $99/year. It's the "/year" part that pisses people off.
I am quite aware that it is $99/year and I have no problem with it and it does not pi$$ me off, coz that is less than 1 Big Mac & a Coffee per month for me. Initially I was not very happy about Adobe's subscription model, but when I calculated what I've paid for Adobe software since 2007, the subscription model actually works out far cheaper than "owning" it (as I've always upgraded to newer versions as and when they released CS & LR), so I now prefer the subscription model. Besides, I waste a lot more than $8.25 a month buying all kinds of cheap camera accessories that I never use after the first try, I am sure I can stop wasting some of it and pay for Adobe subscription. Since I am a salaried person and not a businessman paying smaller amounts every month works out lot easier for me than to pay a big lump sum. I understand that it may not work well for people who like to use the same software for several years and get great mileage out of it ... I guess they are justified in being pi$$ed off about the subscription model.

You may be part of the rarer few who upgraded with every version. If you used to spend more, then more power to ya with the subscription model.

Personally, I tended to skip a version or two before upgrading. Most of my graphic design and artist friends would skip as many versions as they could and still get a decent upgrade price. With version skipping, buying licenses was quite a bit cheaper...and more often than not it was easy enough to skip since few of the new features were really useful or critically necessary to the niche of any given artist. Photographers might get compelling enough features every couple versions, classical artists might get a new feature every two to three versions, graphic designers probably benefited most from more frequent updates, but most of the ones I've known still skipped (just too costly on a sporadic freelance salary).

Now, once I get my freelance thing going full steam, it won't be all that terrible to rent Adobe software for $50 a month. The problem is that if the freelancing dries up for a while, I won't be able to afford $50 a month...and I'll LOSE ACCESS. It's the losing access bit that is the most irksome part of Adobe's new rental modal, even though the prices still feel too high. The thing Adobe doesn't seem to get is that even though a freelancer isn't necessarily able to work every single month of the year, they still create works. I'll always be creating new photography, doodling new logos and creating new web site designs. I'll always need the tools, however I may not always be able to afford the rather astronomical price. Losing access after a month is just a bad dig at freelancers...kind if like Adobe saying "GTFO" to all of us. Do they care? Are freelancers important to Adobe? Really hard to tell...

Personally, I cut out random expenditures on fast food (and pretty much everything else) about a year ago, so I don't really have any "cheap" things I buy each month to compare the price to. I only spend money on new photography or astronomy stuff when I have saved up the money for something I really intend to use, so I don't really have any random monthly expenditures there either. I periodically buy new ink and paper for my printing...however I'm usually just as irked about the cost of 14ml of ink as I am about the cost of Adobe software rental. :P  ;D

The only real basis for comparison is the cost of the full Lightroom, which is still $149. You can buy a license for LR and sit on it for years (usually, the time between camera body upgrades, which is the only REAL reason you MUST upgrade...in order to get support for your cameras' new sensor.) At a list price of $149 for the full version of LR which can be amortized over anywhere from two to four years, $99 per year for a less capable iPad app is kind of like a slap in the face, doesn't it? It certainly feels that way to me. Especially since I'm currently renting Photoshop CC and LR 5 for $9.99 a month...that is a HELL of a lot more functionality for quite a bit cheaper than Lightroom iPad for $99 a year. Again, feels like a slap in the face.

If they were asking for $99 a year for full LR functionality, that isn't quite as bad, but it's still worse than the PS CC + LR5 deal for $10 a month.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon naming policy
« on: January 19, 2014, 12:09:36 AM »
Canon EOS naming scheme on Wikipedia:


Yeah, sorry. Totally don't agree that the 5D line is "prosumer". It is extensively used by literal professionals in the wedding and portraiture arenas. There is no question that the 5D is professional. The 7D, while not as often used by professionals as a primary camera, is frequently used by professionals as a backup. Additionally, the feature set wise, the 7D has the closest featureset to the 1D line.

I have to agree with the manufacturer. I know a lot of pros use the 5D, it is a great camera, but it also extremely popular with consumers, especially here in Asia Pacific, which by definition makes it prosumer. Nothing wrong with that, it is an amazing camera.

As for the OP, I think 7D mark II as a name, works well.

By that logic, the 1DX could be classified 'prosumer'.  There are many people on this board that own the 1DX, but aren't "professional" photographers.  Hell, there are those out there(you know who I'm referring to  ;) ) that classify ALL 35mm cameras as consumer.

The 1 series is the pro body in Canon's line up. The 5 series can't also be pro it can be advanced or prosumer. Maybe the 5D3 is closer to "pro". The article isn't up to date.

Medium format and Large format folk are looking down upon us and laughing as we argue over some numbers!

The 5D and 7D are professional-grade, though. I tried to make sure I used the term "professional grade" before, as that is what I am referring to. Officially, the 1D is Canon's professional line, but that does not change the fact that the 5D and 7D are both professional grade parts, and frequently used by actual professionals.

EOS Bodies / Re: Will Canon Answer the D4s? [CR2]
« on: January 19, 2014, 12:06:53 AM »


As I've been saying, the only real way to significantly improve sensitivity is to increase pixel size. The pixels on that sensor are HUGE, relative to the kind of pixels we normally use these days (or, for that matter, have used for the last ten years). That would be the lest technological means of achieving higher sensitivity...and it still doesn't solve the "Make ISO 6400 as good as ISO 100" argument...ISO 100 on that puppy would be freakin amazing...

EOS Bodies / Re: Will Canon Answer the D4s? [CR2]
« on: January 18, 2014, 11:49:19 PM »
Regarding my ‘unfortunately’ reference to Fujifilm I did not mean that in a bad way, quite the contrary, I love Fujifilm’s approach - What I meant is if new technology like that was being backed by the kind of money/research Canon and other major players spend on 'old-tech' improvements we would already be where I stated we should be in the imaging world.

I think the imaging world at large (beyond the scope of Canon) really IS there. The imaging world, which today is actually defined by security video sensors and consumer image sensors in all their consumable devices, is a whole world ahead of the ILC world. The big and bad cameras are using technology that is a ways behind the cutting edge. Sony Exmor is probably the most amazing innovation to hit the DSLR world in years, however even Exmor is behind the curve on a lot of other stuff. Security video sensors have actually really pushed the bubble, especially in the low-light arena. There are new video sensor designs that utilize black silicon that can see rather clearly in nothing but starlight...or one miliLux. The sensor also has a read noise level of only 2e- at normal temperatures, which is a pretty amazing feat (even Sony Exmor barely breaches below 3e-).

There will eventually be trickledown. All these cutting edge discoveries being employed in other markets (usually with much smaller sensor areas) will eventually be employed in the ILC markets. That takes time, though, for one as many of these new innovations are just that, innovations, and haven't yet been put into practice anywhere. New innovations are often researched and developed for specific target markets in mind for initial implementation, and today, that is unquestionably the small form factor markets...video cameras, phone cameras, tablet cameras. Once it becomes established, and other more effective options that already exist for larger form factor sensors have been exhausted, more radical innovations will find their way into larger cameras.

Don't expect "eventually" to be tomorrow, though. The big name DSLR cameras are the high end ones. They don't sell as much as the Canon Rebels and Nikon Dxxxx models, but they are usually where significant leaps in larger format technologies are made. We already had major new DSLRs released over the last couple of years, and major new mirrorless cameras just over the last year. It'll be a couple years at least before we see any significant innovations trickle down to the DSLR and Mirrorless arena.

EOS Bodies / Re: Will Canon Answer the D4s? [CR2]
« on: January 18, 2014, 11:49:07 PM »
You clearly don't understand the primary source of noise. It is impossible to have ISO 100 performance at ISO 6400, while still having comparable sensor resolution to sensors of today. "Noise" is a general term that refers to ALL noise in an image. NOT all noise in an image is from the camera's electronics. Noise caused by camera electronics is called read noise, however read noise only affects the deep shadows, and it is generally only present to a relatively significant degree at lower ISO settings. You are also missing the fact that dynamic range is relative to noise. Eliminate noise, and you effectively have infinite dynamic range (or, in the case of a digitized result, you gain the maximum dynamic range up to your bit depth...whatever that may be...14bits/14stops, 16bits/16stops, 1024bits/1024stops.)

On the contrary, I am well aware of where noise is introduced, both as a consequence of design as well as the increased gain to have a sensor simulate higher ISO sensitivities..
However do not be mislead in the assumption that the digital sensors in modern cameras in any way represent the cutting edge of digital imaging - they do not - they are not even close.

Ok, first, you are largely correct, assuming a global context. Now, I assumed a video and small form factor CIS context, as that is pretty much what we deal with on this forum...and in that context, yes, we are VERY advanced, and it will not be long before we start hitting physical walls. It is because we have encroached upon several physical walls already that there are some truly radical innovations being discovered in the CIS arena.

Second, there ARE physical laws that govern how far we can take CMOS Image Sensor technology. Doesn't matter what the application, or how big the sensor, or how big the pixels. Those physical laws will always apply. Once we run into the limitations imposed by those physical laws, we will have to start doing other things...like backstep. For example, instead of increasing pixel count, we will have to reduce it, in order to gain dynamic range once we have reached the maximum Q.E. possible with the greatest light gathering capabilities per pixel (which might actually involve something fairly radical, such as monochrome sensors with some kind of piezoelectric color filter that is cycled for each color throughout the duration of an exposure). Once all the technological advancements are used up, the only real final option is to make pixels bigger. That will either entail reductions in megapixel count...or larger sensors. But I already mentioned all of these things...

Unfortunately real cutting edge technologies result in million dollar digital imaging equipment that is of course not cost effective to build into a consumer product. Additionally do not assume what we know about physics today is all there is in the universe, our knowledge and conceptual understanding of physics has been challenged many times over through human history. Your response asserts your comprehension of imaging technology is limited to any single wafer sensor design, and additionally those limited by todays consumer technology…

No, it is not limited to todays consumer technology. It is based on a lot of patents and research that have yet to actually be employed in any real-world designs at all, as well as prototypical designs, as well as consumer technology. The context from which my response comes is much broader than simply existing consumer technology. I spend a lot of time on ChipWorks reading about the innovations found in consumer level technology, as well as on Image Sensors World reading about all the latest and greatest innovations in the CIS world (which is pretty up to date as far as yet-to-be-used new research and patents go.)

The Hubble telescope for example can resolve more detail than the D800, with greater dynamic range, and all at much higher ISO ranges because that is what is was designed to do regardless of cost as it was not intended to be a consumer product - yet its total mp count is a mere 5.1mp. It does however use multiple sensors to capture the analog data which is then put back together to produce an image, but clearly showing that 'more mp' is not the only approach to image quality.

Comparing a DSLR with the Hubble Space telescope is a little extreme. Again, I lets try to limit our context contextto what is relevant to hand-holdable camera technology. Hubble's original primary CCD sensor was quite large (larger than medium format, actually about four times larger). It's low megapixel count is actually the very reason why it has much greater dynamic range. I mentioned in my earlier posts that I assumed maintaining pixel size. The most obvious and simplest approach to improving dynamic range/reducing noise levels is to increase pixel size. As a matter of fact, that is exactly what Canon did with the 1D X, and one of the reasons why it's high ISO IQ is so good.

As it stands today, some of Hubbles CCD sensors were upgraded. They use smaller pixels now (although, still quite large at 15 microns), offering more resolution. I believe current Hubble resolution is 16 megapixels, rather than 5.1 megapixels. Still, remember that hubble's sensors are effectively supercooled (actually, since the telescope exists in space, I believe many of it's electronic components are actually heated to keep them at relevant operating temperatures), so current efficiency in hubble's CCDs is significantly better than an uncooled hand-held camera. I also mentioned in this very thread that cooling sensors with peltiers can greatly improve current efficiency, however again...there are physical limits to how far that will take you (especially in your average photography...it isn't like the things most people photograph will actually take advantage of the 0.0001e- of dark current you get at true supercool temperatures...only extreme low light photographers who regularly shoot at very high ISO would see any benefit from 0.01e- dark current, and maybe aurora photographers might benefit from even lower levels at even higher ISO settings.)

So, yeah, Hubble gets much higher dynamic range. It's pixels are also have as much as 15 times more surface area at exceedingly high current efficiencies relative to the average room temperature DSLR or Mirrorless sensor. Even assuming we find a way to supercool DSLR sensors...they are still going to be packing in significantly more pixels in significantly smaller sensor area...so dynamic range is never going to be as good as the MONSTER CCD in the Hubble.

In dslr sensor design there are several immediate approaches that could be researched, one being a sensor that is designed to operate at a base signal amplification much higher than current technology (~300 ISO) resulting in a base ISO sensitivity of say around 3200, with the greater gain adjustment at the lower sensitivity end as opposed to current implementation, and only a small increase in gain to achieve 6400-12800.

First, need to make sure we are on the same page regarding "base" ISO. Base ISO is the ISO where you achieve FWC at Max Saturation. If you made ISO 3200 your "base" ISO, there simply wouldn't be lower ISO settings, or if there were, they would be something akin to ISO 50, where you lose DR to "gain" a lesser ISO setting via exposure trickery. There is Unity Gain, the ISO setting at which 1 Gain gets you 1 ADU. By "base signal amplification", are you referring to "unity gain"?

Textbook physics tell us that such an approach would not leave enough signal strength at ISO 100 sensitivity to get readable data (again thinking we know everything about physics) but that could be countered by charging and reading fewer photosites at lower sensitivity settings. Then increasing the number of photo sites charged and read at the higher ISO range. That would of course mean the resolution output of the camera is lower at lower ISO settings and higher at higher ISO settings,

Why would you have lower resolution at lower ISO settings, and higher at higher ISO settings? That seems inverted to me. When you have a lot of light, it is easy to get more resolution...you don't have to amplify the signal as much. It is when you have LITTLE light that you have to amplify the signal more... OR, you could bin pixels at higher ISO to increase real-world sensitivity, which indeed would reduce resolution for a gain in signal strength. Sure, that is an option...try selling it to the average consumer, though. Dynamic resolution is a quirky feature.

or it could simply be set to output say 15mp images during ASIC processing regardless of the actual mp count of the sensor.. There would of course be a massive number of consumers who would feel cheated in some way in buying a 45mp camera that only outputs 15mp images, but hey people are buying a 36mp camera today that has to be downsampled to 8mp in order to generate DxO award winning images so that should not really have any impact as long as it produces the desired output in the end, right…

The average camera buyer doesn't know that DxO downsamples 36mp images to 8mp. All the average camera buyer knows is that, at least according to DxO, their D800 gets 14.4 stops of DR. Nevermind the fact that as far as RAW editing is concerned, the unscaled Screen DR is the measure that provides the correct DR, which is 13.2 for the D800...most consumers would never know that, instead thinking they have an extra 1.2 stops of DR that simply doesn't exist in their images. That's a detrimental state of affairs if a landscape photographer decides to leave their GND filters at home when they go out to photograph a 14+ stop sunset...oops.

That would be the inherent problem with dynamic resolution (at least, as anything but a niche camera)...few would actually know that at point of sale. They would only discover it through use, assume something was broken, and create a customer service nightmare in their ignorance. Keeping technology viable for consumers does matter in the grand scheme of things. I think a sensor with dynamic resolution that maintained real-world sensitivity is interesting, for sure. I wonder if it is practical, though. I guess for night sky and aurora photographers who downsample and publish on the web and never do anything else with their work, such a camera would be a dream.

In relation to the part of your answer I was originally responding to, dynamic resolution with a sensor that automatically binned pixels at any ISO setting above 100 (in order to maintain actual sensitivity, and achieve the same levels of noise at any ISO) wouldn't be a practical consumer product. You said you thought "we all" would best be served if Canon produced a sensor where ISO 6400 looked the same as ISO 100 in terms of noise. Sorry, but if dynamic binning and dynamic resolution is the only real-world solution to that, I don't really agree...and Canon will never do it anyway. Nikon might do it, they love getting their hands dirty with niche technology that doesn't help their bottom line, but even for Nikon, it seems like a bit of a stretch. The technology has to be viable to the consumer before any manufacturer would really touch it.

Another method would be multiple sensors, very much the same method high end digital video camera equipment is designed. With only a small increase in camera size there could be multiple sensors utilized to only read certain spectrums of light, four being the most logical array (Red, Blue Green, and UV to measure intensity) which would yield more color and light intensity data than is captured today by any consumer device. Data that translates to detail, color spectrum, tonal accuracy, and dynamic range..

I thought I mentioned Three-CCD in my answer (although I may be conflating conversations, as much the same conversation is occurring in multiple threads on this forum.) I agree, Three-CCD would definitely be intriguing as a means of improving both sensitivity and resolution. However, it does NOT solve the problem of making ISO 6400 look like ISO 100. It actually solves the resolution problem...it would let us push resolution more (for a while) without incurring further losses in pixel size, noise, etc.

Yet another method would be a single wafer design where one third of the photosites are dedicated for each primary color spectrum, somewhat similar but further on the approach taken by Fujifilm and their X-Trans sensors (and the original design found in the S2, S3, S5 Pro)..
Fujifilm is probably the best example of what I meant in my original post..

Again, I am taking from a conversation in another thread. X-Trans was just brought up in a thread about AA filters and Moire. Technically speaking, FujiFilm, while they are innovative, have not actually brought us anything significantly better than Canon/Sony/Toshiba/Apina. Fuji once had extra pixels in "dead space" on the sensor die. These extra pixels were monochrome, and were simply used to increase dynamic range. It was slightly effective. It was also completely blown away by Sony with their Exmor technology. COMPLETELY BLOWN AWAY.

X-Trans is another great example of an undiscriminating "improvement". It is intriguing, for sure...however it doesn't actually do a better job at anything than standard Bayer sensor designs from C/S/T/A. X-Trans claims to be moire free. Indeed, it is...however that comes at a cost. It uses a 6x6 pixel grid for interpolation...which inevitably results in a greater degree of blurring. Problem with a 6x6 pixel grid is it is less discriminating about which frequencies NEED to be blurred in order to avoid moire than a classic OLPF. Interpolating 6x6 rather than 2x2 inherently requires greater overlap, so more blur than standard bayer interpolation as well. I spent a lot of time researching X-Trans when Fuji first released the technology, I have looked at quite a few images from those cameras. High ISO performance is great, thanks to the greater degree of pixel averaging offered by a 6x6 grid, however you will never see the same kind of high fidelity image detail from any X-Trans camera that you get from standard bayer sensors. You sometimes also get a bit of haloing around sharp edges that are either particularly dark or particularly bright.

Fuji has some interesting ideas, and they definitely know how to think out of the box. But again...you can't beat physics. All Fuji has done with X-Trans is find an alternative way to blur higher frequency image detail, same as an OLPF. The difference is that the OLPF is more discriminating, and it only blurs frequencies RIGHT around Nyquist, where as X-Trans is less discriminating, and will blur relatively evenly in whatever radius is imposed by their 6x6 pixel interpolation. Personally, I'll keep my OLPF, thanks! :P

Canon/Sony/Toshiba/Aptina are not actually pushing the boundaries of digital imaging technology, they are catering to the boundaries of consumer marketability.

I'm not so sure about that. Excluding Canon (they do a lot of innovation, but admittedly the percentage of it that is dedicated to sensors seems rather small as of late), Sony, Toshiba, Aptina, and quite a number of other CIS authorities like Omnivision, SiOnyx, Panasonic, etc. are indeed pushing boundaries. You should read Image Sensors World...there are some pretty amazing innovations being created by die hard consumer companies, including Sony. They may not be breaking from a standard bayer as much as Fuji has, however that doesn't diminish the fact that they have made some significant strides for products that most definitely find their way into consumers hands. Sony's Exmor is nothing short of phenomenal, and it is still "just another bayer sensor", albeit with a very innovative approach to digital low noise readout.

Just because you produce products that sell to the consumer doesn't mean you can't be innovative.

Fujifilm is unfortunately one of the few (if not the only) consumer imaging company actually trying to advance the digital imaging world at this time by working outside the box..

Again, I think this is an ill-informed opinion. Fuji has a knack for pixel arrangements. They just recently applied for a patent on a bayer-type sensor with different sized pixels for green, red, blue, and white. It's quirky, it's different, certainly out of the standard box...but...given Fuji's track record of making SIGNIFICANT breakthroughs...I suspect it is also really just more of the same. I don't suspect that Fuji's latest patent will really make any major waves in the long run.

Now, if Fuji keeps pushing this technology, they may be on the right track to creating a sensor with a truly random "retina-style" distribution of pixels in a sensor. THAT would be an intriguing innovation, and one that could truly eliminate moire without any real cost to detail. We'll see, though...Fuji has had other non-standard bayer pixel arrays in the past, and again...none of them really produced IQ that was significantly better (or even better at all) than the competition.

Speaking of the competition, Fuji is not the only one exploring non-standard pixel layouts. Several of the rumors about Sony's supposed 54mp sensor indicate that it will not use a standard bayer layout. Not only are they targeting non-standard layouts, but Sony also filed patents for triangular and hexagonal pixels as well (although I'm honestly not sure how that improves photodiode area, which is the single most significant factor when it comes down to literal sensitivity...so only time will tell if such pixels are actually better.) So it isn't JUST Fuji who is thinking outside the box.

Just being more radical in your designs does not necessarily mean they are better.

As I stated earlier, and it is to the actual detriment of the technology, it is simply a matter of dollars and cents - for Canon/Sony/Toshiba/Aptina it is cheaper to try and improve current technology than to explore/develop new technology. The major players have too much invested in current technology to explore a new approach, at least not any time soon.

Again, ill-informed opinion. All of these companies have a certain amount of their R&D budget dedicated to more extreme innovation. Most of these companies, and others, have made more significant discoveries than Fuji, ones that have demonstrated very significant real-world benefits. Seriously, read Image Sensors World...some of the innovations are pretty cool, and many will indeed change the imaging world.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon naming policy
« on: January 18, 2014, 04:42:06 PM »
Canon EOS naming scheme on Wikipedia:


Yeah, sorry. Totally don't agree that the 5D line is "prosumer". It is extensively used by literal professionals in the wedding and portraiture arenas. There is no question that the 5D is professional. The 7D, while not as often used by professionals as a primary camera, is frequently used by professionals as a backup. Additionally, the feature set wise, the 7D has the closest featureset to the 1D line.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon naming policy
« on: January 18, 2014, 04:28:28 PM »
I was just wondering if the new 7DII would get another name than 7D mark II, as I was trying to understand Canon naming policy.

We have the four digit cameras (1100D) which are really basic dSLRs. APS-C
Then there is the three digit cameras (600D), entry level cameras. APS-C
Two digit cameras (70D), enthusiast level cameras. APS-C
Single digit cameras (5D3). Entry level and professional level. Full Frame

Then we have the 7D. A more professional type camera, but not Full Frame. So, where does this fit in the naming scheme? Single digit cameras are all Full Frame! If the single digit is not for Full Frame, but for professional style cameras instead, where does the 6D then fit?

Either the 7D should have another name since single digit cameras are all Full Frame, or the 6D should have another name since it is more of an an entry level/buget camera.

Thei naming sceme may have started out well, but it is getting a bit confusing at the top now.

Yes, it is weekend, and yes, I have too much time to spend on nonsense today :)

I'd classify it differently, like so:

xxxxD: Introductory/Novice Level
xxxD: Entry Level (Above novice, below the rest)
xxD: Semi-professional/Avid Enthusiast/Astro Level
xD: Professional Level

The single-digit cameras were not all historically full frame. There were APS-H models for a long them, and the 7D line added APS-C to the mix. The size of the sensor has nothing to do with whether a camera is professional or not. Technically speaking, the 6D is like an entry level FF camera from a features standpoint, and would have probably been better served with an xxD designation.

The problem with that is the one key difference between Canon pro-level and all the rest: For xxxxD, xxxD, and xxD, sequentially increasing numbers indicate newer models. For xD, numbers designate separate lines of cameras, and the "Mark" designation indicates the novelty of the model. Therefor, there was no logical way to make the 6D part of the xxD line, hence it's inclusion in the "Pro" line, even though it doesn't technically qualify.

When it comes to the 7D, it most definitely qualifies for professional grade status. Aside from it's sensor, it is the closest thing to a 1D model you can get, without having to seven grand. Sensor isn't everything. That has been said a billion times on these forums...for some reason it doesn't seem to stick. CAMERAS make photographs. Sensors are only one small part of a camera. AF unit, frame rate and buffer depth, metering sensor, body build and sealing, all of these things are just as important to professional grade cameras as the sensor, and in many cases, more important. There is no question the 7D deserves it's designation as a professional grade camera.

Compared to a lot of other manufacturers, Canon's naming scheme is actually quite logical. Just try to make sense of Nikon's naming...it'll make your brain bleed. ;P

EOS Bodies / Re: Will Canon Answer the D4s? [CR2]
« on: January 18, 2014, 01:49:42 PM »
A lithium ion battery out of a Dreamliner ... That wouldn´t be very reliable, would it?  ::)

You would only run the low risk of bursting into flames, it'll be ok. And worth it, for 0.01e- read noise. :P

I do suspect, however, that viable fuel cells the size of current batteries will arrive soon enough. And provide much more power. They will probably cost a good bit more than the average battery, but such is the price of progress, I guess...

Software & Accessories / Re: Adobe Lightroom for iPad Coming Soon
« on: January 18, 2014, 01:43:11 PM »
Sorry to see LR take a cloud model.

Where does it say that???

99 is just the beginning.  Wait until you need that sharpening module only offered as an in-app add-on.

Oh, I get it now.  You're just making stuff up.

Do you pay much attention to the modern world of apps? In-app microtransactions for addons of one kind or another are all the rage. Zynga, for example, is famous for employing microtransactions in their games, to the great financial detriment of the players who become addicted to them. It's how some app developers have raked in hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars for apps that cost a mere few bucks or are even free...and it is certainly no longer limited to just games.

I wouldn't say he is just making stuff up. It's a real-world thing that is becoming far more common, and with Adobe's apparent unquenchable greed as of late, it isn't surprising to hear this brought up as a potential concern. At some point, I fully expect Adobe to figure out that they could make even more money off their already tapped customers by employing microtransactions...and they will probably find an effective way of restructuring their products to take full advantage of the concept. Whether that happens now, with Lightroom for iPad, or at some later date, is yet to be seen...I suspect a later date, but I do expect Adobe to jump on the bandwagon at some point.

Like I said,  he made it all up.  Even if this leak is real it says nothing about in app purchases or about LR adopting a cloud model.

He didn't make it up. He is speculating. There is a difference there. And as I said, it is no surprise, given Adobe's trend of life sucking everlasting fees for their application use. It seems very logical that Adobe would do something like microtransactions for microfeatures at some point. I'm not saying they WILL do it right away with this app, but it isn't just making stuff up, it's conjecturing about the future of Adobe customers and how costly it will be to stick with Adobe products.

Pages: 1 ... 75 76 [77] 78 79 ... 250