The Perfect Sensor

[mackguyver]

So, let's fast forward 10+ years to where we have achieved the perfect sensor. It can do the following:

-Record nearly infinite numbers of photons and scale to whatever pixels you want
-Expose and record every detail in any light over 0.01 LUX
-Record in 256-bits with DR surpassing anything our own eyes can even see
-Correct any and all optical defects in any and all lenses

So...if I had this sensor, you know what I would be?
BORED.

Why? Because photos would look just like real life and be limited only by our own eyes.

Photos are an interpretation of reality, not reality. Light and shadows give photos depth and meaning, which is why so many HDR photos are just dull and flat. The limitations of film are why so many film photos are better than most digital photos in all regards other than sharpness.

The unconstrained mind is not creative.

-Jack Handy
(these are my Deep Thoughts for the week)

 

[privatebydesign]

Because photos would look just like real life and be limited only by our own eyes.

No they wouldn't, they would look like the recent field of sunflowers that has been posted a lot here recently.

Ansel Adams made some of the most captivating and atmospheric studies of the American scenery ever with 11 stops of recordable DR (but boy he took his understanding of those 11 stops to a level few here can appreciate), people like Galen Rowell did the same thing around the world in colour with little more than 6 stops of DR. Sensor performance, even though it is the new kicking bag, equals or surpasses even negative film for DR, iso and resolution. DR is as much a red herring as megapixels were once we arrived at levels that vastly outstripped most of our needs.

Sure there are areas where performance increases can be made, and they will be, but throwing our toys out of the pram at every opportunity because we only see limitations rather than possibilities is pathetic, a true first world "problem". We have "more" than anybody else ever has in the history of photography, yet here all many seem to do is bitch it isn't enough.

I am a working pro, my output from seven year old cameras is the best I have ever made in 35 years of doing this.

 

[mackguyver]

Because photos would look just like real life and be limited only by our own eyes.

No they wouldn't, they would look like the recent field of sunflowers that has been posted a lot here recently.

Ansel Adams made some of the most captivating and atmospheric studies of the American scenery ever with 11 stops of recordable DR (but boy he took his understanding of those 11 stops to a level few here can appreciate), people like Galen Rowell did the same thing around the world in colour with little more than 6 stops of DR. Sensor performance, even though it is the new kicking bag, equals or surpasses even negative film for DR, iso and resolution. DR is as much a red herring as megapixels were once we arrived at levels that vastly outstripped most of our needs.

Sure there are areas where performance increases can be made, and they will be, but throwing our toys out of the pram at every opportunity because we only see limitations rather than possibilities is pathetic, a true first world "problem". We have "more" than anybody else ever has in the history of photography, yet here all many seem to do is bitch it isn't enough.

I am a working pro, my output from seven year old cameras is the best I have ever made in 35 years of doing this.

It's my imaginary sensor so I can say the photos look like anything I want -- but I understand and just found the sunflowers GIF you were talking about (I think). I'm not saying that DR is meaningless, but like you say, these aren't real problems. We have amazing tools these days and between the digital sensors, multiple exposures, sharp lenses, and PhotoShop, there's really no excuse for taking poor photos.

I've been going through my work lately as I prepare for this year's NANPA Showcase photo competition (the only one I do), it's amazing how little difference I see in my old Rebel XSi/T2i photos vs. my newest work with the 5DIII and 1D X. That's exactly why I bought good glass and waited to upgrade my bodies...and why I'll probably have the same two bodies in 5 years...

 

[Sporgon]

So, let's fast forward 10+ years to where we have achieved the perfect sensor. It can do the following:

-Record nearly infinite numbers of photons and scale to whatever pixels you want
-Expose and record every detail in any light over 0.01 LUX
-Record in 256-bits with DR surpassing anything our own eyes can even see
-Correct any and all optical defects in any and all lenses

So...if I had this sensor, you know what I would be?
BORED.

Why? Because photos would look just like real life and be limited only by our own eyes.

Photos are an interpretation of reality, not reality. Light and shadows give photos depth and meaning, which is why so many HDR photos are just dull and flat. The limitations of film are why so many film photos are better than most digital photos in all regards other than sharpness.

The unconstrained mind is not creative.

-Jack Handy
(these are my Deep Thoughts for the week)

+1,

I said more or less the same thing but in an arse-about-face way on another thread and was told by a regular member that I was being 'elitist', 'egotistical', and wanting to keep quality photography 'out of the reach of novices'.

With proper technique there is virtually nothing that can't be done with the current sensors. The 'low ISO read noise' of the current sensors is irrelevant to the vast majority of users, from those who just don't know and don't care to those skilled, who's techniques result in the same view.

The fact is that is you stretch the latitude of the sensor, even if you don't get excessive noise, you still get a flat, desaturated result that is wholly inferior to the results from a camera ten years ago where sound technique has been applied. So in other words some people are howling for an advancement in technology that will still produce an inferior result when compared with doing the job properly on much older tech.

Do I want to see sensors where you can lift data by four stops and produce a result that is indistinguishable from data that has been recorded with the correct exposure ? No I don't.

Despite all the remarkable advances that digital has made to photography at the present time skilled traditional photographic technique is still required to produce the best technical quality result. Even a five stop bracket on sunflowers shows how you can still get it wrong. But with the current rate of advance I don't see that lasting for ever.

 

[mackguyver]

Even a five stop bracket on sunflowers shows how you can still get it wrong. But with the current rate of advance I don't see that lasting for ever.

I agree and since I'm not shy, I'll post my own failure by showing two simple landscape compositions. Here's a recent shot I took and layered with great care. It wouldn't have been the greatest shot anyways, but the luminosity blending just doesn't do it for me. Even though it comes very close to what I saw with my own eyes, there's something I don't like about it and that something is too much DR. I have tweaked the contrast, shadows, and many other things a whole lot, but in the end, it just doesn't look right to me.

On the other hand, here's another shot with MUCH less DR that does not accurately represent what I saw with my own eyes (the trees had some detail) but I am much happier with this photo.

 

[privatebydesign]

+1,

I said more or less the same thing but in an arse-about-face way on another thread and was told by a regular member that I was being 'elitist', 'egotistical', and wanting to keep quality photography 'out of the reach of novices'.

With proper technique there is virtually nothing that can't be done with the current sensors. The 'low ISO read noise' of the current sensors is irrelevant to the vast majority of users, from those who just don't know and don't care to those skilled, who's techniques result in the same view.

The fact is that is you stretch the latitude of the sensor, even if you don't get excessive noise, you still get a flat, desaturated result that is wholly inferior to the results from a camera ten years ago where sound technique has been applied. So in other words some people are howling for an advancement in technology that will still produce an inferior result when compared with doing the job properly on much older tech.

Do I want to see sensors where you can lift data by four stops and produce a result that is indistinguishable from data that has been recorded with the correct exposure ? No I don't.

Despite all the remarkable advances that digital has made to photography at the present time skilled traditional photographic technique is still required to produce the best technical quality result. Even a five stop bracket on sunflowers shows how you can still get it wrong. But with the current rate of advance I don't see that lasting for ever.

But Sporgon, that is because you are " 'elitist', 'egotistical'," and you do want to keep quality photography "'out of the reach of novices'. "

 

[Aglet]

OMG, the levels of philosophical BS predicting the detriment of creativity brought on by better tools is amazing.

art is the product of the artist and their tools, expanding either one increases the possibilities.

 

[mackguyver]

OMG, the levels of philosophical BS predicting the detriment of creativity brought on by better tools is amazing.

art is the product of the artist and their tools, expanding either one increases the possibilities.

That was actually my point. I was just exaggerating it to the nth degree because so many people act like the tools are all that matter. My point was not that technology is bad, just that in solving real (or perceived) problems, you can't overcome genuine problems (i.e. lack of creativity) that interfere with taking good photographs.

 

[privatebydesign]

art is the product of the artist and their tools

How would you know that, did you read it?

 

[Sporgon]

But Sporgon, that is because you are " 'elitist', 'egotistical'," and you do want to keep quality photography "'out of the reach of novices'. "

The last person who told me I was egotistical was a much younger woman I was in bed with

 

[privatebydesign]

But Sporgon, that is because you are " 'elitist', 'egotistical'," and you do want to keep quality photography "'out of the reach of novices'. "

The last person who told me I was egotistical was a much younger woman I was in bed with

I thought jrista* was a guy! ;D

*Apologies in advance if it wasn't jrista that made the comment.

 

[Sporgon]

Even a five stop bracket on sunflowers shows how you can still get it wrong. But with the current rate of advance I don't see that lasting for ever.

I agree and since I'm not shy, I'll post my own failure by showing two simple landscape compositions. Here's a recent shot I took and layered with great care. It wouldn't have been the greatest shot anyways, but the luminosity blending just doesn't do it for me. Even though it comes very close to what I saw with my own eyes, there's something I don't like about it and that something is too much DR. I have tweaked the contrast, shadows, and many other things a whole lot, but in the end, it just doesn't look right to me.

On the other hand, here's another shot with MUCH less DR that does not accurately represent what I saw with my own eyes (the trees had some detail) but I am much happier with this photo.

What you probably find dissatisfying about the first picture is that it is too close to how we see things. The old artist masters of past years, way before the advent of photography, could, if they had so wished, have painted things as we actually see them. After all they could lift the shadows as much as they wanted. But they didn't. They enhanced the shadows, increased the contrast, purposely lost detail in the shadows and so on. Why ? Because they wanted to produce a picture that is pleasing to look at just as we do now.

If you look at a scene with a decent EV range and consider what you are looking at you realise that we see things very flat, which is probably why we have such good DR ( Even better than the Nikon D800 !! : ), but it makes for a very poor picture.

No one here has talked of technology taking over from creativity, just the human input necessarily to produce technically sound results.

 

[crashpc]

Man, you have no idea. There are some aspects in which ones eyes are pretty good.
Only thing I see is using 22nm tech, resolution strictly limited by lens dispersions and diffractions, up to 20 stops of usable DR, and fast FPS, augmented graphics with eye recognition (antitheft + onfocus with your eyes + shoot with your eye blink in viewfinder )

 

[unfocused]

What I am convinced will happen (although it may take more than a decade to perfect) is the "light field" focusing-after-the-shot technology.

Frankly, I've got really mixed emotions about this. After all, wouldn't we all want to be able to know that that Eagle that we shot catching a fish would be perfectly in focus every time? On the other hand, will this suck all the fun out of photography if EVERY shot you take is perfectly focused and you can change the focus to anything in the picture?

What if anyone in the stands can shoot a picture of the winning touchdown pass and get it perfectly in focus, every single time?

And what about wedding photographers? Imagine all the classic shots (exchanging rings, throwing the bouquet, feeding each other cake, etc.) able to refocus and shift the focus at will.

Page after page of people anguishing over sensors and dynamic range when the biggest, baddest industry disrupting technology is sneaking up behind us.

 

[dak723]

I agree and since I'm not shy, I'll post my own failure by showing two simple landscape compositions. Here's a recent shot I took and layered with great care. It wouldn't have been the greatest shot anyways, but the luminosity blending just doesn't do it for me. Even though it comes very close to what I saw with my own eyes, there's something I don't like about it and that something is too much DR. I have tweaked the contrast, shadows, and many other things a whole lot, but in the end, it just doesn't look right to me.

On the other hand, here's another shot with MUCH less DR that does not accurately represent what I saw with my own eyes (the trees had some detail) but I am much happier with this photo.

Artists have often taken on this subject of dynamic range - probably before the beginnings of photography. In art, there have been two approaches to what the eye sees. Since our eyes adjust automatically and instantaneously to changes in light, we can consider the entire dynamic range to be "what the eye sees." However, the other approach is to isolate the moment of viewing (much as a camera does). So, when we look into the light, we don't see details in shadows and they appear darker. And when we do look into the dark, we can see into the shadows and lights appear lighter. Each of these scenarios is just as much "what the eye sees," in my opinion

My background is drawing and painting, so the subject of dynamic range is a familiar one although artists would call it value range. Generally speaking, the artist is taught to decide whether to show details and multiple values in the lights OR the darks, but not both. If your subject is mainly in the light, then you will usually show smaller value increments and more detail within the areas in the light and show little or no details or value differences in the darks (or shadows). If the subject is mainly in shadow, then subtle variations and details are shown in the shadows and not in the lights. This approach, obviously, compares the eye to the camera - it cannot adjust to both light and shadow at the same time. Of course, since there is no consensus in art, many artists don't use this approach and their paintings will have the value range that includes all the values the eye sees after adjusting to both the light and dark.

Personally, I think the more minimal range is closer to what the eye sees, so I agree that the first photo of yours doesn't look quite right. Not enough contrast. And that is why the more limited DR of the Canon sensor doesn't bother me. Contrast is more important in both art and photography than capturing many subtle gradations of light and dark, in my opinion (and may actually be closer to what the eye sees).

Nice photos, by the way!

 

[Orangutan]

What I am convinced will happen (although it may take more than a decade to perfect) is the "light field" focusing-after-the-shot technology.

Frankly, I've got really mixed emotions about this. After all, wouldn't we all want to be able to know that that Eagle that we shot catching a fish would be perfectly in focus every time? On the other hand, will this suck all the fun out of photography if EVERY shot you take is perfectly focused and you can change the focus to anything in the picture?

What if anyone in the stands can shoot a picture of the winning touchdown pass and get it perfectly in focus, every single time?

And what about wedding photographers? Imagine all the classic shots (exchanging rings, throwing the bouquet, feeding each other cake, etc.) able to refocus and shift the focus at will.

Page after page of people anguishing over sensors and dynamic range when the biggest, baddest industry disrupting technology is sneaking up behind us.

This doesn't worry me a lot, in part because I don't earn a living with photography. I suppose film photographers of yore could have fretted about what would happen if fancy darkrooms and chemicals weren't needed -- why then everyone could be a photographer!! There are people now who specialize in post-processing: Photoshop all day long. There's creativity there. There's also the choice of subject, POV, etc. Video and lightfield will take the timing and focus elements out of it. Those who care enough to develop their aesthetic sense and skills will still rise above the masses.

 

[RLPhoto]

MF and LF sensors are affordable and we've forgotten about 35mm for serious IQ.

 

[100]

So, let's fast forward 10+ years to where we have achieved the perfect sensor. It can do the following:

-Record nearly infinite numbers of photons and scale to whatever pixels you want
-Expose and record every detail in any light over 0.01 LUX
-Record in 256-bits with DR surpassing anything our own eyes can even see
-Correct any and all optical defects in any and all lenses

So...if I had this sensor, you know what I would be?
BORED.

Maybe some painter 700 years ago with a limited colour palette imagined a future with pigments in every colour of the rainbow and said how bored he would be…

He might be, but having more possibilities doesn’t mean having less opportunities to be creative. Today we have so much more possibilities and I see no indication of diminishing creativity, do you?

The limitations of film are why so many film photos are better than most digital photos in all regards other than sharpness.

So why do you own digital camera’s if you think the limitations of film make your photos better in all regards other than sharpness? Sharpness in itself is a technical aspect, not a creative one. Take a digital image, play with levels and curves, add some grain and you can reproduce the limitations of film if you want to. Or buy some Photoshop plug-inn that will do it for you in just a view mouse clicks.

A “perfect sensor” helps to overcome technical limits so a boring composition with blown highlights and black shadows will become a boring composition without blown highlights and black shadows but it will still be boring.

 

[Policar]

Because photos would look just like real life and be limited only by our own eyes.

Photos are an interpretation of reality, not reality. Light and shadows give photos depth and meaning, which is why so many HDR photos are just dull and flat. The limitations of film are why so many film photos are better than most digital photos in all regards other than sharpness.

The unconstrained mind is not creative.

-Jack Handy
(these are my Deep Thoughts for the week)

I disagree. The reason film looks better is because it has less dynamic range so you're forced to chase scenes in which the lighting is better, but the reason having less dynamic range in the scene is better in the first place is because...

Printed images have 4-5 stops at most of contrast.

Computer screens rarely have more than 9-10 stops of contrast.

But OLEDs have TONS more. On a perfect OLED display in a perfectly dark room your perfect sensor might look like real life. But even when we get to that screen few viewing conditions will be set up to match it, but if there were that might look like real life and it would look awesome.

Sensors are way ahead. Lenses and displays are behind. The nicest thing I've seen yet is a large format transparency on a light table. HUGE contrast ratio and color gamut of a scene with limited scene DR.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

OMG, the levels of philosophical BS predicting the detriment of creativity brought on by better tools is amazing.

art is the product of the artist and their tools, expanding either one increases the possibilities.

+1

(not a thread worthy of more than these words)