New Sensor Tech in EOS 7D Mark II [CR2]

[x-vision]

"... an image sensor including pixels each having a pair of photoelectric conversion units (photodiodes) capable of outputting the pair of image signals obtained by independently receiving a pair of light beams...

Btw, the word 'photodiode' is not even mentioned in the patent. So, you basically forged this quote.

The patent talks about sub-pixels, not photodiodes.
Your entire stance is based on forged/misinterpreted information.

 

[mkabi]

Anybody think it's possible Canon could drop a dedicated processor into the 7D2 to handle AF subject recognition, like the 1DX does?

Better noise handling is my biggest want but a superb AF system is a close second.

It depends. If the 7D II hits with a new DIGIC processor, they may not need to resort to a dedicated AF processor. Each generation of DIGIC chips gets considerably more powerful than their predecessors. I'd imagine a DIGIC 7 would be quite considerably more capable than the DIGIC 6 used in some of the more compact cameras. DIGIC 6 does a LOT of image processing (It's more like Sony's Bionz X chip than the DIGIC 5), with high quality noise reduction, high quality video processing, etc. If Canon created a DIGIC 7 with some 7x or so more processing power than the DIGIC 6, they could easily handle high frame rates as well as high end AF capabilities all in the one chip (or two chips, as it's probably likely to be.)

I'm hoping for a dual-Digic 6+ or dual-Digic 7...

 

[x-vision]

If your claim isn't based solely on that image, then upon what VERIFIABLE FACTS (you know...things like patents) is it based?

See my previous reply to Jrista.

He's been misleading you all - based on his (mis)interpetations of Canon's patents.
The Canon patent he quoted talks about sub-pixels, no photodiodes, as Jrista claims.
So, verify your facts when siding with someone. Otherwise, you end up looking a fool yourself.

 

[Loswr]

If your claim isn't based solely on that image, then upon what VERIFIABLE FACTS (you know...things like patents) is it based?

See my previous reply to Jrista.

He's been misleading you all - based on his (mis)interpetations of Canon's patents.
The Canon patent he quoted talks about sub-pixels, no photodiodes, as Jrista claims.
So, verify your facts when siding with someone. Otherwise, you end up looking a fool yourself.

It clearly states TWO sub-pixels for each pixel, not four as you've been claiming all along. Please, just stop...you're embarrassing yourself.

 

[Don Haines]

Who is more foolish, the fool, or the fool that keeps arguing with him?

Gentlemen, it is more than obvious that you are not ever going to agree. Give it a rest. Go take some pictures.... have a beer, watch a soccer game.. relax.. chill out.... hug your wife... play with a kitten...

There are far more important things to do than continue a battle where both sides loose.

 

[x-vision]

It clearly states TWO sub-pixels for each pixel, not four as you've been claiming all along.

Good. At least we've have established that these are sub-pixels, not photodiodes.

But I guess that also makes Jrista's hundreds of misleading claims about photodiodes all false.
It seems that he's the one who's been continuously embarrassing himself - together with the small
gang lining up in support of an imposter.

Me? I just made a speculation that instead of two sub-pixels, Canon is using four.
That's not the least embarrassing.

LOL. I'm having so much fun.

 

[danski0224]

I'm hoping for a Foveon type sensor

 

[Orangutan]

LOL. I'm having so much fun.

But you're learning nothing, not about photography nor about communicating with people.

 

[Loswr]

LOL. I'm having so much fun.

But you're learning nothing, not about photography nor about communicating with people.

Gaining new knowledge and effective communication are not priorities for trolls.

 

[Loswr]

Me? I just made a speculation that instead of two sub-pixels, Canon is using four.
That's not the least embarrassing.

Persistent defending a clearly flawed argument with a complete lack of supporting evidence against all documented evidence to the contrary is what you should be embarrassed about. The fact that you seem to find it amusing says much about your character...and none of it good.

 

[x-vision]

Persistent defending a clearly flawed argument with a complete lack of supporting evidence against all documented evidence to the contrary is what you should be embarrassed about. The fact that you seem to find it amusing says much about your character...and none of it good.

I think I've said at least a hundred times that I've been only speculating.
And yet, you keep repeating that I'm defending a flawed argument. I'm not.

Here it is one last time: I was/am just speculating ... on a speculation forum.
Got it?

On the other hand, I did show that another forum member, jrista, has been making baseless claims.
That's not the issue, though. He's been bullying people, including myself, with these claims.

But somehow that's OK with you. In fact, you are obviously sympathetic and supportive of this bully.
Fair enough. You have to live with yourself, not me.

 

[jrista]

"... an image sensor including pixels each having a pair of photoelectric conversion units (photodiodes) capable of outputting the pair of image signals obtained by independently receiving a pair of light beams...

Btw, the word 'photodiode' is not even mentioned in the patent. So, you basically forged this quote.

The patent talks about sub-pixels, not photodiodes.
Your entire stance is based on forged/misinterpreted information.

Photoelectric converter == photoconductor == photodiode.

It's all the same thing. I haven't forged (LOL ???) or misinterpreted anything. As for "sub-pixel"...again, the same thing. It's all a photodiode. It's a concept were talking about here...an anode and a cathode plugged into a bit of silicon that has the ability to convert incident photons to free electrical charge. That's what a sub-pixel in Canon's patent is! I've always used the term photodiode (because that's what it is, if you look at the symbol on an electrical diagram, and there are two other patents in Japanese that have actual electrical diagrams, it's a light-sensitive diode). Some of the other patents actually clearly show two "photoelectric converters" per pixel in multiple diagrams. If you had read my earlier comments about SPATIAL RESOLUTION, you would understand WHY it's the same thing, and why it doesn't matter if there are two, four, or N number of them contained within a single "pixel" (a multi-layered structure containing one or more photodiodes, a CFA, and a microlens).

It clearly states TWO sub-pixels for each pixel, not four as you've been claiming all along.

Good. At least we've have established that these are sub-pixels, not photodiodes.

But I guess that also makes Jrista's hundreds of misleading claims about photodiodes all false.
It seems that he's the one who's been continuously embarrassing himself - together with the small
gang lining up in support of an imposter.

Me? I just made a speculation that instead of two sub-pixels, Canon is using four.
That's not the least embarrassing.

LOL. I'm having so much fun.

Hmm. Hundreds, eh? Care to, um, enumerate all several hundred for us? I'd...really like to see that.

You've somehow equated the term "sub-pixel" with "pixel". Why use a different term, sub-pixel, if it's the same thing? Sub-pixel == photodiode == photoconductor == photoelectric converter. Conceptually, in the context of CIS, these things are identical. They are all represented by the same symbol in an electrical circuit diagram (a photodiode:

). Conceptually, in the context of CIS, a pixel and a photodiode are not the same thing. This is a pixel:

As it so happens, this is a pixel with two photodiodes (the N-type silicon dropped into the P-type substrate.) I really don't care what terms are used, ultimately in the end, the term used to describe the thing isn't what matters, it's the concept the term encapsulates that matters...sup-pixel, photodiode, photoelectric converter...pick your poison. A (full, discrete, atomic) pixel and a photodiode are different conceptual things. You can mince words all you want, but now your obfuscating and dancing around the original point: You have claimed, in multiple threads for a good while now, that not only does Canon have QPAF, but that somehow QPAF/DPAF somehow leads, probably with ML (although I don't remember if you actually said that exactly) to better resolution. THOSE are the points at debate. Try all you want to play me for a fool, it isn't going to phase me, I don't care. Be as happy as you want that you discovered the term "sub-pixel" in the patent. To me, it's the same freakin thing, the same exact concept...a photodiode. I don't equate sub-pixel with pixel, as one is a complex multi-layered structure, one is a bit of doped silicon with an anode and a cathode tacked onto the ends that is a part of a pixel.

From a spatial resolution standpoint, DPAF doesn't bring anything to the table. You would need to redesign THE PIXEL, that complex multilayered thing built into the silicon substrate, to actually make DPAF, QPAF, or any number of bits to a diced up piece of silicon, become something more than just being separate photodiodes/photoconductors/photoelectric-converters/sub-pixels under one microlens/color filter into something that actually can actually meaningfully separate spatial frequencies, resolve them independently, and which ultimately represents more detail in a two-dimensional spatial frequency (in other words, an image.)



Anyway...I'd like to see the list of hundreds of things I've made misleading claims about. That's hundreds, plural. Get to work, bub!

As for me, as Don has said, this conversation has just gone way off the tracks and has become pointless. I'm not embarrassed by anything I've said here, I'm confident in my knowledge and assessments, but the conversation itself is becoming embarrassing. It's clear your not interested in any of the facts, this has devolved into an "I'm right your wrong" spitfest. I'm not interested in that. I proved my points, I debunked the myth I wanted to debunk, and not even for your sake...for everyone else's sake (although I don't think they care any longer): There is no QPAF. DPAF does not enhance resolution, and likely never will (not without PIXEL redesign). You've retreated, and contracted your argument into the most basic, minimally attackable position possible: I was just speculating and having fun! : : Fine by me. I'm clearly not alone in my assessments, others back me up, so I'm happy to exit the conversation here. I don't like to keep debating once the locals get fed up with the conversation. (Sorry, Don!)

 

[Loswr]

Here it is one last time: I was/am just speculating ... on a speculation forum.
Got it?

Speculation concerns the UNknown. Since Canon has patented dual pixel AF and explicitly stated that is the technology used in the 70D, that is KNOWN FACT. Stating that it could be 'quad pixel' isn't speculation, it's just plain wrong.

But yes, I get it. You made claims and provided 'evidence', and when both were proven false, you continued to defend them as evidence mounted against you until...well...you were only speculating on a rumor forum for fun. That's a cop-out, pure and simple...and a rather undignified and pathetic one at that.

 

[x-vision]

You've somehow equated the term "sub-pixel" with "pixel".

Yes ... and this is correct.

Why use a different term, sub-pixel, if it's the same thing?

Canon is using the term sub-pixel in their patent, not me.

You think that a sub-pixel and a 'photodiode' are the same thing - but they are not. This is where you are incorrect.
A sub-pixel is a pixel - and includes a photodiode plus readout circuitry.

So, this is not just a matter of using (incorrect) terminology.
It's about understanding of how things work and what is meant when someone says a photodiode and a (sub)pixel.

Conceptually, in the context of CIS, these things are identical.

Canon's diagram doesn't show a pixel with two photodiodes.
It's just an illustration the of principle of reading two halves of a pixel independently.

Here's how Canon describes Fig.2C that from your post:

[0017] FIGS. 2A to 2C are views for explaining the arrangement of an image sensor according to the embodiment;

These are views for explaining the arrangement. Just a conceptual diagram, basically.
Nothing is mentioned about photodiodes. You are reading too much into it if you are thinking that
it's an actual diagram of the sensor.

You have claimed, in multiple threads for a good while now, that not only does Canon have QPAF, but that somehow QPAF/DPAF somehow leads, probably with ML (although I don't remember if you actually said that exactly) to better resolution. THOSE are the points at debate.

I have SPECULATED (repeat, SPECULATED) that the dual-pixel tech is in fact a quad-pixel tech.

But for some reason you started a crusade against this (harmless) speculation - resulting in this tiresome debate
about pixels and photodiodes - and about how you know what you are talking about - and how I don't.

I don't even understand why you are arguing.
The DPAF patent in no way disproves my speculation.
In fact, the patent even hints that having dual sub-pixels is not the only possible arrangement.
A quad-(sub)pixel arrangement is certainly not ruled out by this patent.

Be as happy as you want that you discovered the term "sub-pixel" in the patent. To me, it's the same freakin thing, the same exact concept...a photodiode. I don't equate sub-pixel with pixel, as one is a complex multi-layered structure, one is a bit of doped silicon with an anode and a cathode tacked onto the ends that is a part of a pixel.

That's something you have to work on.

You will eventually realize that to make a sub-pixel ... it needs to be a full-blown pixel.
Or, as Canon puts it their own patent: the pixels including the sub pixels may be discretely arranged in the image sensor.

As for me, as Don has said, this conversation has just gone way off the tracks and has become pointless.

Absolutely!

 

[Brian VA]

While no one knows ( at least publicly) what the new 7D MK2 sensor is, I speculate we will all be surprised and impressed. Sounds like Canon will become a shaker and a mover as they have in the past with this new technology. I am very optimistic for something groundbreaking. The pieces I am putting together is that the CR1 pasted below is the same new sensor we might see in the 7D MK2. There are now rumors of a 5D MK4 and a 1-DX MK2 coming in early 2015. Is this to get the new sensor technology in these flagship full frame cameras? Based on the CR2 rumor that the new sensor will be used in all forthcoming cameras, I think it is. I'm excited and looking forward to the 7D MK 2!


A mention on Northlight about someone from Canon apparently visited a few studios in the New York City area recently with a “test” camera in an EOS-1D X body. Images had to be processed and viewed on a particular laptop and none of the images could be copied or kept.

The image files were very similar in size to the EOS 5D Mark III’s 22mp files, but exhibited “much” better colour accuracy and detail. This camera is supposedly for later this year or early next year.

Could this be a replacement to the EOS-1D X, or an introduction of a new camera such as the rumor favourite EOS 3D?

 

[x-vision]

You've somehow equated the term "sub-pixel" with "pixel". Why use a different term, sub-pixel, if it's the same thing?

So, the crux of this argument, really, is whether a sub-pixels is a photodiode or a pixel.

Let me just state the Canon's DPAF patent doesn't even mention the word photodiode.
Instead, it is using the wording 'sub-pixel'.

You are only assuming that by a 'sub-pixel' Canon actually means a photodiode.
This is just an assumption, however, as no statement/fact from the patent supports it.
Let's be very clear about this.

I, on the other hand, am assuming that a sub-pixel is in fact a full-blown pixel.
This is another assumption, however, as the patent doesn't define what a sub-pixel really is.

In other words, this tiresome, pointless debate is a debate about two assumptions.

I am perfectly fine that I'm making an assumption. But yours is an assumption too, mind you.
Neither your assumption, nor mine, is any more valid than the other, though, as what you've
been saying is no more based on facts vs what I've saying.

 

[jrista]

You've somehow equated the term "sub-pixel" with "pixel". Why use a different term, sub-pixel, if it's the same thing?

So, the crux of this argument, really, is whether a sub-pixels is a photodiode or a pixel.

Let me just state the Canon's DPAF patent doesn't even mention the word photodiode.
Instead, it is using the wording 'sub-pixel'.

You are only assuming that by a 'sub-pixel' Canon actually means a photodiode.
This is just an assumption, however, as no statement/fact from the patent supports it.
Let's be very clear about this.

I, on the other hand, am assuming that a sub-pixel is in fact a full-blown pixel.
This is another assumption, however, as the patent doesn't define what a sub-pixel really is.

In other words, this tiresome, pointless debate is a debate about two assumptions.

I am perfectly fine that I'm making an assumption. But yours is an assumption too, mind you.
Neither your assumption, nor mine, is any more valid than the other, though, as what you've
been saying is no more based on facts vs what I've saying.

It does state photoelectric converter, though, in the abstract (a simplification into fewer words of the extremely wordy breakdown) which most definitely IS a photodiode. The abstract also clearly states that there are two "photoelectric converters" per "pixel". You've handily ignored the abstract, but it is still an entirely valid description, and is still a part of the patent. The description of a sub-pixel, in combination with how they are portrayed in the diagrams, also indicates they are photodiodes. Sure, there is readout logic, as there is binning and readout logic for the whole pixel. Is the readout logic part of the pixel, or the photodiodes? We could debate that round and round as well, I'm sure. Again...all just words used to describe concepts. We can mince words all day and all night, which is why I'm going to go back to working in my yard. Ta! Ta!

 

[x-vision]

It does state photoelectric converter, though, in the abstract (a simplification into fewer words of the extremely wordy breakdown) which most definitely IS a photodiode.

The patent doesn't state/claim that a 'photoelectric conversion unit' is a photodiode.
You claim that - and I disagree, since this claim is not based on what the patents says.

The abstract also clearly states that there are two "photoelectric converters" per "pixel". You've handily ignored the abstract, but it is still an entirely valid description, and is still a part of the patent.

The abstract doesn't mention anything about photodiodes. You are making stuff up.

The description of a sub-pixel, in combination with how they are portrayed in the diagrams, also indicates they are photodiodes.

Nothing indicates that these are photodiodes. They are not marked as such with the photodiode symbol, for example.
So, it's actually you who is assuming that these are photodiodes - the patent certainly doesn't indicate/state that.

Sure, there is readout logic, as there is binning and readout logic for the whole pixel. Is the readout logic part of the pixel, or the photodiodes?

A photodiode doesn't have a read-out logic; a pixel does.
So, by this token, sub-pixels are in fact pixels, as pixels do have read-out circuits - unlike photodiodes.

We could debate that round and round as well, I'm sure. Again...all just words used to describe concepts.

Sure. It's your assumptions vs mine. No facts from you so far, mind you.

 

[jrista]

Ah...so, we have a sensor now, without any light sensing components? But we have sub-pixels, and that's VEEERY IMPORTANT, ppls! Interesting...

 

[x-vision]

Ah...so, we have a sensor now, without any light sensing components?

Aah. You come across as the king of false assumptions, you know.
Who said that sub-pixels don't have light sensing components?
You made this up again.

By definition, a pixel includes a photodiode.
And as I already said ... many times ... sub-pixels are full-blown pixels - on the wafer level, that is.
The only difference is that sub-pixels share the same microlens and color filter with other sub-pixels - to form full pixels.