May 26, 2018, 01:54:19 PM

Author Topic: Canon Inc. Boss Wants to See More Innovation  (Read 20245 times)

Jack Douglas

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 5268
  • http://www.gohaidagwaii.ca/blog/eagle-photography-
Re: Canon Inc. Boss Wants to See More Innovation
« Reply #75 on: February 14, 2018, 01:29:47 PM »
Here's some interesting reading that may help clear things up:

http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/exposure/
http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/iso/

Been there a couple or so years back but looks like it's expanded and improved.  Thanks.
One has to really put effort into this and review often because it's not trivial if you're new to photography. :(

Jack
1DX2   11-24 F4   24-70 F4   70-200 F2.8 II   300 F2.8 II   1.4X III   2X III   400 DO F4 II 

http://yourshot.nationalgeographic.com/profile/647784/

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon Inc. Boss Wants to See More Innovation
« Reply #75 on: February 14, 2018, 01:29:47 PM »

9VIII

  • EOS-1D X Mark II
  • *******
  • Posts: 1831
Re: Canon Inc. Boss Wants to See More Innovation
« Reply #76 on: February 14, 2018, 01:50:40 PM »
I think part of the confusion here might be from the ISO adjustments made at wide apertures.
Interestingly, DXO took down their "F-stop Blues" article, which is ironic when that was one of the most useful things they've ever published.
At least we have a decent summary on the forum: https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=31598.0


angrykarl

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 32
  • Amateur enthusiast
    • Flickr
Re: Canon Inc. Boss Wants to See More Innovation
« Reply #77 on: February 15, 2018, 11:16:54 AM »
@angrykarl – comparing pictures is not the same thing as comparing pixels.  You're trying to do both at the same time, and confusing yourself in the process.

Sure, so let's compare only pixels! :)

You are confusing the issue by bringing in number of pixels. Pixel number is to do with resolution not light gathering - about 10 years ago sensor manufacturers developed gapless sensors where the microlens picks up light outside the boundary of the actual pixel sensor. So to go back to the rainy day in the car park analogy:
cover a 6x4m area with appropriately sized buckets.
Cover a 3x2 meter area with the same number of smaller buckets.
The larger buckets have bigger gaps between them so will miss more rain.
Now put appropriately sized square shaped funnels into each bucket so that there are no gaps (the gapless sensor). The amount of rain captured is now totally dependent on the area covered.

I never disputed that there is the same amount of light captured from the same area. I am simply telling that distributing the same amount of anything into more buckets means there is less in each.

And in that respect my comparison of the 5D3 and 5DSR was totally valid: same sensor area, different number of pixels giving 100% sensor coverage (and, incidentally, the pretty much the same technology giving the same mount of noise if processed appropriately): and you have not 'shown' it to be invalid. You simply stated it wasn't based on your prior presumption that pixel count matters.

5D3 has max native ISO 25600, 5DSR only 6400... I wonder why is that.

Now, Neuro was quite correct. The APS-C collects less light and the fact they appear the same brightness on the computer screen comes from the how the computer renders the image, not anything in the camera.

So you finally agree that APS-C collect less light per pixel? And according to you the pixels are less bright, but when viewing the whole picture the downsampled pixels are more bright? What about histogram -- which shows distribution of bright and dark pixels -- does that also magically change when I zoom the picture? Or do you think histograms from these FF and APS-C images differ? And what if I create a large resolution uniform gray picture in Photoshop and downsample it, would I also get a more white picture?

I believe what you are proposing is along the lines of the manufacturers adding a program into the APS-C that says 'I am an APS-C camera. So to maintain standards across the product range, I cannot have the same calculations used in a FF body so to keep the exposure time the same I need to add more gain than the ISO 400 implies to give the same output brightness." In other words, the body would be using (for example) ISO500 and calling it ISO400 on the metadata.

And would that be a problem? You want to have exactly exposed image at ISO400 as from other cameras. That's the point of ISO. How the camera handles it is just a technical detail.

It’s not correct to call it a hidden internal ISO, however there is more gain applied with smaller sensors for a given ISO speed.

You're right, the term is misleading, I won't be using it again. My fault.

Even if you review two photos at sensor dimensions, i.e. no enlargement (the digital equivalent of a contact print), your noise performance will be better with the larger sensor, given the same exposure time and t-stop with a format-appropriate image circle (focal plane exposure) and the same composition. Why? You sampled the scene with more photons, thus generating more charge and requiring less amplification when digitized to a standardized output signal. This indeed happens in camera. That’s the entire point of ISO 12232: “The equations used in this International Standard have been chosen to create a link between electronic and conventional silver-halide-based photographic systems. Using a particular ISO speed value as the exposure index on a DSC should result in the same camera exposure settings, and resulting focal plane exposures, as would be obtained using the same exposure index on a film camera or other photographic exposure meter.”

Exactly.
EOS M5

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ***************
  • Posts: 22609
Re: Canon Inc. Boss Wants to See More Innovation
« Reply #78 on: February 15, 2018, 11:57:19 AM »
Even if you review two photos at sensor dimensions, i.e. no enlargement (the digital equivalent of a contact print), your noise performance will be better with the larger sensor, given the same exposure time and t-stop with a format-appropriate image circle (focal plane exposure) and the same composition. Why? You sampled the scene with more photons, thus generating more charge and requiring less amplification when digitized to a standardized output signal.

How do differently-sized image constitute a standardized output?
EOS 1D X, EOS M6, lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

angrykarl

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 32
  • Amateur enthusiast
    • Flickr
Re: Canon Inc. Boss Wants to See More Innovation
« Reply #79 on: February 15, 2018, 12:40:34 PM »
Even if you review two photos at sensor dimensions, i.e. no enlargement (the digital equivalent of a contact print), your noise performance will be better with the larger sensor, given the same exposure time and t-stop with a format-appropriate image circle (focal plane exposure) and the same composition. Why? You sampled the scene with more photons, thus generating more charge and requiring less amplification when digitized to a standardized output signal.

How do differently-sized image constitute a standardized output?

The image is not differently-sized. You've got the same shutter speed, t-stop, composition, resolution, equivalent focal length, just different size of sensors. The resulting images are equal sized.

He wrote "standardized output signal". Signal is electric charge from collected photons in one photosite. Which results in one pixel brightness. Raw collected signal is smaller, but according to ISO the brightness must equal, therefore there must be amplification.
EOS M5

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ***************
  • Posts: 22609
Re: Canon Inc. Boss Wants to See More Innovation
« Reply #80 on: February 15, 2018, 12:50:57 PM »
Even if you review two photos at sensor dimensions, i.e. no enlargement (the digital equivalent of a contact print), your noise performance will be better with the larger sensor, given the same exposure time and t-stop with a format-appropriate image circle (focal plane exposure) and the same composition. Why? You sampled the scene with more photons, thus generating more charge and requiring less amplification when digitized to a standardized output signal.

How do differently-sized image constitute a standardized output?

The image is not differently-sized. You've got the same shutter speed, t-stop, composition, resolution,
equivalent focal length, just different size of sensors. The resulting images are equal sized.

Please read the part highlighted in red above, which clearly states that images of different sizes are being compared.

Quote
He wrote "standardized output signal". Signal is electric charge from collected photons in one photosite. Which results in one pixel brightness. Raw collected signal is smaller, but according to ISO the brightness must equal, therefore there must be amplification.

We’ve already been down the rabbit hole of comparing pictures (i.e. the image from a whole sensor) versus comparing pixels.  They are not the same.
EOS 1D X, EOS M6, lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

Mikehit

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2471
Re: Canon Inc. Boss Wants to See More Innovation
« Reply #81 on: February 15, 2018, 12:51:56 PM »

I never disputed that there is the same amount of light captured from the same area. I am simply telling that distributing the same amount of anything into more buckets means there is less in each.

And the amount of lighting each pixel (water in each bucket) is irrelevant to the image as a whole because the amount of signal being transmitted to the final processor is the same whether it is a bit of light from lots of pixels or a lot of light from a few pixels. The difference is that with a higher number of smaller pixels you are also transmitting more noise which raises the noise floor and reduces dynamic range
As neuro says, comparing what is happening at pixel level is completely different to looking at the whole image

5D3 has max native ISO 25600, 5DSR only 6400... I wonder why is that.
Because that is the limit Canon put on it. No other reason. Canon decide on behalf of the photographer what is a usable quality and will design the cameras accordingly and with the higher pixel count the noise becomes intrusive and Canon decide they will not let the ISO of the 5DSR go higher.
Why can Sony claim 3million ISo for their FF cameras? Are you saying they have a single humungous pixel? Nope. Canon could if they wanted put  3 million ISO on their camera but the image would be total S____.


So you finally agree that APS-C collect less light per pixel? And according to you the pixels are less bright, but when viewing the whole picture the downsampled pixels are more bright? What about histogram -- which shows distribution of bright and dark pixels -- does that also magically change when I zoom the picture? Or do you think histograms from these FF and APS-C images differ? And what if I create a large resolution uniform gray picture in Photoshop and downsample it, would I also get a more white picture?

I never denied the APS-C collects less light. I was pointing out that basing your argument on pixel size was flawed. It has nothing to do with pixels but the fact both sensors how long the shutter is open at a specific aperture and the light per unit area is the same but there is not as much area to collect the light.
The histogram of the whole picture never changes because the histogram shows a percentage distribution of luminosity for the whole picture so if the framing is the same the histogram is the same. If you crop the image the histogram changes for this very reason. 

And would that be a problem? You want to have exactly exposed image at ISO400 as from other cameras. That's the point of ISO. How the camera handles it is just a technical detail.

You do get the same exposures - exposure of the same unit area of sensor. ISO is defined by the ability to fill the wells on the pixel, not by the output viewed on screen. This is where your reference to pixels falls down.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon Inc. Boss Wants to See More Innovation
« Reply #81 on: February 15, 2018, 12:51:56 PM »

3kramd5

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2030
Re: Canon Inc. Boss Wants to See More Innovation
« Reply #82 on: February 15, 2018, 01:17:26 PM »
Even if you review two photos at sensor dimensions, i.e. no enlargement (the digital equivalent of a contact print), your noise performance will be better with the larger sensor, given the same exposure time and t-stop with a format-appropriate image circle (focal plane exposure) and the same composition. Why? You sampled the scene with more photons, thus generating more charge and requiring less amplification when digitized to a standardized output signal.

How do differently-sized image constitute a standardized output?
 

It’s an I/O-based designation. The expected output signal is a function of known input levels and “ISO speed”.  ISO speed is typically defined including a noise basis.

Per the standard:
“numerical value calculated from the exposure provided at the focal plane of a DSC to produce specified camera output signal characteristics using the methods described in this International Standard

NOTE The ISO speed is usually the highest exposure index value that still provides peak image quality for normal scenes. However, a DSC does not necessarily use the ISO speed value as the exposure index value when capturing images.”

Unless I’m mistaken (might be), enlarging a digital file doesn’t affect its luminance (histogram stays the same) nor amount of noise present. Enlarging it more can make noise more apparent when viewed, but what is inherent to the file is baked in at capture, i.e. in camera, which is what ISO speed is concerned with. Less total light gathered -> more gain required before the analog is digitized, all else being equal.
« Last Edit: February 15, 2018, 01:32:04 PM by 3kramd5 »

angrykarl

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 32
  • Amateur enthusiast
    • Flickr
Re: Canon Inc. Boss Wants to See More Innovation
« Reply #83 on: February 15, 2018, 01:18:34 PM »
Even if you review two photos at sensor dimensions, i.e. no enlargement (the digital equivalent of a contact print), your noise performance will be better with the larger sensor, given the same exposure time and t-stop with a format-appropriate image circle (focal plane exposure) and the same composition. Why? You sampled the scene with more photons, thus generating more charge and requiring less amplification when digitized to a standardized output signal.

How do differently-sized image constitute a standardized output?

The image is not differently-sized. You've got the same shutter speed, t-stop, composition, resolution,
equivalent focal length, just different size of sensors. The resulting images are equal sized.

Please read the part highlighted in red above, which clearly states that images of different sizes are being compared.

Ok. What if they are the same?
EOS M5

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ***************
  • Posts: 22609
Re: Canon Inc. Boss Wants to See More Innovation
« Reply #84 on: February 15, 2018, 02:03:25 PM »
Even if you review two photos at sensor dimensions, i.e. no enlargement (the digital equivalent of a contact print), your noise performance will be better with the larger sensor, given the same exposure time and t-stop with a format-appropriate image circle (focal plane exposure) and the same composition. Why? You sampled the scene with more photons, thus generating more charge and requiring less amplification when digitized to a standardized output signal.

How do differently-sized image constitute a standardized output?
 

It’s an I/O-based designation. The expected output signal is a function of known input levels and “ISO speed”.  ISO speed is typically defined including a noise basis.

Per the standard:
“numerical value calculated from the exposure provided at the focal plane of a DSC to produce specified camera output signal characteristics using the methods described in this International Standard

NOTE The ISO speed is usually the highest exposure index value that still provides peak image quality for normal scenes. However, a DSC does not necessarily use the ISO speed value as the exposure index value when capturing images.”

Unless I’m mistaken (might be), enlarging a digital file doesn’t affect its luminance (histogram stays the same) nor amount of noise present. Enlarging it more can make noise more apparent when viewed, but what is inherent to the file is baked in at capture, i.e. in camera, which is what ISO speed is concerned with. Less total light gathered -> more gain required before the analog is digitized, all else being equal.

All else isn't equal if you're comparing images of different sizes. 

That aside, you seem to be suggesting that more analog gain is applied to signals from a smaller sensor.  Consider...if you capture an image with a FF and an APS-C camera at the same focal length, aperture, ISO setting, and subject distance, then crop the FF image so it matches the FoV of the APS-C camera (and output both to the same size, but since the sensor areas are equal, that doesn't matter in this case), you'll get two images that are equivalent – same framing, DoF, noise, brightness, etc.  They should be the same – they represent the same physical sensor area being sampled.  If more analog gain was applied to the APS-C sensor signal, why isn't the resulting image brighter or noisier than the equivalent image cropped from the FF sensor?
EOS 1D X, EOS M6, lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

3kramd5

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2030
Re: Canon Inc. Boss Wants to See More Innovation
« Reply #85 on: February 15, 2018, 02:33:23 PM »
Even if you review two photos at sensor dimensions, i.e. no enlargement (the digital equivalent of a contact print), your noise performance will be better with the larger sensor, given the same exposure time and t-stop with a format-appropriate image circle (focal plane exposure) and the same composition. Why? You sampled the scene with more photons, thus generating more charge and requiring less amplification when digitized to a standardized output signal.

How do differently-sized image constitute a standardized output?
 

It’s an I/O-based designation. The expected output signal is a function of known input levels and “ISO speed”.  ISO speed is typically defined including a noise basis.

Per the standard:
“numerical value calculated from the exposure provided at the focal plane of a DSC to produce specified camera output signal characteristics using the methods described in this International Standard

NOTE The ISO speed is usually the highest exposure index value that still provides peak image quality for normal scenes. However, a DSC does not necessarily use the ISO speed value as the exposure index value when capturing images.”

Unless I’m mistaken (might be), enlarging a digital file doesn’t affect its luminance (histogram stays the same) nor amount of noise present. Enlarging it more can make noise more apparent when viewed, but what is inherent to the file is baked in at capture, i.e. in camera, which is what ISO speed is concerned with. Less total light gathered -> more gain required before the analog is digitized, all else being equal.

All else isn't equal if you're comparing images of different sizes. 
 

I don’t think images of size are being compared. I think signal levels are being considered.


That aside, you seem to be suggesting that more analog gain is applied to signals from a smaller sensor.  Consider...if you capture an image with a FF and an APS-C camera at the same focal length, aperture, ISO setting, and subject distance, then crop the FF image so it matches the FoV of the APS-C camera (and output both to the same size, but since the sensor areas are equal, that doesn't matter in this case), you'll get two images that are equivalent – same framing, DoF, noise, brightness, etc.

Is that so? I’ve never seen two sensors which are the same in every way excepting area with which to verify that noise levels are equal.

Brightness indeed would be the same as that’s implicit in the ISO speed formulation.

Again, I’m not an expert and claim to not be. I’m merely someone who has read and tried to interpret the standard. I’m happy to be educated ;)
« Last Edit: February 15, 2018, 02:36:43 PM by 3kramd5 »

angrykarl

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 32
  • Amateur enthusiast
    • Flickr
Re: Canon Inc. Boss Wants to See More Innovation
« Reply #86 on: February 15, 2018, 02:49:44 PM »
Consider...if you capture an image with a FF and an APS-C camera at the same focal length, aperture, ISO setting, and subject distance, then crop the FF image so it matches the FoV of the APS-C camera (and output both to the same size, but since the sensor areas are equal, that doesn't matter in this case), you'll get two images that are equivalent – same framing, DoF, noise, brightness, etc.  They should be the same – they represent the same physical sensor area being sampled.  If more analog gain was applied to the APS-C sensor signal, why isn't the resulting image brighter or noisier than the equivalent image cropped from the FF sensor?

Great. Now have both sensors the same resolution and use equivalent focal length on the crop so that you cannot blame the enlarging of image. Do they have the same noise? But you never compare this, because that wouldn't suit you.

I am leaving this hopeless discussion. Have a nice day.
EOS M5

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ***************
  • Posts: 22609
Re: Canon Inc. Boss Wants to See More Innovation
« Reply #87 on: February 15, 2018, 03:04:16 PM »
Consider...if you capture an image with a FF and an APS-C camera at the same focal length, aperture, ISO setting, and subject distance, then crop the FF image so it matches the FoV of the APS-C camera (and output both to the same size, but since the sensor areas are equal, that doesn't matter in this case), you'll get two images that are equivalent – same framing, DoF, noise, brightness, etc.  They should be the same – they represent the same physical sensor area being sampled.  If more analog gain was applied to the APS-C sensor signal, why isn't the resulting image brighter or noisier than the equivalent image cropped from the FF sensor?

Great. Now have both sensors the same resolution and use equivalent focal length on the crop so that you cannot blame the enlarging of image. Do they have the same noise? But you never compare this, because that wouldn't suit you.

I am leaving this hopeless discussion. Have a nice day.

You're right.  If you lack the ability to comprehend, then further discussion is indeed hopeless.

The enlargement comes from the way we (appropriately) compare images, which is at the same output size. ... The smaller the sensor, the more you enlarge it when comparing output. 

In your scenario —same framing on APS-C vs FF (i.e., different focal lengths or different subject distance), same aperture, same ISO, same output size— the APS-C image will be noisier, becuase you enlarged it more.  Incidentally, the DoF of the APS-C image will be deeper...for the same reason – more enlargement from the smaller sensor.
EOS 1D X, EOS M6, lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon Inc. Boss Wants to See More Innovation
« Reply #87 on: February 15, 2018, 03:04:16 PM »

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ***************
  • Posts: 22609
Re: Canon Inc. Boss Wants to See More Innovation
« Reply #88 on: February 15, 2018, 03:11:20 PM »
I don’t think images of size are being compared. I think signal levels are being considered.

That's the rabbit hole of pictures vs. pixels, again.  If you are talking about pixels, things like pixel diameter and well depth matter.  When comparing pictures, noise is determined primarily by total light gathered.  A bigger sensor gathers more light.  Simple as that. 


That aside, you seem to be suggesting that more analog gain is applied to signals from a smaller sensor.  Consider...if you capture an image with a FF and an APS-C camera at the same focal length, aperture, ISO setting, and subject distance, then crop the FF image so it matches the FoV of the APS-C camera (and output both to the same size, but since the sensor areas are equal, that doesn't matter in this case), you'll get two images that are equivalent – same framing, DoF, noise, brightness, etc.

Is that so? I’ve never seen two sensors which are the same in every way excepting area with which to verify that noise levels are equal.

Brightness indeed would be the same as that’s implicit in the ISO speed formulation.

Again, I’m not an expert and claim to not be. I’m merely someone who has read and tried to interpret the standard. I’m happy to be educated ;)

I'm not the biggest fan of DPR, but credit where credit is due, they did a reasonably good job with this.

https://www.dpreview.com/articles/5365920428/the-effect-of-pixel-and-sensor-sizes-on-noise
EOS 1D X, EOS M6, lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

3kramd5

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2030
Re: Canon Inc. Boss Wants to See More Innovation
« Reply #89 on: February 15, 2018, 03:32:25 PM »
I don’t think images of size are being compared. I think signal levels are being considered.

That's the rabbit hole of pictures vs. pixels, again.  If you are talking about pixels, things like pixel diameter and well depth matter.

Of course those things matter, but they’re behind the scenes. ISO doesn’t look at sensor size, nor pixel size, nor well capacity. It looks at how to assign an ISO speed to relate a known focal plane exposure (which has an effective f number component) to an expected signal level.


  When comparing pictures, noise is determined primarily by total light gathered.  A bigger sensor gathers more light.  Simple as that. 

I’m neither comparing pixels nor pictures. I’m reading a document about how ISO speed is defined, and speculating that all else being equal (same t-stop, same framing, same exposure time) since less light hits a smaller sensor, that more gain must be used to result in the appropriate signal strength.

Given a controlled input signal, how do I have to tune the electronics to result in a file with expected levels, and what ISO speed do I assign based on the characteristics?

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon Inc. Boss Wants to See More Innovation
« Reply #89 on: February 15, 2018, 03:32:25 PM »