October 23, 2014, 04:48:09 AM

Author Topic: Just Touching the Surface of Dual Pixel Technology? [CR1]  (Read 8689 times)

jebrady03

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 248
    • View Profile
Re: Just Touching the Surface of Dual Pixel Technology? [CR1]
« Reply #15 on: November 25, 2013, 04:49:29 PM »
I'm ready for QPAF (Quad Pixel).
HDR plus AF.
it seems like a natural evolution to me

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Just Touching the Surface of Dual Pixel Technology? [CR1]
« Reply #15 on: November 25, 2013, 04:49:29 PM »

dufflover

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 137
  • OH YEAH!
    • View Profile
Re: Just Touching the Surface of Dual Pixel Technology? [CR1]
« Reply #16 on: November 25, 2013, 05:17:34 PM »
A lot of these ideas sound pretty neat but at the same times some of them don't sound like dual-pixel but rather something that you can do if you just crammed in twice as many normal pixels into the camera? To put it another way, if the dual-pixel system is basically two fully functioning pixels (because that's what some of the ideas seem to be using) what's the difference?
Hurry up Canon and do something with your sensors! :P

9VIII

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 653
    • View Profile
Re: Just Touching the Surface of Dual Pixel Technology? [CR1]
« Reply #17 on: November 25, 2013, 05:32:41 PM »
A lot of these ideas sound pretty neat but at the same times some of them don't sound like dual-pixel but rather something that you can do if you just crammed in twice as many normal pixels into the camera? To put it another way, if the dual-pixel system is basically two fully functioning pixels (because that's what some of the ideas seem to be using) what's the difference?

That's what I'm wondering right now.
I would use the dual pixels for a more compact RGBG pixel layout with better colour accuracy, but that's just halfway to increasing resolution by 4 times and getting a perfect RGB signal per pixel (counting four photosites as one pixel).
It would be nice if camera companies would just switch to the same standards as display companies use and count groupings of three sub-pixels as one pixel.
-100% RAW-

rs

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 669
    • View Profile
Re: Just Touching the Surface of Dual Pixel Technology? [CR1]
« Reply #18 on: November 25, 2013, 06:05:23 PM »
I would use the dual pixels for a more compact RGBG pixel layout with better colour accuracy, but that's just halfway to increasing resolution by 4 times and getting a perfect RGB signal per pixel (counting four photosites as one pixel).
It would be nice if camera companies would just switch to the same standards as display companies use and count groupings of three sub-pixels as one pixel.
Nice idea, but that's presuming you want to display the image on screen at 1:1 using a current generation display. The problem is people print, people display at other sizes than 1:1, and display technology changes. Compare colour CRT's with their seemingly unrelated pixel and RGB layout, LCD's with predictable pixel to RGB layout, pentile displays etc.

Take video for example. Rolling shutter is a very real problem, but roll back the clock to the very first video camera and TV - a one pixel camera with a spinning Nipkow disk. It had zero rolling shutter because the display device was a single light lit by the electrical output of the single pixel, and another Nipkow disk. Great system, but only good when matched with a specific output system.

The best is surely to get the recorded image as close to theoretically perfect as possible, then as output devices mature (by chasing that same goal), it all looks good regardless. However, with retina displays, high DPI printers and high MP cameras most of us have within reach now, the detailed arrangement of how prime colours are individually captured and reproduced has become almost meaningless.
5D II | 24-70 II | 70-200 II | 100L | 40 | Sigma 50/1.4 | 40D | 10-22 | 17-55 | 580 EX II | 1.4x TC II

dgatwood

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 756
  • 300D, 400D, 6D
    • View Profile
Re: Just Touching the Surface of Dual Pixel Technology? [CR1]
« Reply #19 on: November 25, 2013, 07:40:23 PM »
Take video for example. Rolling shutter is a very real problem, but roll back the clock to the very first video camera and TV - a one pixel camera with a spinning Nipkow disk. It had zero rolling shutter because the display device was a single light lit by the electrical output of the single pixel, and another Nipkow disk. Great system, but only good when matched with a specific output system.

I would argue that Nipkow disk designs have rolling shutter problems just like a CMOS sensor, just like tube cameras, etc., and for the same reason.  Any time you scan an image from left to right, top to bottom over the course of a thirtieth of a second, the scene you are shooting can change considerably between when you read the upper left corner and when you read the bottom right corner.  That's rolling shutter.  The only difference is that you never stored a whole frame image from a Nipkow disk, so the viewer would probably not have perceived the rolling shutter.  :)

There's only one way to avoid rolling shutter in an all-electronic image system (*), and that's to use a secondary off-secreen buffer.  Basically, you simultaneously reset all of the pixels to start sampling, then wait a period of time (the exposure time), and then simultaneously shift all of the pixels into that secondary buffer so that they won't change while you're reading them, and finally read the pixels out in whatever order you want to, at whatever speed you can manage.

(*) If you don't care about being all-electronic, you can use either a physical shutter as DSLRs do for stills or use film with a physical shutter and then scan it later.

Dylan777

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4194
    • View Profile
Re: Just Touching the Surface of Dual Pixel Technology? [CR1]
« Reply #20 on: November 25, 2013, 11:31:55 PM »
For higher iso I'm in.  Otherwise just another features for video guys.
Body: 1DX -- 5D III
Zoom: 16-35L f4 IS -- 24-70L II -- 70-200L f2.8 IS II
Prime: 40mm -- 85L II -- 135L -- 200L f2 IS -- 400L f2.8 IS II

Rienzphotoz

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3323
  • Peace unto all ye Canon, Nikon & Sony shooters
    • View Profile
Re: Just Touching the Surface of Dual Pixel Technology? [CR1]
« Reply #21 on: November 26, 2013, 12:19:16 AM »
This is fantastic ... hope to see an awesome 7D II with cool features and performance.
Canon 5DMK3 70D | Nikon D610 | Sony a7 a6000 | RX100M3 | 16-35/2.8LII | 70-200/2.8LISII | 100/2.8LIS | 100-400LIS | 40/2.8 | 50/1.4 | 85/1.8 | 600EX-RTx2 | ST-E3-RT | 24/3.5 T-S | 10-18/4 OSS 16-50 | 24-70/4OSS | 55/1.8 | 55-210 OSS | 70-200/4 OSS | 28-300VR | HVL-F43M | GoPro Black 3+ & DJI Phantom

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Just Touching the Surface of Dual Pixel Technology? [CR1]
« Reply #21 on: November 26, 2013, 12:19:16 AM »

Lawliet

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 415
    • View Profile
Re: Just Touching the Surface of Dual Pixel Technology? [CR1]
« Reply #22 on: November 26, 2013, 02:35:18 AM »
Otherwise just another features for video guys.

And for still life/high res guys. Landscape, fashion, and so on.

Marsu42

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4816
  • ML-66d / 100L / 70-300L / 17-40L / 600rts
    • View Profile
    • 6D positive spec list
Re: Just Touching the Surface of Dual Pixel Technology? [CR1]
« Reply #23 on: November 26, 2013, 02:58:43 AM »
Otherwise just another features for video guys.
And for still life/high res guys. Landscape, fashion, and so on.

How so? Not to shamelessly promote Magic Lantern (again :-)), but focus peaking in live view is terrific for manual focus, and personally I really wouldn't know what I'd want dual pixel af in stills for as I nearly never use contrast af. Great feature if you get it for free with the latest gen cameras, but nothing to write home about unless it's in a mirrorless body.

9VIII

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 653
    • View Profile
Re: Just Touching the Surface of Dual Pixel Technology? [CR1]
« Reply #24 on: November 26, 2013, 03:22:32 AM »
For higher iso I'm in.  Otherwise just another features for video guys.

You wouldn't give up anything for better video performance even if it means that all youtube videos will forever suffer from constant focus hunting?




I would use the dual pixels for a more compact RGBG pixel layout with better colour accuracy, but that's just halfway to increasing resolution by 4 times and getting a perfect RGB signal per pixel (counting four photosites as one pixel).
It would be nice if camera companies would just switch to the same standards as display companies use and count groupings of three sub-pixels as one pixel.
Nice idea, but that's presuming you want to display the image on screen at 1:1 using a current generation display. The problem is people print, people display at other sizes than 1:1, and display technology changes. Compare colour CRT's with their seemingly unrelated pixel and RGB layout, LCD's with predictable pixel to RGB layout, pentile displays etc.

Take video for example. Rolling shutter is a very real problem, but roll back the clock to the very first video camera and TV - a one pixel camera with a spinning Nipkow disk. It had zero rolling shutter because the display device was a single light lit by the electrical output of the single pixel, and another Nipkow disk. Great system, but only good when matched with a specific output system.

The best is surely to get the recorded image as close to theoretically perfect as possible, then as output devices mature (by chasing that same goal), it all looks good regardless. However, with retina displays, high DPI printers and high MP cameras most of us have within reach now, the detailed arrangement of how prime colours are individually captured and reproduced has become almost meaningless.

http://forums.lenovo.com/t5/Idea-Windows-based-Tablets-and/Re-Yoga-2-Pro-13-Yellow-Color-Issues/td-p/1270427

After seeing this I'm not sure if the sub pixel layout is ever going to be less important than it is now.
-100% RAW-

vscd

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 184
  • 5DC
    • View Profile
Re: Just Touching the Surface of Dual Pixel Technology? [CR1]
« Reply #25 on: November 26, 2013, 04:21:14 AM »
Quote
A lot of these ideas sound pretty neat but at the same times some of them don't sound like dual-pixel but rather something that you can do if you just crammed in twice as many normal pixels into the camera? To put it another way, if the dual-pixel system is basically two fully functioning pixels (because that's what some of the ideas seem to be using) what's the difference?

The difference is to use different Voltages/sensitivities to each of those "half" Pixels. With just doubling the Pixelamount you can't shot HDR at one frame because all Pixels are bounded.

The idea was to use one pixel for example from -8EV to 0EV and the other from 0EV to 8EV, making a total of (theoretical) 16EV... the real range of one *single* cell couln't capture 16EV. Today you need to make 2 Shots.
5DC, 24-85, 85 1.2L II, 80-200 2.8L, 100 2.8L IS, 14 2.8, 35 1.4, 75-300 IS, 40STM

AvTvM

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1022
    • View Profile
Re: Just Touching the Surface of Dual Pixel Technology? [CR1]
« Reply #26 on: November 26, 2013, 04:29:12 AM »
A lot of these ideas sound pretty neat but at the same times some of them don't sound like dual-pixel but rather something that you can do if you just crammed in twice as many normal pixels into the camera? To put it another way, if the dual-pixel system is basically two fully functioning pixels (because that's what some of the ideas seem to be using) what's the difference?

I see it the same way. With enough (sub) pixels and enough computing power and some clever algorithms/ firmware it would be possible to kill all birds with one stone ... in real time.

  • incredibly good hi res - unbinned
  • incredibly good Hi-ISO - lower res, binned any which way
  • incredibly good DR - combining low/hi ISO takes from pixel-subsets - any which way
  • incredibly fast and precise AF - limited only by lens AF-drive capabilities

All of it in a "truly digital" camera body without any mechanics, noise and (internal) vibrations. End of mirrorslapping. Camera size defined by sensor-size, battery-size and ergonomic reasons (grip, balance). 

Will be interesting, when Canon (as well as Nikon) finally see the light.  :)
« Last Edit: November 26, 2013, 05:45:09 AM by AvTvM »

vscd

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 184
  • 5DC
    • View Profile
Re: Just Touching the Surface of Dual Pixel Technology? [CR1]
« Reply #27 on: November 26, 2013, 04:45:30 AM »
Quote
I see it the same way. With enough (sub) pixels and enough computing power and some clever algorithms/ firmware it would be possible to kill all birds with one stone ... in real time.

You are totally right, but you assume that every Pixel has his own ability to get controlled by the CPU. The sensor isn't working that way. You can even try to read out one single Bit of your computermemory, but don't affect the other bits by reading from the responding bytes! ;)
5DC, 24-85, 85 1.2L II, 80-200 2.8L, 100 2.8L IS, 14 2.8, 35 1.4, 75-300 IS, 40STM

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Just Touching the Surface of Dual Pixel Technology? [CR1]
« Reply #27 on: November 26, 2013, 04:45:30 AM »

M.ST

  • Guest
Re: Just Touching the Surface of Dual Pixel Technology? [CR1]
« Reply #28 on: November 26, 2013, 05:28:50 AM »
The dual pixel AF is only the beginning.

Canon is working very intensely on new functions for the dual pixel technologie.

You will see some new features in the upcoming 7D Mark II and the new EOS 1 series body.

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ********
  • Posts: 14723
    • View Profile
Re: Just Touching the Surface of Dual Pixel Technology? [CR1]
« Reply #29 on: November 26, 2013, 06:01:31 AM »
A lot of these ideas sound pretty neat but at the same times some of them don't sound like dual-pixel but rather something that you can do if you just crammed in twice as many normal pixels into the camera? To put it another way, if the dual-pixel system is basically two fully functioning pixels (because that's what some of the ideas seem to be using) what's the difference?

The difference is the dual-pixel method has both of the sub-pixels under one microlens.  Two separate pixels would mean a loss of spatial resolution in one dimension or the other, or a 'stretched' image (3:1 or 3:4 instead of 3:2 aspect ratio) if interpolation isn't done.  So, you wouldn't need twice as many, but four times as many separate pixels with individual microlenses.  For a '20 MP' APS-C sensor like 70D, that drives pixel size down into the ~2um range – PowerShot territory.
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Just Touching the Surface of Dual Pixel Technology? [CR1]
« Reply #29 on: November 26, 2013, 06:01:31 AM »