July 31, 2014, 05:19:57 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 - x-vision

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 26
Lenses / Re: Canon 24-70 f/4L IS disappointing?
« on: July 29, 2014, 03:34:30 PM »
I think many of us were hoping the 24-70 4 IS would be basically a 24-70 2.8 II but trading aperture for size/weight.  Doesn't seem to have quite worked out that way though. 

My thoughts exactly - and it's frustrating to read about the inconsistent performance at 50mm.
I'm also waiting to hear how your copy turns out after it comes back from Canon service.

EOS Bodies / 7D now marked as DISCONTINUED at Amazon
« on: July 25, 2014, 11:08:10 PM »
Amazon spilled the beans:

I bet they didn't ask Canon, so expect them to ... temporarily ... remove the DISCONTINUED wording ;).

EOS Bodies / Re: The new APS-C Champ. (My wild guess).
« on: June 23, 2014, 06:57:29 PM »
The split pixel technology potentially allows some other tricks like improving DR, and probably some that I'm not aware of.

I believe they could also to do some tricks with the color filters, which will allow them to acquire more light.

But we'll see what they actually have up their sleeves  8).

EOS Bodies / Re: New Sensor Tech in EOS 7D Mark II [CR2]
« on: June 22, 2014, 12:01:02 AM »
Thanks for the thoughtful and respectful answer.

EOS Bodies / Re: New Sensor Tech in EOS 7D Mark II [CR2]
« on: June 21, 2014, 11:38:51 PM »
That's the sad part ...

I somehow get the impression that this jrista guy is some kind of royalty around here.
Why is every one kissing his @ss when he's so misguided on multiple accounts ??
Am I missing something? That's really rubbing me the wrong way. 

And yes, I did admit that I was wrong for the thing that I was wrong about.
Let's see if this guy jrista will do the same for the things that he's wrong about.

EOS Bodies / Re: New Sensor Tech in EOS 7D Mark II [CR2]
« on: June 21, 2014, 11:20:33 PM »
... to hear the rattling in his skull.

You haven't read a single thing that I wrote, you bottom feeder.
But crawled out from under your rock to share some personal insults.
What a friendly little fella.

EOS Bodies / Re: New Sensor Tech in EOS 7D Mark II [CR2]
« on: June 21, 2014, 11:01:35 PM »
Ah...so, we have a sensor now, without any light sensing components?
Aah. You come across as the king of false assumptions, you know.
Who said that sub-pixels don't have light sensing components?
You made this up again.

By definition, a pixel includes a photodiode.
And as I already said ... many times ... sub-pixels are full-blown pixels - on the wafer level, that is.
The only difference is that sub-pixels share the same microlens and color filter with other sub-pixels - to form full pixels.

EOS Bodies / Re: New Sensor Tech in EOS 7D Mark II [CR2]
« on: June 21, 2014, 10:07:21 PM »
It does state photoelectric converter, though, in the abstract (a simplification into fewer words of the extremely wordy breakdown) which most definitely IS a photodiode.
The patent doesn't state/claim that a 'photoelectric conversion unit' is a photodiode.
You claim that - and I disagree, since this claim is not based on what the patents says. 

The abstract also clearly states that there are two "photoelectric converters" per "pixel". You've handily ignored the abstract, but it is still an entirely valid description, and is still a part of the patent.
The abstract doesn't mention anything about photodiodes. You are making stuff up.

The description of a sub-pixel, in combination with how they are portrayed in the diagrams, also indicates they are photodiodes. 
Nothing indicates that these are photodiodes. They are not marked as such with the photodiode symbol, for example.
So, it's actually you who is assuming that these are photodiodes -  the patent certainly doesn't indicate/state that.

Sure, there is readout logic, as there is binning and readout logic for the whole pixel. Is the readout logic part of the pixel, or the photodiodes?

A photodiode doesn't have a read-out logic; a pixel does.
So, by this token, sub-pixels are in fact pixels, as pixels do have read-out circuits - unlike photodiodes.

We could debate that round and round as well, I'm sure. Again...all just words used to describe concepts.

Sure. It's your assumptions vs mine. No facts from you so far, mind you.

EOS Bodies / Re: New Sensor Tech in EOS 7D Mark II [CR2]
« on: June 21, 2014, 08:15:36 PM »
You've somehow equated the term "sub-pixel" with "pixel". Why use a different term, sub-pixel, if it's the same thing?

So, the crux of this argument, really, is whether a sub-pixels is a photodiode or a pixel.

Let me just state the Canon's DPAF patent doesn't even mention the word photodiode.
Instead, it is using the wording 'sub-pixel'.

You are only assuming that by a 'sub-pixel' Canon actually means a photodiode.
This is just an assumption, however, as no statement/fact from the patent supports it.
Let's be very clear about this.

I, on the other hand, am assuming that a sub-pixel is in fact a full-blown pixel.
This is another assumption, however, as the patent doesn't define what a sub-pixel really is.

In other words, this tiresome, pointless debate is a debate about two assumptions.

I am perfectly fine that I'm making an assumption. But yours is an assumption too, mind you.
Neither your assumption, nor mine, is any more valid than the other, though, as what you've
been saying is no more based on facts vs what I've saying.

EOS Bodies / Re: New Sensor Tech in EOS 7D Mark II [CR2]
« on: June 21, 2014, 07:41:24 PM »
You've somehow equated the term "sub-pixel" with "pixel".

Yes ... and this is correct.

Why use a different term, sub-pixel, if it's the same thing?

Canon is using the term sub-pixel in their patent, not me.

You think that a sub-pixel and a 'photodiode' are the same thing  - but they are not.  This is where you are incorrect.
A sub-pixel is a pixel - and includes a photodiode plus readout circuitry.

So, this is not just a matter of using (incorrect) terminology.
It's about understanding of how things work and what is meant when someone says a photodiode and a (sub)pixel.

Conceptually, in the context of CIS, these things are identical.

Canon's diagram doesn't show a pixel with two photodiodes.
It's just an illustration the of principle of reading two halves of a pixel independently.

Here's how Canon describes Fig.2C that from your post:

[0017] FIGS. 2A to 2C are views for explaining the arrangement of an image sensor according to the embodiment;

These are views for explaining the arrangement. Just a conceptual diagram, basically.
Nothing is mentioned about photodiodes. You are reading too much into it if you are thinking that
it's an actual diagram of the sensor.

You have claimed, in multiple threads for a good while now, that not only does Canon have QPAF, but that somehow QPAF/DPAF somehow leads, probably with ML (although I don't remember if you actually said that exactly) to better resolution. THOSE are the points at debate.

I have SPECULATED (repeat, SPECULATED) that the dual-pixel tech is in fact a quad-pixel tech.

But for some reason you started a crusade against this (harmless) speculation - resulting in this tiresome debate
about pixels and photodiodes - and about how you know what you are talking about - and how I don't.

I don't even understand why you are arguing.
The DPAF patent in no way disproves my speculation.
In fact, the patent even hints that having dual sub-pixels is not the only possible arrangement.
A quad-(sub)pixel arrangement is certainly not ruled out by this patent.

Be as happy as you want that you discovered the term "sub-pixel" in the patent. To me, it's the same freakin thing, the same exact concept...a photodiode. I don't equate sub-pixel with pixel, as one is a complex multi-layered structure, one is a bit of doped silicon with an anode and a cathode tacked onto the ends that is a part of a pixel.

That's something you have to work on.

You will eventually realize that to make a sub-pixel ... it needs to be a full-blown pixel.
Or, as Canon puts it their own patent: the pixels including the sub pixels may be discretely arranged in the image sensor.

As for me, as Don has said, this conversation has just gone way off the tracks and has become pointless.


EOS Bodies / Re: New Sensor Tech in EOS 7D Mark II [CR2]
« on: June 21, 2014, 06:48:01 PM »
Persistent defending a clearly flawed argument with a complete lack of supporting evidence against all documented evidence to the contrary is what you should be embarrassed about.  The fact that you seem to find it amusing says much about your character...and none of it good.

I think I've said at least a hundred times that I've been only speculating.
And yet, you keep repeating that I'm defending a flawed argument. I'm not.

Here it is one last time: I was/am just speculating ... on a speculation forum.
Got it?

On the other hand, I did show that another forum member, jrista, has been making baseless claims.
That's not the issue, though. He's been bullying people, including myself, with these claims.

But somehow that's OK with you. In fact, you are obviously sympathetic and supportive of this bully.
Fair enough. You have to live with yourself, not me.

EOS Bodies / Re: New Sensor Tech in EOS 7D Mark II [CR2]
« on: June 21, 2014, 05:44:22 PM »
It clearly states TWO sub-pixels for each pixel, not four as you've been claiming all along. 

Good. At least we've have established that these are sub-pixels, not photodiodes.

But I guess that also makes Jrista's hundreds of misleading claims about photodiodes all false.
It seems that he's the one who's been continuously embarrassing himself - together with the small
gang lining up in support of an imposter.

Me? I just made a speculation that instead of two sub-pixels, Canon is using four.
That's not the least embarrassing.

LOL. I'm having so much fun.

EOS Bodies / Re: New Sensor Tech in EOS 7D Mark II [CR2]
« on: June 21, 2014, 05:10:45 PM »
If your claim isn't based solely on that image, then upon what VERIFIABLE FACTS (you know...things like patents) is it based? 

See my previous reply to Jrista.

He's been misleading you all - based on his (mis)interpetations of Canon's patents.
The Canon patent he quoted talks about sub-pixels, no photodiodes, as Jrista claims.
So, verify your facts when siding with someone. Otherwise, you end up looking a fool yourself.

EOS Bodies / Re: New Sensor Tech in EOS 7D Mark II [CR2]
« on: June 21, 2014, 05:05:00 PM »
"... an image sensor including pixels each having a pair of photoelectric conversion units (photodiodes) capable of outputting the pair of image signals obtained by independently receiving a pair of light beams...

Btw, the word 'photodiode' is not even mentioned in the patent. So, you basically forged this quote.

The patent talks about sub-pixels, not photodiodes.
Your entire stance is based on forged/misinterpreted information. 

EOS Bodies / Re: New Sensor Tech in EOS 7D Mark II [CR2]
« on: June 21, 2014, 04:58:29 PM »
Here is what Canon's ACTUAL patent, from the US Patent office, actually states:

Oh my goodness! You haven't read the patent past the summary section.

Because if you had, you would have come across section [0038].
Here's it is on Page-13 of the patent's PDF file (which you can get from here):
[0038] FIG. 2A is a view for explaining the pixel arrangement
of the image sensor...            FIG. 2B is an enlarged view of
the pixel 210G which includes a plurality of photoelectric
conversion units (to be referred to as “sub-pixels 201a and
201b” hereinafter) for pupil division. Each of the pixels 210R
and 210B also includes two sub-pixels 201a and 201b. Each
pixel can output an image signal obtained by receiving light
independently from each of the sub-pixels 201a and 201b
The independently obtained image signals can be used for
focus detection, or added for each pixel and used for image

So, you quoted this patent in support of your TWO PHOTODIODES claims - but the patent says otherwise.

Dude, you have to work not only on your technical skills but on your comprehension skills in general.
When arguing about something, it's plain retarded to argue with yourself.

Canon themselves are talking about sub-pixels.
Not only that. Here's the last part of Section [0038]:

The pixel group 210 having the above-described
structure is repetitively arranged. Note that in the arrange-
ment shown in FIGS. 2A and 2B, all pixels include the sub
pixels 201a and 201b. Instead, the pixels including the sub
pixels may be discretely arranged in the image sensor 107.

This is (maybe deliberately?) vague but one way to interpret it is that Canon is saying that the
arrangement illustrated in Fig. 2A doesn't need to be strictly followed. 
That is, they are opening themselves to a different implementations of the same concept - without
actually specifying the implementation.

Anyway, I don't know what you are arguing about.

This patent is about a methid of focus detection on a sensor.
That is, they are patenting the method itself; nothing is mentioned about how exactly
they are going to etch the pixels and sub-pixels on the wafer.

They say that each pixel has two sub-pixels - but at the same time they are also leaving the door
open for alternative implementations as well. 

That would be very clear to a technical person (or someone with a legal background as well - because of
how the last part of Section [0038] is worded).

But since you are not a technical person these things are escaping you.
(You could have at least read the patent in its entirety, btw - but you haven't done even that.)

I'm done.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 26