More Big Megapixel Talk [CR1]

[Bosman]

WHY are some people complaining about too much resolution? This camera will most likely come with mRAW and sRAW function anyway.

You'd have the resolution when you wanted it, but could dial it back for a lot of other shots.

Simple.

You do realize that mRAW and sRAW are not actually RAW images, right? For all intents and purposes, they are the same thing as JPEG...YCC encoded and compressed data converted into an image comprised of chromaticity and liminance components that do NOT represent the "raw" sensor state at time of read. I've worked with both mRAW and sRAW. You have far less editing freedom in post than you do with an actual RAW image. The range of exposure tuning freedom is limited to a couple stops at most, particularly in the brighter highlights and deeper shadows.

If someone doesn't have the computer horsepower to edit 46mp images (which IS a real-world concern...many Nikon D800 users complain that its 36mp images are too much for their computers to handle), then image size can indeed be a concern. On the flip side, bitching about the mere rumor of a 46.1mp camera is still ridiculous...if you don't want it, don't buy it!! If you want something in the 20mp range, then buy a friggin camera with 20mp. For those of us who do have the digital horsepower to crunch 46mp images in post and want a high resolution camera, more power to Canon and I really hope the thing sees the light of day!

Not only that, the camera will NOT likely shoot mRAW or sRAW.  Unless you want to wait 30-60 seconds between shots and wait on the camera to convert the RAW down to m or s.  Nikon chose not to do this in their D800/E models because of that reason.

mRAW and sRAW are great.  I use the medium RAW quite a lot.  It is not "the same as JPEG".

Of course the rumored 46mp Canon would offer mRAW and sRAW.  These are highly desirable options that Nikon doesn't offer.

The reason why it isn't offered is because it takes extra processing to make a med raw file meaning way longer than a human can tak for a file size that large unless it had CFast 2 the new compact flash card system and stellar buffer.
If i was into landscapes or got paid to do rediculous portraits of famous people i cant see a reason for this camera other than it would now compete or blow up the Nikon D800.
On another note, Nikon people, who i respect greatly as well as the brand by the way, used to say 12 mp was plenty since they didn't have more unless it was a 24mp D3x. Now they are thinking they corner the market somehow due to big mp. I just gotta laugh a little bit here.

[Zlatko]

The reason why it isn't offered is because it takes extra processing to make a med raw file meaning way longer than a human can tak for a file size that large unless it had CFast 2 the new compact flash card system and stellar buffer.

Sorry, I don't understand your point about extra processing time.  Canons shoot just as fast in mRAW and sRAW as in full RAW. 

[jrista]

WHY are some people complaining about too much resolution? This camera will most likely come with mRAW and sRAW function anyway.

You'd have the resolution when you wanted it, but could dial it back for a lot of other shots.

Simple.

You do realize that mRAW and sRAW are not actually RAW images, right? For all intents and purposes, they are the same thing as JPEG...YCC encoded and compressed data converted into an image comprised of chromaticity and liminance components that do NOT represent the "raw" sensor state at time of read. I've worked with both mRAW and sRAW. You have far less editing freedom in post than you do with an actual RAW image. The range of exposure tuning freedom is limited to a couple stops at most, particularly in the brighter highlights and deeper shadows.

If someone doesn't have the computer horsepower to edit 46mp images (which IS a real-world concern...many Nikon D800 users complain that its 36mp images are too much for their computers to handle), then image size can indeed be a concern. On the flip side, bitching about the mere rumor of a 46.1mp camera is still ridiculous...if you don't want it, don't buy it!! If you want something in the 20mp range, then buy a friggin camera with 20mp. For those of us who do have the digital horsepower to crunch 46mp images in post and want a high resolution camera, more power to Canon and I really hope the thing sees the light of day!

Not only that, the camera will NOT likely shoot mRAW or sRAW.  Unless you want to wait 30-60 seconds between shots and wait on the camera to convert the RAW down to m or s.  Nikon chose not to do this in their D800/E models because of that reason.

mRAW and sRAW are great.  I use the medium RAW quite a lot.  It is not "the same as JPEG".

Of course the rumored 46mp Canon would offer mRAW and sRAW.  These are highly desirable options that Nikon doesn't offer.

m/sRAW is indeed much the same as a JPEG. It is a processed image format. Ironically, both use a YCC-base chromaticity/luminance storage structure, and both are compressed. The only real difference is that JPEG is lossy-compressed, where as m/sRAW are losslessly compressed. But none of them are actually "RAW"...they take the RAW data from the sensor, process it, and burn in the tone curves (picture style) and all the other camera settings into a final output image. You have more latitude in an m/sRAW image than a JPEG because it is not compressed with a lossy algorithm...so you have all the original YCC data, and because that original YCC data is 14bpc, rather than 8bpc.

You can push exposure around in post with m/sRAW a bit, and you can do moderate white balance corrections. But if you need the ability to do any significant editing in post (say, when you accidentally over- or under-expose a photo), your pretty much screwed if you use either one of those "RAW-but-not-really" formats. I've experimented extensively with them, and particularly with highlights and white balance, your freedom to correct is greatly limited relative to a true RAW.

[WoodyWindy]

Between this and the rumor about a revamp of the APS C line, I'd be guessing that:
1. There is a new sensor technology coming that will be used across these units
2. The pixel pitch isn't changing much
3. That per-pixel exposure calculation patent sounds interesting
4. Combined with rear illumination (which, I'll say again, I'm shocked that it is even considered an innovation. I'd always assumed that was the way sensors worked...)
5. Combined with pixel binning of some form.
6. Probably a new series of Digic to process the mess.

What about a depth sensitive sensor, sorta like Foveon, but eliminating the red issue with a new color filter array, with alternating pixels sensing (by depth) two colors each, RG and BG. Leave the BG pixels unfiltered so you can get full LUM data, Green depth, and blue depth. Then have a yellow filter over the alternating pixels to let red and green have at it. You get 100% green coverage, and 50% each true b&w, red, and blue, instead of 50% green, 25% red, and 25% blue, and no full luminance data. If you wanted to get real fancy, you could still sense for a noisier red value from the unfiltered pixels, giving you 100% red coverage in good light.

[HurtinMinorKey]

The reason why it isn't offered is because it takes extra processing to make a med raw file meaning way longer than a human can tak for a file size that large unless it had CFast 2 the new compact flash card system and stellar buffer.

Sorry, I don't understand your point about extra processing time.  Canons shoot just as fast in mRAW and sRAW as in full RAW.

Semantic arguments aside about what does and does not constitute compression, using mRaw is just a different read off the sensor. It doesn't require any extra processing.  Raw data is maintained, albeit from fewer photosites.

[jrista]

The reason why it isn't offered is because it takes extra processing to make a med raw file meaning way longer than a human can tak for a file size that large unless it had CFast 2 the new compact flash card system and stellar buffer.

Sorry, I don't understand your point about extra processing time.  Canons shoot just as fast in mRAW and sRAW as in full RAW.

Semantic arguments aside about what does and does not constitute compression, using mRaw is just a different read off the sensor. It doesn't require any extra processing.  Raw data is maintained, albeit from fewer photosites.

Sorry, that's not true at all. RAW data is NOT maintained. These are YCC encoded formats (in this case, YCbCr). The sensor is read directly for luminance (Y), chrominance (Cb, Cr) reads DEMOSAIC THE PIXELS (!!),  and the information is processed to convert it into an entirely different format. The mRAW and sRAW formats utilize data from every pixel for the luminance channel (full luminance sampling). Color information for the Cr and Cb channels is interpolated from different pixel patterns (chrominance subsampling). The m/sRAW formats are 4:2:X pulldowns when it comes to encoding chrominance...4:2:2 in the case of mRAW and 4:2:0 in the case of sRAW.

This is very similar to how JPEG images are encoded, they also use a YCC variant (although one that preserves FAR less information). Its actually also very similar to how video frames are encoded.

There is no way, by any measure, that mRAW and sRAW can really be called "RAW" formats. They do not preserve the original sensor data in any way, shape, or form. The sensor is demosaiced for christ sake when reading and encoding chrominance channels.

For more information: http://dougkerr.net/Pumpkin/articles/sRaw.pdf

[Osiris36]

If the sensor is a 16-bit sensor with some kind of active cooling (no, not necessarily a fan), and Canon doesn't completely botch the ISO 100 and 200 electronic noise, then it could stomp all over the D800. With an extra two bits of information they could push 15 stops of DR, maybe even a little more (but no more than 16.0.)

My guess is that its still probably their same old sensor tech, but with some kind of efficient cooling to keep the sensor below room temperature (thereby reducing electronic noise), and extra bit depth. Canon needs the active cooling because they are either incapable of innovating and patenting technology similar but different enough to Sony Exmor, or there simply ISN'T another way to reduce noise electronically like Exmor, and Canon either has to pay Sony royalties, or do something entirely different.

It doesn't  matter if Canon choose 14 or 16 bit ADC as long the readout noise is so high as it is.
Canon with its old read out  technology and old sensor lines  can reduce the  readout noise slightly with slower read out, pictures/sec
Canon need Panasonic or Sony. (That Canon would buy sensors from Sony would be a huge loss of prestige)
Panasonic has the know how to use column-parallel analog-to-digital conversion
Panasonic has the column ADC technology Canon lacks.
Panasonic currently has a line of compact camera sensors - most of Canons compact cameras use Sony sensors.
Panasonic appears not to be able to make CMOS sensors that are as good as Canon at the pixel level.

So both companies can have benefit to work with each other

You don't really understand what you're saying if you're saying 16bit ADCs wouldn't make a difference.  16 bit ADCs in high speed mode will yield more reliable information than 14 bit ADCs if the input is anywhere near the 14 bit point from the pixel level data.  All that read noise everyone is thinking they are seeing is coming mostly from the ADCs being driven so fast with no headroom.  The column parallel ADC on sony/pana is good because:
1) they are very simple ADCs
2) they are very slow ADCs

Both of these are due to the pure numbers of them.  They are likely super conservative on both the count (probably way more than really needed) and performance (could be driven faster, but it's just cleaner this way).

[Zlatko]

m/sRAW is indeed much the same as a JPEG. It is a processed image format. Ironically, both use a YCC-base chromaticity/luminance storage structure, and both are compressed. The only real difference is that JPEG is lossy-compressed, where as m/sRAW are losslessly compressed. But none of them are actually "RAW"...they take the RAW data from the sensor, process it, and burn in the tone curves (picture style) and all the other camera settings into a final output image. You have more latitude in an m/sRAW image than a JPEG because it is not compressed with a lossy algorithm...so you have all the original YCC data, and because that original YCC data is 14bpc, rather than 8bpc.

You can push exposure around in post with m/sRAW a bit, and you can do moderate white balance corrections. But if you need the ability to do any significant editing in post (say, when you accidentally over- or under-expose a photo), your pretty much screwed if you use either one of those "RAW-but-not-really" formats. I've experimented extensively with them, and particularly with highlights and white balance, your freedom to correct is greatly limited relative to a true RAW.

Granted s/mRAW is not the same as full RAW, but your characterization of it as "much the same as JPEG" is not at all my experience.  I process 100's, usually 1,000's, of m/sRAW files every week and your characterization is not at all what I see.  If there is any less correct-ability than for full RAW, it is not meaningful in my work.  Perhaps your work is different.  I have all the latitude I need with m/sRAW files, but don't with JPEG.  With m/sRAW, I have made substantial adjustments to white balance and exposure many times with excellent results.  You can push them around in post more than just "a bit".

[Zlatko]

With all of the vulnerability you claim Canon is having, one would think you would be the first to be selling your Canon gear.  You say the D800 and D600 have superior sensors, and yet you haven't sold your Canon gear in order to buy Nikon?

these braindead arguments are very popular.

you can´t criticise canon without some clown (with a rebel and a kit lense probably) jumping in the discussion telling you to sell your gear.   

You can criticize Canon as much as  you wish, but when you make claims that Canon is failing and losing customers because of the supposed superiority of Nikon products, then you can expect to be asked why don't switch to the supposedly superior camera.  If it's so SUPERIOR, as claimed, then a switch would be the rationality and intelligent thing to do.  Who wouldn't want superior gear?  If a person makes such claims and states them as facts, but isn't switching, then that raises strong questions about their claims and their rationality.

[bdunbar79]

The reason why it isn't offered is because it takes extra processing to make a med raw file meaning way longer than a human can tak for a file size that large unless it had CFast 2 the new compact flash card system and stellar buffer.

Sorry, I don't understand your point about extra processing time.  Canons shoot just as fast in mRAW and sRAW as in full RAW.

You may want to Google this and review mRAW and sRAW creation.

[jrista]

The reason why it isn't offered is because it takes extra processing to make a med raw file meaning way longer than a human can tak for a file size that large unless it had CFast 2 the new compact flash card system and stellar buffer.

Sorry, I don't understand your point about extra processing time.  Canons shoot just as fast in mRAW and sRAW as in full RAW.

You may want to Google this and review mRAW and sRAW creation.

I can't say I've experienced any marked degredation in write speed when using mRAW/sRAW. It isn't that much different than JPEG, same general processing however with more bits. JPEG can be written out at an ungodly rate, and that rate can be sustained nearly forever. You probably couldn't write out 150-200 m/sRAW continuous, but they shouldn't reduce your frame rate. The biggest drag on frame rate and buffer depth is the size of data WRITTEN to the memory card. The Digic chip is explicitly designed to handle the conversion processing, and shouldn't be imposing a noticeable drag.

[V8Beast]

How long until we hear about people who switched to Nikon wanting to switch back to Canon..... 

You won't because most of them never switched.

[Zlatko]

The reason why it isn't offered is because it takes extra processing to make a med raw file meaning way longer than a human can tak for a file size that large unless it had CFast 2 the new compact flash card system and stellar buffer.

Sorry, I don't understand your point about extra processing time.  Canons shoot just as fast in mRAW and sRAW as in full RAW.

You may want to Google this and review mRAW and sRAW creation.

Why Google it when my cameras create these files all of the time and there is no perceptible difference in write speed vs. full RAW?  The buffer clears in about the same time as when writing full RAW.  Is Google going to tell me that it takes 30-60 seconds to create a medium RAW file?  If so, it is wrong.

I'm pretty sure Nikon doesn't offer medium/small RAW because Canon has the patent, not because "it takes extra processing time".

[HurtinMinorKey]

Sorry, that's not true at all. RAW data is NOT maintained. These are YCC encoded formats (in this case, YCbCr). The sensor is read directly for luminance (Y), chrominance (Cb, Cr) reads DEMOSAIC THE PIXELS (!!),  and the information is processed to convert it into an entirely different format. The mRAW and sRAW formats utilize data from every pixel for the luminance channel (full luminance sampling). Color information for the Cr and Cb channels is interpolated from different pixel patterns (chrominance subsampling). The m/sRAW formats are 4:2:X pulldowns when it comes to encoding chrominance...4:2:2 in the case of mRAW and 4:2:0 in the case of sRAW.

This is very similar to how JPEG images are encoded, they also use a YCC variant (although one that preserves FAR less information). Its actually also very similar to how video frames are encoded.

There is no way, by any measure, that mRAW and sRAW can really be called "RAW" formats. They do not preserve the original sensor data in any way, shape, or form. The sensor is demosaiced for christ sake when reading and encoding chrominance channels.

For more information: http://dougkerr.net/Pumpkin/articles/sRaw.pdf

There are no pixels on the sensor, only photo sites. The sRaw, and mRaw formats use information from fewer photo sites, but do not throw away any information from the photosites that are retained (or at least at the same level as regular Raw). The "pixels" are then generated from interpolation.

[Blaze]

There is no way, by any measure, that mRAW and sRAW can really be called "RAW" formats. They do not preserve the original sensor data in any way, shape, or form. The sensor is demosaiced for christ sake when reading and encoding chrominance channels.

For more information: http://dougkerr.net/Pumpkin/articles/sRaw.pdf

The article you linked to disagrees with you. The author claims that the sensor is not demosaiced, but rather that color four each pixel is computed from 2x2 RGGB blocks of photodetectors.

Relevant quote: " Thus, we can see that perhaps what happens to the Raw data on its way to the sRaw format does  not, rigorously, involve either demosaicing or downsampling."