Dynamic Range & Camera IQ

[Aglet]

..the patent from Canon for a layered sensor design. I've looked at it a few times, and I'm not sure it compared to the current Foveon patens from Sigma, but I really hope/wish they would develop the technology further. I could totally go for a 22mp layered sensor.

they could, maybe
but isn't that layered sensor exactly what they're now using as the color-sensitive AE sensor that's been used in most bodies since the 7D came out with it...
I like it, metering and AWB has been much better since it's arrived

 

[dtaylor]

Ditto. I was pretty excited when I saw the patent from Canon for a layered sensor design. I've looked at it a few times, and I'm not sure it compared to the current Foveon patens from Sigma, but I really hope/wish they would develop the technology further. I could totally go for a 22mp layered sensor.

Maybe the 3D is a 46 MP layered sensor. Shut all the Nikon guys up ;D

Only problem is that if that were true it would cost $10k

 

[Aglet]

Ditto. I was pretty excited when I saw the patent from Canon for a layered sensor design. I've looked at it a few times, and I'm not sure it compared to the current Foveon patens from Sigma, but I really hope/wish they would develop the technology further. I could totally go for a 22mp layered sensor.

Maybe the 3D is a 46 MP layered sensor. Shut all the Nikon guys up ;D

Only problem is that if that were true it would cost $10k

I asked a Canon rep if they intended to do anything like that back when Foveon first hit the scene.
The negative response was, of course, meaningless.
Like politicians, mfrs will deny deny deny until it suits them to do otherwise.
So, here's hoping Canon has some geniune ingenuity to show us for next year.

Somehow I can just imaging their engineering staff pacing feverishly, saying, "Dammit! How could you announce something like that?!? We don't even have a working prototype!"

 

[PVS]

I can discuss facts whenever you want
I do not think I am the one who has trouble to understands facts= DR full well capacity, QE and read out noise+ banding and pattern noise

First of all - all that bolding is childish and unnecessary, it doesn't really help you make your point come through, it just makes you seem rude.

Secondly, stop confusing DR with exposure latitude, DR isn't actually about how much you can under/over expose, especially not about doing it in post-process. Seriously.

 

[rpt]

Somehow I can just imaging their engineering staff pacing feverishly, saying, "Dammit! How could you announce something like that?!? We don't even have a working prototype!"

I know the feeling. When you are hit with that kind of situation as the person responsible for delivery, you are angry and wonder "what were they thinking?". But then in hindsight, it is better to be challenged rather than be left alone in one's comfort zone. This is the story about a multitasking communication software my group developed that worked on DOS 3.x! And for those who wonder why it is a big deal, well one is only allowed to use the words "multitasking" and "DOS" in a sentence when the word "NOT" is placed in between them...

 

[Meh]

@dtaylor and @jrista...... +1 as usual

People please listen to what these gentlemen are saying and ignore all the rest

 

[ecka]

I mentioned the Foveon X3 as a benchmark for Bayer sensor in terms of resolution (per-pixel color accuracy at low ISO).

I think your falling into the same trap as most when comparing a Foveon with a Bayer. Bayer is only limited relative to Foveon in terms of color fidelity. A layered sensor design is capable of much greater color fidelity and accuracy because its capturing a full quantity of color information at every photosite. That also gives it another slight edge as it does not need a low-pass filter to eliminate color moire, since color moire doesn't exhibit. However Bayer sensors ARE detecting luminance data at every photosite, and there is no question they are capable of discerning a finer gradation of detail than a Foveon sensor...DESPITE the fact that their pixels are interpolated. I'm not sure an 18mp FF sensor is really going to be a significant edge, resolution wise, over a Foveon. But an 18mp APS-C sensor is going to resolve considerably more detail than a 15mp Foveon, and for that matter more detail than a 36.3mp sensor. Similarly, a 46.1mp FF sensor is going to be capable of the same resolving power as an 18mp APS-C.

The three-fold difference in luminance resolution and a far greater number of color pixels, several stops better ISO performance, and much greater spatial resolution, even when factoring in interpolation, gives a significant edge to Bayer in this case.

I get it, you (me too; we) take "quantity over quality" , because it is good enough and because Foveon X3 is worse in many other ways (obviously). However, that doesn't change anything. Foveon X3 is still a benchmark for Bayer sensor resolution.

18mp APS-C sensor is going to resolve considerably more detail than a 15mp Foveon

I disagree. 15mp Foveon will give you more 'true data' of what you are shooting, because considerable amount of 18mp Bayer resolution is fake+destroyed, due to false color and AA filter. For screen, 2x2 pixel binning eliminates those problems and gives us Foveon-like quality at 1/4 of the original sensor resolution (~5mp is plenty for screen, including some cropping). For print, 15mp Foveon with 1.5-2x interpolation is an adequate competition for today's 20+mp Bayer output.
18mp APS-C is going to resolve more detail than 18mp FF? This is only true if you are measuring mp/inch, which is ridiculous, because for current level of technology 'same image resolution / smaller pixels = lower IQ'. Let's keep it at mp/image level.
I'm not sure if Foveon could evolve into something much better, but future cameras may have Bayer sensors with hundreds of megapixels and high levels of pixel binning - like 4x4 sRAW for clean Foveon-like 20+mp resolution at high ISO settings and/or higher fps, 3x3 mRAW or 2x2 standart RAW. That's my vision .

 

[ecka]

I suggest you start reading more carefully. I never said that I care more about the cow than the milk. I care about both actually.

My initial critique was that you seemed to care most about per-pixel performance. That may be ok if you are an engineer. If you are a photographer, one would expect you to care more about the final image than the individual pixels.

Often the two will be correlated, sometimes they are not.

The thing is - if "cows" are fine then the "milk" is fine automatically, but not 'vice versa'.

If you care about milk, then it is the milk you should care about. The cows health may affect the quality of the milk, but other factors may as well. If the shop is leaving the milk for too long outside, it may be sour. No amount of checking of the cows well-being will reveal that the super-market has a lazy milk handler.

For your reference (removed irrelevant parts):

...For me it's all about camera's per-pixel color reproduction performance.

I care about images, not pixels. People that obsess with per-pixel image quality seems to be less interested in images that I am.

Like I said earlier, a 3 MP camera might have fantastic per-pixel performance - and poor image quality. A 36 MP camera might have mediocre per-pixel performance and fantastic image quality. If you purchase a camera in order to obsess with 1:1 displays on your screen, then by all means use per-pixel quality as a guide. If you are interested in photography for the images, I suggest using images as a guide.

-h

3mp camera with fantastic per-pixel performance won't produce poor quality images. It will produce fantastic 3mp images. Why it is so hard to understand? :-\
If 36mp camera has mediocre per-pixel performance and fantastic image quality, then perhaps it means that you don't need 36mp for what you do. 20mp camera may be just as good and even better in term of high ISO, fps, file size, etc. Why do you need those useless, false, made-up bits of information?