EOS-1D X Mark II Sensor Talk [CR2]
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
Edit: Joke flew over my head, clubbed me in the back and stole my kidney.
Bdunbar, if what you posted was all in sarcasm I apologise.
I've posted similar things occasionally, and occasionally been misunderstood.
Over the years I've come to the conclusion that best practice is to literally write out somewhere in your post that you were joking.
Unfortunately the emoticon Neuro suggests is also invisible to me because I've been doing 90% of my forum browsing on mobile with images turned off (gets rid of ads and uses virtually no bandwidth).
Bdunbar, if what you posted was all in sarcasm I apologise.
I've posted similar things occasionally, and occasionally been misunderstood.
Over the years I've come to the conclusion that best practice is to literally write out somewhere in your post that you were joking.
Unfortunately the emoticon Neuro suggests is also invisible to me because I've been doing 90% of my forum browsing on mobile with images turned off (gets rid of ads and uses virtually no bandwidth).
Upvote
0
bdunbar79 said:
Ironically it does look like Canon's dynamic range at high ISO is limited by noise, and the two are practically the same subject at the moment (reducing high ISO noise practically produces better high ISO dynamic range). But the statement I objected to obviously was not intended to be practical.
Upvote
0
9VIII,
No problem. I understand. To reciprocate I will remove my posts. Water under the bridge. I apologize.
No problem. I understand. To reciprocate I will remove my posts. Water under the bridge. I apologize.
Upvote
0
dilbert said:
Here we go again dilbert. First, nobody said it was ONLY dependent on pixel size. Did they? You couldn't be that stupid. Please explain then, how you could take the sensor of the 1Dx, and increase DR at ISO 6400 1 stop. How would you do that dilbert?
Upvote
0
I want to assume the pixels won't get larger. That's really the only way I know to increase the FWC in the current 1Dx sensor. If that won't happen, can the DR improve at high ISO by a 1/2 or a full stop? If so, how will they do it?
Upvote
0
bdunbar79 said:
One way would be to move to a finer fabrication process. This would result in less "wasted space" and would improve the quantum efficiency... they MIGHT get a third of a stop from that, but it would be pushing it....
Upvote
0
pedro said:
Technology, if Canon employs it, can go a long way towards making high ISO BETTER with smaller pixels. Multi-layered photodiodes, used in a bayer design, could increase the FWC of each pixel. That means more light gathered per pixel, which increases SNR. So, if Canon employs some of the technological edge they have at least described in patents, they very well could make the 1D X II better at high ISO with smaller pixels. It's not impossible.
The big question is what kind of technology will Canon employ...
Upvote
0
The finer fabrication process is only one way to improve things, and I am sure that there are a lot more. Look at the 7D replacement 7D2.... The megapixel count went up, yet the ISO performance went up by about 1 1/2 stops, only about a half stop could be explained by a fabrication change. I would expect that going from a 1DX to a 1DX2 would be at least a similar gain.... unless Canon has a few more surprises for us...pedro said:
Upvote
0
Don Haines said:
Aye, more than one way to skin a sensor.
Backside Illumination. Multi-layered Photodiodes. CCD backing stores (i.e. multi-bucket pixels). Deep photodiodes (the photodiode is deeper, and the charge separation layer reaches deeper, increasing it's surface area, which increases charge capacity).
There are also more out of the box concepts, like continuous readout. This is where during exposure, the pixels are basically photon counters and bit flippers, and constantly read out. Rather than accumulating charge, you simply ratchet up an infinite count. To be effective (i.e. to not accumulate massive amounts of read noise at the same time), other technological improvements are necessary to keep read noise extremely low, and Q.E. apparently needs to be very high (basically 100% for them to actually act as photon counters, and I don't know that 100% is actually totally necessary), but it is technically a means of achieving infinite dynamic range. (And that might even be possible if counts were done in/converted to a 32-bit float rather than a 16-bit int.)
Upvote
0
jrista said:
I'd like to see such a system as it'd be able to effectively create as low an ISO value as you'd like. You could expose for as long as you want and just scale the numbers, no more ND filters!
I'd like that... but that could imply a lot of readout noise potential too, pending how it's done.
OTOH, I don't think anyone's yet made use of "black silicon" surface treatment to improve QE by drastically lowering reflections. Altho I think Panasonic had that interesting looking patent for a graduated sort of surface, something-or-other method that would have worked in a similar sort of way... who's got the link for that?..
Upvote
0
jrista said:Don Haines said:
Aye, more than one way to skin a sensor.
Backside Illumination. Multi-layered Photodiodes. CCD backing stores (i.e. multi-bucket pixels). Deep photodiodes (the photodiode is deeper, and the charge separation layer reaches deeper, increasing it's surface area, which increases charge capacity).
There are also more out of the box concepts, like continuous readout. This is where during exposure, the pixels are basically photon counters and bit flippers, and constantly read out. Rather than accumulating charge, you simply ratchet up an infinite count. To be effective (i.e. to not accumulate massive amounts of read noise at the same time), other technological improvements are necessary to keep read noise extremely low, and Q.E. apparently needs to be very high (basically 100% for them to actually act as photon counters, and I don't know that 100% is actually totally necessary), but it is technically a means of achieving infinite dynamic range. (And that might even be possible if counts were done in/converted to a 32-bit float rather than a 16-bit int.)
I've read also about electron multiplier CCD sensors. This thing can essentially raise ultra-low signal above read noise level. In this way both DR and high ISO could be improved dramatically. But I can imagine even APS-C sized sensor would be insanely expensive.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
