Will Canon Answer the D4s? [CR2]

[jrista]

Jrista, without quoting that long post...do you honestly think it's possible for a DSLR to have its sensor cooled to -80 C? How would that be done in a DSLR?

Active cooling is actually done quite frequently today with high end astrophotography cameras. They use dual stage peltier (TE/TEC, or ThermoElectric) cooling. Peltiers are very thin electronic heat pumps, being simply an array of N and P type silicon sandwiched between two ceramic plates (one "cold" plate and one "hot" plate, heat is pumped from the cold side to the hot side). It would be easy to fit a peltier into existing DSLR bodies without anyone being the wiser (with the exception of increased heat output, as the peltier generates it's own heat along with drawing out heat from whatever is attached to it's cold side.) Now, with most astrophoto cameras, the delta-T they aim for is around 50°C. On an average night, the temperatures drop to somewhere around -10° to -20°, however the really high end ones can cool much more effectively with delta-T over 60°. On a cold night, CCD temp with a really good astrocam can get to below -75°. Most cooled astrocams also employ low noise fans to actively cool a heat sink or heat pipe attached to the hot side of the upper peltier and actively exhaust heat...something similar could be done with a DSLR.

Professional scientific grade CCD cameras used in professional astrophotography, microscopy, etc. use much more significant measures to cool. Professional scientific grade CCD cameras are usually cooled to at least -80°C. In some cases, temperatures are pushed below -125°C, and I've even heard of some scientific grade equipment operating in superconducting conditions at nearly absolute zero (however once you move past -80°C, the cost of maintaining temperature becomes excessively prohibitive.)

In the case of a DSLR, at some point I see some kind of peltier based cooling becoming necessary. At some point, we are going to exhaust the material options, when we've employed things like black silicon, color splitting in favor of color filtration arrays, and maybe even some kind of layered photodiode approach to increase maximum charge capacity per pixel. To continue improving (and at that point, low ISO will be about as good as it can get, so all the improvements will have to occur at the high ISO end), without reducing megapixel count, we will need to reduce dark current noise in the electronics themselves. The most effective way to reduce dark current once CDS is employed is to cool the sensor.

Even for a relatively cheap $2000 astrocam with dual-stage peltier cooling, average dark current drops from around 5e- to 0.02e-, and better ones can be had for $4000 to $10,000 where dark current drops to as little as 0.01e- to 0.008e-. At 0.01e-, you release one electron worth of noise for every 100 electrons released by photons. Today, average read noise at high ISO is around 3e- or so, so cooling could gain us a fair amount of real-world high ISO sensitivity. Even at medium ISO settings, where dark current can still be as high as 5-10e-, could benefit from cooling. Extreme cooling could even be an option to reduce ISO 100 noise as well, albeit at a power cost.

On the notion of power consumption, that would certainly be a hurdle to overcome. Power cells would have to be far more efficient, and certainly hold more capacity, than even the most capable camera batteries of today. I suspect some kind of fuel cell technology would need to be employed to make extreme peltier cooling a reality for high ISO shooters. Fuel cell tech has come a long way recently, and I suspect at some point camera manufacturers will probably switch to them anyway. Thermoelectric cooling could be a user-selectable option as well, and the peltier could be activated automatically on demand if it is enabled so that it does not constantly draw power.

But is this realistic? How much would it add to the cost?

I've been familiar with cooling used on CCD cameras for astrophotography for a long time. Which is why I asked if it was realistic or feasible to do it in a DSLR.

Peltiers are super cheap. As for powering them, that's where cost would probably come in...they draw quite a bit of power. I'm not sure what the actual cost might be, but it wouldn't be the most significant cost in the camera, not by a long shot.

 

[CarlTN]

Jrista, without quoting that long post...do you honestly think it's possible for a DSLR to have its sensor cooled to -80 C? How would that be done in a DSLR?

Active cooling is actually done quite frequently today with high end astrophotography cameras. They use dual stage peltier (TE/TEC, or ThermoElectric) cooling. Peltiers are very thin electronic heat pumps, being simply an array of N and P type silicon sandwiched between two ceramic plates (one "cold" plate and one "hot" plate, heat is pumped from the cold side to the hot side). It would be easy to fit a peltier into existing DSLR bodies without anyone being the wiser (with the exception of increased heat output, as the peltier generates it's own heat along with drawing out heat from whatever is attached to it's cold side.) Now, with most astrophoto cameras, the delta-T they aim for is around 50°C. On an average night, the temperatures drop to somewhere around -10° to -20°, however the really high end ones can cool much more effectively with delta-T over 60°. On a cold night, CCD temp with a really good astrocam can get to below -75°. Most cooled astrocams also employ low noise fans to actively cool a heat sink or heat pipe attached to the hot side of the upper peltier and actively exhaust heat...something similar could be done with a DSLR.

Professional scientific grade CCD cameras used in professional astrophotography, microscopy, etc. use much more significant measures to cool. Professional scientific grade CCD cameras are usually cooled to at least -80°C. In some cases, temperatures are pushed below -125°C, and I've even heard of some scientific grade equipment operating in superconducting conditions at nearly absolute zero (however once you move past -80°C, the cost of maintaining temperature becomes excessively prohibitive.)

In the case of a DSLR, at some point I see some kind of peltier based cooling becoming necessary. At some point, we are going to exhaust the material options, when we've employed things like black silicon, color splitting in favor of color filtration arrays, and maybe even some kind of layered photodiode approach to increase maximum charge capacity per pixel. To continue improving (and at that point, low ISO will be about as good as it can get, so all the improvements will have to occur at the high ISO end), without reducing megapixel count, we will need to reduce dark current noise in the electronics themselves. The most effective way to reduce dark current once CDS is employed is to cool the sensor.

Even for a relatively cheap $2000 astrocam with dual-stage peltier cooling, average dark current drops from around 5e- to 0.02e-, and better ones can be had for $4000 to $10,000 where dark current drops to as little as 0.01e- to 0.008e-. At 0.01e-, you release one electron worth of noise for every 100 electrons released by photons. Today, average read noise at high ISO is around 3e- or so, so cooling could gain us a fair amount of real-world high ISO sensitivity. Even at medium ISO settings, where dark current can still be as high as 5-10e-, could benefit from cooling. Extreme cooling could even be an option to reduce ISO 100 noise as well, albeit at a power cost.

On the notion of power consumption, that would certainly be a hurdle to overcome. Power cells would have to be far more efficient, and certainly hold more capacity, than even the most capable camera batteries of today. I suspect some kind of fuel cell technology would need to be employed to make extreme peltier cooling a reality for high ISO shooters. Fuel cell tech has come a long way recently, and I suspect at some point camera manufacturers will probably switch to them anyway. Thermoelectric cooling could be a user-selectable option as well, and the peltier could be activated automatically on demand if it is enabled so that it does not constantly draw power.

But is this realistic? How much would it add to the cost?

I've been familiar with cooling used on CCD cameras for astrophotography for a long time. Which is why I asked if it was realistic or feasible to do it in a DSLR.

Peltiers are super cheap. As for powering them, that's where cost would probably come in...they draw quite a bit of power. I'm not sure what the actual cost might be, but it wouldn't be the most significant cost in the camera, not by a long shot.

So the problem would be getting a giant lithium ion battery out of a Dreamliner and letting that dangle from a strap below the camera?

 

[Eldar]

A lithium ion battery out of a Dreamliner ... That wouldn´t be very reliable, would it? :

 

[CarlTN]

A lithium ion battery out of a Dreamliner ... That wouldn´t be very reliable, would it? :

Indeed...

 

[jrista]

A lithium ion battery out of a Dreamliner ... That wouldn´t be very reliable, would it? :

You would only run the low risk of bursting into flames, it'll be ok. And worth it, for 0.01e- read noise.

I do suspect, however, that viable fuel cells the size of current batteries will arrive soon enough. And provide much more power. They will probably cost a good bit more than the average battery, but such is the price of progress, I guess...

 

[SiliconVoid]

You clearly don't understand the primary source of noise. It is impossible to have ISO 100 performance at ISO 6400, while still having comparable sensor resolution to sensors of today. "Noise" is a general term that refers to ALL noise in an image. NOT all noise in an image is from the camera's electronics. Noise caused by camera electronics is called read noise, however read noise only affects the deep shadows, and it is generally only present to a relatively significant degree at lower ISO settings. You are also missing the fact that dynamic range is relative to noise. Eliminate noise, and you effectively have infinite dynamic range (or, in the case of a digitized result, you gain the maximum dynamic range up to your bit depth...whatever that may be...14bits/14stops, 16bits/16stops, 1024bits/1024stops.)

On the contrary, I am well aware of where noise is introduced, both as a consequence of design as well as the increased gain to have a sensor simulate higher ISO sensitivities..
However do not be mislead in the assumption that the digital sensors in modern cameras in any way represent the cutting edge of digital imaging - they do not - they are not even close. Unfortunately real cutting edge technologies result in million dollar digital imaging equipment that is of course not cost effective to build into a consumer product. Additionally do not assume what we know about physics today is all there is in the universe, our knowledge and conceptual understanding of physics has been challenged many times over through human history. Your response asserts your comprehension of imaging technology is limited to any single wafer sensor design, and additionally those limited by todays consumer technology… The Hubble telescope for example can resolve more detail than the D800, with greater dynamic range, and all at much higher ISO ranges because that is what is was designed to do regardless of cost as it was not intended to be a consumer product - yet its total mp count is a mere 5.1mp. It does however use multiple sensors to capture the analog data which is then put back together to produce an image, but clearly showing that 'more mp' is not the only approach to image quality.
In dslr sensor design there are several immediate approaches that could be researched, one being a sensor that is designed to operate at a base signal amplification much higher than current technology (~300 ISO) resulting in a base ISO sensitivity of say around 3200, with the greater gain adjustment at the lower sensitivity end as opposed to current implementation, and only a small increase in gain to achieve 6400-12800. Textbook physics tell us that such an approach would not leave enough signal strength at ISO 100 sensitivity to get readable data (again thinking we know everything about physics) but that could be countered by charging and reading fewer photosites at lower sensitivity settings. Then increasing the number of photo sites charged and read at the higher ISO range. That would of course mean the resolution output of the camera is lower at lower ISO settings and higher at higher ISO settings, or it could simply be set to output say 15mp images during ASIC processing regardless of the actual mp count of the sensor.. There would of course be a massive number of consumers who would feel cheated in some way in buying a 45mp camera that only outputs 15mp images, but hey people are buying a 36mp camera today that has to be downsampled to 8mp in order to generate DxO award winning images so that should not really have any impact as long as it produces the desired output in the end, right…
Another method would be multiple sensors, very much the same method high end digital video camera equipment is designed. With only a small increase in camera size there could be multiple sensors utilized to only read certain spectrums of light, four being the most logical array (Red, Blue Green, and UV to measure intensity) which would yield more color and light intensity data than is captured today by any consumer device. Data that translates to detail, color spectrum, tonal accuracy, and dynamic range..
Yet another method would be a single wafer design where one third of the photosites are dedicated for each primary color spectrum, somewhat similar but further on the approach taken by Fujifilm and their X-Trans sensors (and the original design found in the S2, S3, S5 Pro)..
Fujifilm is probably the best example of what I meant in my original post.. Canon/Sony/Toshiba/Aptina are not actually pushing the boundaries of digital imaging technology, they are catering to the boundaries of consumer marketability. Fujifilm is unfortunately one of the few (if not the only) consumer imaging company actually trying to advance the digital imaging world at this time by working outside the box.. As I stated earlier, and it is to the actual detriment of the technology, it is simply a matter of dollars and cents - for Canon/Sony/Toshiba/Aptina it is cheaper to try and improve current technology than to explore/develop new technology. The major players have too much invested in current technology to explore a new approach, at least not any time soon.
Regarding my ‘unfortunately’ reference to Fujifilm I did not mean that in a bad way, quite the contrary, I love Fujifilm’s approach - What I meant is if new technology like that was being backed by the kind of money/research Canon and other major players spend on 'old-tech' improvements we would already be where I stated we should be in the imaging world.

 

[weixing]

Jrista, without quoting that long post...do you honestly think it's possible for a DSLR to have its sensor cooled to -80 C? How would that be done in a DSLR?

Active cooling is actually done quite frequently today with high end astrophotography cameras. They use dual stage peltier (TE/TEC, or ThermoElectric) cooling. Peltiers are very thin electronic heat pumps, being simply an array of N and P type silicon sandwiched between two ceramic plates (one "cold" plate and one "hot" plate, heat is pumped from the cold side to the hot side). It would be easy to fit a peltier into existing DSLR bodies without anyone being the wiser (with the exception of increased heat output, as the peltier generates it's own heat along with drawing out heat from whatever is attached to it's cold side.) Now, with most astrophoto cameras, the delta-T they aim for is around 50°C. On an average night, the temperatures drop to somewhere around -10° to -20°, however the really high end ones can cool much more effectively with delta-T over 60°. On a cold night, CCD temp with a really good astrocam can get to below -75°. Most cooled astrocams also employ low noise fans to actively cool a heat sink or heat pipe attached to the hot side of the upper peltier and actively exhaust heat...something similar could be done with a DSLR.

Professional scientific grade CCD cameras used in professional astrophotography, microscopy, etc. use much more significant measures to cool. Professional scientific grade CCD cameras are usually cooled to at least -80°C. In some cases, temperatures are pushed below -125°C, and I've even heard of some scientific grade equipment operating in superconducting conditions at nearly absolute zero (however once you move past -80°C, the cost of maintaining temperature becomes excessively prohibitive.)

In the case of a DSLR, at some point I see some kind of peltier based cooling becoming necessary. At some point, we are going to exhaust the material options, when we've employed things like black silicon, color splitting in favor of color filtration arrays, and maybe even some kind of layered photodiode approach to increase maximum charge capacity per pixel. To continue improving (and at that point, low ISO will be about as good as it can get, so all the improvements will have to occur at the high ISO end), without reducing megapixel count, we will need to reduce dark current noise in the electronics themselves. The most effective way to reduce dark current once CDS is employed is to cool the sensor.

Even for a relatively cheap $2000 astrocam with dual-stage peltier cooling, average dark current drops from around 5e- to 0.02e-, and better ones can be had for $4000 to $10,000 where dark current drops to as little as 0.01e- to 0.008e-. At 0.01e-, you release one electron worth of noise for every 100 electrons released by photons. Today, average read noise at high ISO is around 3e- or so, so cooling could gain us a fair amount of real-world high ISO sensitivity. Even at medium ISO settings, where dark current can still be as high as 5-10e-, could benefit from cooling. Extreme cooling could even be an option to reduce ISO 100 noise as well, albeit at a power cost.

On the notion of power consumption, that would certainly be a hurdle to overcome. Power cells would have to be far more efficient, and certainly hold more capacity, than even the most capable camera batteries of today. I suspect some kind of fuel cell technology would need to be employed to make extreme peltier cooling a reality for high ISO shooters. Fuel cell tech has come a long way recently, and I suspect at some point camera manufacturers will probably switch to them anyway. Thermoelectric cooling could be a user-selectable option as well, and the peltier could be activated automatically on demand if it is enabled so that it does not constantly draw power.

Hi,
There had been quite a few DSLR out there with active cooling modification, the result was very good with very low noise, but it's quite bulky. Also, with active cooling, you will have condensation issue unless you sealed your DSLR and dry the air inside like adding an dehumidifiers.

Have a nice day.

 

[jrista]

You clearly don't understand the primary source of noise. It is impossible to have ISO 100 performance at ISO 6400, while still having comparable sensor resolution to sensors of today. "Noise" is a general term that refers to ALL noise in an image. NOT all noise in an image is from the camera's electronics. Noise caused by camera electronics is called read noise, however read noise only affects the deep shadows, and it is generally only present to a relatively significant degree at lower ISO settings. You are also missing the fact that dynamic range is relative to noise. Eliminate noise, and you effectively have infinite dynamic range (or, in the case of a digitized result, you gain the maximum dynamic range up to your bit depth...whatever that may be...14bits/14stops, 16bits/16stops, 1024bits/1024stops.)

On the contrary, I am well aware of where noise is introduced, both as a consequence of design as well as the increased gain to have a sensor simulate higher ISO sensitivities..
However do not be mislead in the assumption that the digital sensors in modern cameras in any way represent the cutting edge of digital imaging - they do not - they are not even close.

Ok, first, you are largely correct, assuming a global context. Now, I assumed a video and small form factor CIS context, as that is pretty much what we deal with on this forum...and in that context, yes, we are VERY advanced, and it will not be long before we start hitting physical walls. It is because we have encroached upon several physical walls already that there are some truly radical innovations being discovered in the CIS arena.

Second, there ARE physical laws that govern how far we can take CMOS Image Sensor technology. Doesn't matter what the application, or how big the sensor, or how big the pixels. Those physical laws will always apply. Once we run into the limitations imposed by those physical laws, we will have to start doing other things...like backstep. For example, instead of increasing pixel count, we will have to reduce it, in order to gain dynamic range once we have reached the maximum Q.E. possible with the greatest light gathering capabilities per pixel (which might actually involve something fairly radical, such as monochrome sensors with some kind of piezoelectric color filter that is cycled for each color throughout the duration of an exposure). Once all the technological advancements are used up, the only real final option is to make pixels bigger. That will either entail reductions in megapixel count...or larger sensors. But I already mentioned all of these things...

Unfortunately real cutting edge technologies result in million dollar digital imaging equipment that is of course not cost effective to build into a consumer product. Additionally do not assume what we know about physics today is all there is in the universe, our knowledge and conceptual understanding of physics has been challenged many times over through human history. Your response asserts your comprehension of imaging technology is limited to any single wafer sensor design, and additionally those limited by todays consumer technology…

No, it is not limited to todays consumer technology. It is based on a lot of patents and research that have yet to actually be employed in any real-world designs at all, as well as prototypical designs, as well as consumer technology. The context from which my response comes is much broader than simply existing consumer technology. I spend a lot of time on ChipWorks reading about the innovations found in consumer level technology, as well as on Image Sensors World reading about all the latest and greatest innovations in the CIS world (which is pretty up to date as far as yet-to-be-used new research and patents go.)

The Hubble telescope for example can resolve more detail than the D800, with greater dynamic range, and all at much higher ISO ranges because that is what is was designed to do regardless of cost as it was not intended to be a consumer product - yet its total mp count is a mere 5.1mp. It does however use multiple sensors to capture the analog data which is then put back together to produce an image, but clearly showing that 'more mp' is not the only approach to image quality.

Comparing a DSLR with the Hubble Space telescope is a little extreme. Again, I lets try to limit our context contextto what is relevant to hand-holdable camera technology. Hubble's original primary CCD sensor was quite large (larger than medium format, actually about four times larger). It's low megapixel count is actually the very reason why it has much greater dynamic range. I mentioned in my earlier posts that I assumed maintaining pixel size. The most obvious and simplest approach to improving dynamic range/reducing noise levels is to increase pixel size. As a matter of fact, that is exactly what Canon did with the 1D X, and one of the reasons why it's high ISO IQ is so good.

As it stands today, some of Hubbles CCD sensors were upgraded. They use smaller pixels now (although, still quite large at 15 microns), offering more resolution. I believe current Hubble resolution is 16 megapixels, rather than 5.1 megapixels. Still, remember that hubble's sensors are effectively supercooled (actually, since the telescope exists in space, I believe many of it's electronic components are actually heated to keep them at relevant operating temperatures), so current efficiency in hubble's CCDs is significantly better than an uncooled hand-held camera. I also mentioned in this very thread that cooling sensors with peltiers can greatly improve current efficiency, however again...there are physical limits to how far that will take you (especially in your average photography...it isn't like the things most people photograph will actually take advantage of the 0.0001e- of dark current you get at true supercool temperatures...only extreme low light photographers who regularly shoot at very high ISO would see any benefit from 0.01e- dark current, and maybe aurora photographers might benefit from even lower levels at even higher ISO settings.)

So, yeah, Hubble gets much higher dynamic range. It's pixels are also have as much as 15 times more surface area at exceedingly high current efficiencies relative to the average room temperature DSLR or Mirrorless sensor. Even assuming we find a way to supercool DSLR sensors...they are still going to be packing in significantly more pixels in significantly smaller sensor area...so dynamic range is never going to be as good as the MONSTER CCD in the Hubble.

In dslr sensor design there are several immediate approaches that could be researched, one being a sensor that is designed to operate at a base signal amplification much higher than current technology (~300 ISO) resulting in a base ISO sensitivity of say around 3200, with the greater gain adjustment at the lower sensitivity end as opposed to current implementation, and only a small increase in gain to achieve 6400-12800.

First, need to make sure we are on the same page regarding "base" ISO. Base ISO is the ISO where you achieve FWC at Max Saturation. If you made ISO 3200 your "base" ISO, there simply wouldn't be lower ISO settings, or if there were, they would be something akin to ISO 50, where you lose DR to "gain" a lesser ISO setting via exposure trickery. There is Unity Gain, the ISO setting at which 1 Gain gets you 1 ADU. By "base signal amplification", are you referring to "unity gain"?

Textbook physics tell us that such an approach would not leave enough signal strength at ISO 100 sensitivity to get readable data (again thinking we know everything about physics) but that could be countered by charging and reading fewer photosites at lower sensitivity settings. Then increasing the number of photo sites charged and read at the higher ISO range. That would of course mean the resolution output of the camera is lower at lower ISO settings and higher at higher ISO settings,

Why would you have lower resolution at lower ISO settings, and higher at higher ISO settings? That seems inverted to me. When you have a lot of light, it is easy to get more resolution...you don't have to amplify the signal as much. It is when you have LITTLE light that you have to amplify the signal more... OR, you could bin pixels at higher ISO to increase real-world sensitivity, which indeed would reduce resolution for a gain in signal strength. Sure, that is an option...try selling it to the average consumer, though. Dynamic resolution is a quirky feature.

or it could simply be set to output say 15mp images during ASIC processing regardless of the actual mp count of the sensor.. There would of course be a massive number of consumers who would feel cheated in some way in buying a 45mp camera that only outputs 15mp images, but hey people are buying a 36mp camera today that has to be downsampled to 8mp in order to generate DxO award winning images so that should not really have any impact as long as it produces the desired output in the end, right…

The average camera buyer doesn't know that DxO downsamples 36mp images to 8mp. All the average camera buyer knows is that, at least according to DxO, their D800 gets 14.4 stops of DR. Nevermind the fact that as far as RAW editing is concerned, the unscaled Screen DR is the measure that provides the correct DR, which is 13.2 for the D800...most consumers would never know that, instead thinking they have an extra 1.2 stops of DR that simply doesn't exist in their images. That's a detrimental state of affairs if a landscape photographer decides to leave their GND filters at home when they go out to photograph a 14+ stop sunset...oops.

That would be the inherent problem with dynamic resolution (at least, as anything but a niche camera)...few would actually know that at point of sale. They would only discover it through use, assume something was broken, and create a customer service nightmare in their ignorance. Keeping technology viable for consumers does matter in the grand scheme of things. I think a sensor with dynamic resolution that maintained real-world sensitivity is interesting, for sure. I wonder if it is practical, though. I guess for night sky and aurora photographers who downsample and publish on the web and never do anything else with their work, such a camera would be a dream.

In relation to the part of your answer I was originally responding to, dynamic resolution with a sensor that automatically binned pixels at any ISO setting above 100 (in order to maintain actual sensitivity, and achieve the same levels of noise at any ISO) wouldn't be a practical consumer product. You said you thought "we all" would best be served if Canon produced a sensor where ISO 6400 looked the same as ISO 100 in terms of noise. Sorry, but if dynamic binning and dynamic resolution is the only real-world solution to that, I don't really agree...and Canon will never do it anyway. Nikon might do it, they love getting their hands dirty with niche technology that doesn't help their bottom line, but even for Nikon, it seems like a bit of a stretch. The technology has to be viable to the consumer before any manufacturer would really touch it.

Another method would be multiple sensors, very much the same method high end digital video camera equipment is designed. With only a small increase in camera size there could be multiple sensors utilized to only read certain spectrums of light, four being the most logical array (Red, Blue Green, and UV to measure intensity) which would yield more color and light intensity data than is captured today by any consumer device. Data that translates to detail, color spectrum, tonal accuracy, and dynamic range..

I thought I mentioned Three-CCD in my answer (although I may be conflating conversations, as much the same conversation is occurring in multiple threads on this forum.) I agree, Three-CCD would definitely be intriguing as a means of improving both sensitivity and resolution. However, it does NOT solve the problem of making ISO 6400 look like ISO 100. It actually solves the resolution problem...it would let us push resolution more (for a while) without incurring further losses in pixel size, noise, etc.

Yet another method would be a single wafer design where one third of the photosites are dedicated for each primary color spectrum, somewhat similar but further on the approach taken by Fujifilm and their X-Trans sensors (and the original design found in the S2, S3, S5 Pro)..
Fujifilm is probably the best example of what I meant in my original post..

Again, I am taking from a conversation in another thread. X-Trans was just brought up in a thread about AA filters and Moire. Technically speaking, FujiFilm, while they are innovative, have not actually brought us anything significantly better than Canon/Sony/Toshiba/Apina. Fuji once had extra pixels in "dead space" on the sensor die. These extra pixels were monochrome, and were simply used to increase dynamic range. It was slightly effective. It was also completely blown away by Sony with their Exmor technology. COMPLETELY BLOWN AWAY.

X-Trans is another great example of an undiscriminating "improvement". It is intriguing, for sure...however it doesn't actually do a better job at anything than standard Bayer sensor designs from C/S/T/A. X-Trans claims to be moire free. Indeed, it is...however that comes at a cost. It uses a 6x6 pixel grid for interpolation...which inevitably results in a greater degree of blurring. Problem with a 6x6 pixel grid is it is less discriminating about which frequencies NEED to be blurred in order to avoid moire than a classic OLPF. Interpolating 6x6 rather than 2x2 inherently requires greater overlap, so more blur than standard bayer interpolation as well. I spent a lot of time researching X-Trans when Fuji first released the technology, I have looked at quite a few images from those cameras. High ISO performance is great, thanks to the greater degree of pixel averaging offered by a 6x6 grid, however you will never see the same kind of high fidelity image detail from any X-Trans camera that you get from standard bayer sensors. You sometimes also get a bit of haloing around sharp edges that are either particularly dark or particularly bright.

Fuji has some interesting ideas, and they definitely know how to think out of the box. But again...you can't beat physics. All Fuji has done with X-Trans is find an alternative way to blur higher frequency image detail, same as an OLPF. The difference is that the OLPF is more discriminating, and it only blurs frequencies RIGHT around Nyquist, where as X-Trans is less discriminating, and will blur relatively evenly in whatever radius is imposed by their 6x6 pixel interpolation. Personally, I'll keep my OLPF, thanks!

Canon/Sony/Toshiba/Aptina are not actually pushing the boundaries of digital imaging technology, they are catering to the boundaries of consumer marketability.

I'm not so sure about that. Excluding Canon (they do a lot of innovation, but admittedly the percentage of it that is dedicated to sensors seems rather small as of late), Sony, Toshiba, Aptina, and quite a number of other CIS authorities like Omnivision, SiOnyx, Panasonic, etc. are indeed pushing boundaries. You should read Image Sensors World...there are some pretty amazing innovations being created by die hard consumer companies, including Sony. They may not be breaking from a standard bayer as much as Fuji has, however that doesn't diminish the fact that they have made some significant strides for products that most definitely find their way into consumers hands. Sony's Exmor is nothing short of phenomenal, and it is still "just another bayer sensor", albeit with a very innovative approach to digital low noise readout.

Just because you produce products that sell to the consumer doesn't mean you can't be innovative.

Fujifilm is unfortunately one of the few (if not the only) consumer imaging company actually trying to advance the digital imaging world at this time by working outside the box..

Again, I think this is an ill-informed opinion. Fuji has a knack for pixel arrangements. They just recently applied for a patent on a bayer-type sensor with different sized pixels for green, red, blue, and white. It's quirky, it's different, certainly out of the standard box...but...given Fuji's track record of making SIGNIFICANT breakthroughs...I suspect it is also really just more of the same. I don't suspect that Fuji's latest patent will really make any major waves in the long run.

Now, if Fuji keeps pushing this technology, they may be on the right track to creating a sensor with a truly random "retina-style" distribution of pixels in a sensor. THAT would be an intriguing innovation, and one that could truly eliminate moire without any real cost to detail. We'll see, though...Fuji has had other non-standard bayer pixel arrays in the past, and again...none of them really produced IQ that was significantly better (or even better at all) than the competition.

Speaking of the competition, Fuji is not the only one exploring non-standard pixel layouts. Several of the rumors about Sony's supposed 54mp sensor indicate that it will not use a standard bayer layout. Not only are they targeting non-standard layouts, but Sony also filed patents for triangular and hexagonal pixels as well (although I'm honestly not sure how that improves photodiode area, which is the single most significant factor when it comes down to literal sensitivity...so only time will tell if such pixels are actually better.) So it isn't JUST Fuji who is thinking outside the box.

Just being more radical in your designs does not necessarily mean they are better.

As I stated earlier, and it is to the actual detriment of the technology, it is simply a matter of dollars and cents - for Canon/Sony/Toshiba/Aptina it is cheaper to try and improve current technology than to explore/develop new technology. The major players have too much invested in current technology to explore a new approach, at least not any time soon.

Again, ill-informed opinion. All of these companies have a certain amount of their R&D budget dedicated to more extreme innovation. Most of these companies, and others, have made more significant discoveries than Fuji, ones that have demonstrated very significant real-world benefits. Seriously, read Image Sensors World...some of the innovations are pretty cool, and many will indeed change the imaging world.

 

[jrista]

Regarding my ‘unfortunately’ reference to Fujifilm I did not mean that in a bad way, quite the contrary, I love Fujifilm’s approach - What I meant is if new technology like that was being backed by the kind of money/research Canon and other major players spend on 'old-tech' improvements we would already be where I stated we should be in the imaging world.

I think the imaging world at large (beyond the scope of Canon) really IS there. The imaging world, which today is actually defined by security video sensors and consumer image sensors in all their consumable devices, is a whole world ahead of the ILC world. The big and bad cameras are using technology that is a ways behind the cutting edge. Sony Exmor is probably the most amazing innovation to hit the DSLR world in years, however even Exmor is behind the curve on a lot of other stuff. Security video sensors have actually really pushed the bubble, especially in the low-light arena. There are new video sensor designs that utilize black silicon that can see rather clearly in nothing but starlight...or one miliLux. The sensor also has a read noise level of only 2e- at normal temperatures, which is a pretty amazing feat (even Sony Exmor barely breaches below 3e-).

There will eventually be trickledown. All these cutting edge discoveries being employed in other markets (usually with much smaller sensor areas) will eventually be employed in the ILC markets. That takes time, though, for one as many of these new innovations are just that, innovations, and haven't yet been put into practice anywhere. New innovations are often researched and developed for specific target markets in mind for initial implementation, and today, that is unquestionably the small form factor markets...video cameras, phone cameras, tablet cameras. Once it becomes established, and other more effective options that already exist for larger form factor sensors have been exhausted, more radical innovations will find their way into larger cameras.

Don't expect "eventually" to be tomorrow, though. The big name DSLR cameras are the high end ones. They don't sell as much as the Canon Rebels and Nikon Dxxxx models, but they are usually where significant leaps in larger format technologies are made. We already had major new DSLRs released over the last couple of years, and major new mirrorless cameras just over the last year. It'll be a couple years at least before we see any significant innovations trickle down to the DSLR and Mirrorless arena.

 

[privatebydesign]

http://www.engadget.com/2013/03/04/canon-sensor-records-video-in-very-low-light/

http://www.engadget.com/2013/09/13/visualized-canon-35mm-cmos-sensor-fireflies/?utm_medium=feed&utm_source=Feed_Classic&utm_campaign=Engadget&ncid=rss_semi

 

[jrista]

http://www.engadget.com/2013/03/04/canon-sensor-records-video-in-very-low-light/

http://www.engadget.com/2013/09/13/visualized-canon-35mm-cmos-sensor-fireflies/?utm_medium=feed&utm_source=Feed_Classic&utm_campaign=Engadget&ncid=rss_semi

As I've been saying, the only real way to significantly improve sensitivity is to increase pixel size. The pixels on that sensor are HUGE, relative to the kind of pixels we normally use these days (or, for that matter, have used for the last ten years). That would be the lest technological means of achieving higher sensitivity...and it still doesn't solve the "Make ISO 6400 as good as ISO 100" argument...ISO 100 on that puppy would be freakin amazing...

 

[jrista]

This is the most advanced imaging device I know of:

http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/at-work/test-and-measurement/superconducting-video-camera-sees-the-universe-in-living-color

It uses true superconducting Titanium Nitride (at 0.1 Kelvin, basically absolute zero) to "detect time and energy (thus wavelength) of each photon in real time with zero intrinsic noise." Since it must operate at 0.1 K, it is WELL outside of the realm of consumer grade technology...it's only application at the moment is for space telescopes. The intriguing thing about it is the fact that it detects photon energy, so it knows the exact wavelength and therefor the true color of each and every photon encountered during an exposure. It also detects EVERY photon, so it has 100% Q.E., and it's design as a spectral power detector means there isn't any electronic noise (however, there would theoretically still be photon shot noise).

The readout mechanism uses a microwave frequency comb to "interrogate" each pixel 2500 times per second. This allows the sensor to be equally sensitive to color from about 100nm (deep ultraviolet) to 5000nm (very deep infrared.) Since the readout is basically achieved by multiple short interrogations, there is no reason that for longer exposures, dynamic range could effectively be infinite (however for shorter exposures, dynamic range would become limited...however I am unsure of what kind of signal strength this thing achieves for exposures at or below 1/2500th of a second. It would still offer more dynamic range than any current standard CMOS or CCD sensor, probably by several fold.)

If, at some point in the distant future, the ability to supercool electronics to absolute zero becomes "easy", this would basically be the ultimate pinnacle of image sensor technology. We would have perfect color reproduction, perfect electronic current, near-infinite dynamic range (basically only limited by exposure time), etc. The energy requirements for maintining temperature at 0.1K would probably drain even a high capacity DSLR battery like that found in the 1D X in seconds, so I suspect this kind of technology would need an always-on power source (i.e. outlet), or some kind of fuel cell that provided MASSIVE power.

Anyway...given the prior discussion, I remembered this sensor. Had to dig it up again, but it basically represents the ultimate in imaging sensor technology. I don't think you can get better than the ability to detect every single photon, it's sensor position, incident time, as well as it's exact energy frequency. I guess the only real improvement would be to increase the number of actual pixels in the device (the article uses a 2024 pixel (44x46) sensor for deep field astrophotography....that could probably be increased to megapixels.)

 

[GMCPhotographics]

So in sumary....Canon doesn't need to create a 1Dxs to answer the D4s...because it's still selling very very well and hasn't stopped selling since it was introduced. The D4s was introduced to address some issues why the D4 wasn't such a big success. Even though the D4 has a slightly better shadow noise control in under exposed areas, the 1Dx is a better camera overall and less glitchy / lockup / AF issues (being a comitted Canon user, that felt nice to write).
Then the next 12 pages...were mostly written by guys who think they under stood camera sensor design, those who do understand camera sensor design and those who really don't understand what on earth the last 12 pages were about....(i'm in the latter) .

We all know a high MP sensor based camera is coming from Canon at some point...but at the moment it's not here and is vapour ware. It will satisfy a few noisy buyers, but for most pros and serious amatures, they will be far better served with the current 1DX or 5DIII cameras....go figure.
in the mean time, some of us have been out and photographed stuff....it's cold out there!

 

[CarlTN]

A lithium ion battery out of a Dreamliner ... That wouldn´t be very reliable, would it? :

You would only run the low risk of bursting into flames, it'll be ok. And worth it, for 0.01e- read noise.

I do suspect, however, that viable fuel cells the size of current batteries will arrive soon enough. And provide much more power. They will probably cost a good bit more than the average battery, but such is the price of progress, I guess...

Fuel cells...you mean those that use natural gas? Or what type of fuel cell are you referring to?

The only time (so far) that I have been able to visit CA...I travelled with my brother to silicon valley, to check out a fuel cell that was about to be purchased by the university my brother worked for at the time. Funds for this purchase came from various places (some public). I think they paid a total of $8 million. It was spec'ed to produce only 4000 to 5000 watts...but for the brief weeks it actually worked at all, it produced about half that. It is now gathering dust, does not work at all.

 

[jrista]

A lithium ion battery out of a Dreamliner ... That wouldn´t be very reliable, would it? :

You would only run the low risk of bursting into flames, it'll be ok. And worth it, for 0.01e- read noise.

I do suspect, however, that viable fuel cells the size of current batteries will arrive soon enough. And provide much more power. They will probably cost a good bit more than the average battery, but such is the price of progress, I guess...

Fuel cells...you mean those that use natural gas? Or what type of fuel cell are you referring to?

The only time (so far) that I have been able to visit CA...I traveled with my brother to silicon valley, to check out a fuel cell that was about to be purchased by the university my brother worked for at the time. Funds for this purchase came from various places (some public). I think they paid a total of $8 million. It was spec'ed to produce only 4000 to 5000 watts...but for the brief weeks it actually worked at all, it produced about half that. It is now gathering dust, does not work at all.

A fuel cell is simply an energy cell that produces energy by controlled chemical reaction. Technically speaking, batteries are a type of fuel cell, albeit ones that do not produce much energy. Basic fuel cells generally oxidize hydrogen with oxygen in some controlled chemical process that ultimately produces water (the reaction is obviously not direct, otherwise that would likely cause an explosion), which is an energy-producing reaction that can produce a lot more energy than your average battery.

Theoretically fuel cells can be remarkably efficient, especially when waste heat energy is reemployed, reaching the 85-90% efficiency mark. Even if the kind of fuel cells that might be employed in DSLRs only reached the 50-60% efficiency range, they can still produce more power than a battery. Fuel cells are an area of pretty intense research, and many fuel cells exist that function quite well. High temperature fuel cells have been known to reach as high as 83% efficiency when recycling and reusing heat waste.

Also theoretically, since a fuel cell functions by combining hydrogen and oxygen...they can be "refueled" with water which is then split into hydrogen atoms and oxygen via electrolysis. A well built fuel cell could last for a very long time, and be repeatedly recharged with an external device and clean water.

Now, this is all theory. There have been some applications. Fuel cells have been used in laptops in recent years. Apple is considering powering future macbooks with fuel cells. Fuel cells are being used more frequently in Europe to power all kinds of things. I don't think we will see a rechargeable hydrogen fuel cell any time soon, but I do think that at some point, fuel cells will probably become the standard means of powering larger cameras.

 

[jeffa4444]

Jrista

As per my other post pluses and minuses of big verses small pixels dynamic range verses definition / sharpness. Cameras can have different pixels but are Canon & Nikon really going to make different lenses to maximise the "system abilities" unlikely.

 

[jrista]

Jrista

As per my other post pluses and minuses of big verses small pixels dynamic range verses definition / sharpness. Cameras can have different pixels but are Canon & Nikon really going to make different lenses to maximise the "system abilities" unlikely.

Sorry, but I think you have some grave misunderstandings, based on your post in another thread. Lenses have non-linear, non-constant resolving power. The notion that you build a lens to match a sensor is inane. The lens would only "match the sensor" at one specific aperture, and at all other apertures would either resolve less or resolve more detail than the sensor is capable of resolving.

Maximizing the overall camera system's capabilities means increasing the resolving power of the least common denominator. I've done the math for that here on these forums countless times. If the lens is the least capable element of the system, then improving lens resolving power will get you the most bang for the buck. If the sensor is the least capable element of the system, improving sensor spatial resolution will get you the most bang for the buck. The simple FACT of the matter is that system output resolution is a product of all system components combined. You don't match the lens to the sensor. You maximize the capabilities of BOTH to extract the most you possibly can overall. And, so long as you have an AA filter, pushing lens resolution well beyond sensor resolution is actually the easiest way to improve output resolution.

 

[CarlTN]

A lithium ion battery out of a Dreamliner ... That wouldn´t be very reliable, would it? :

You would only run the low risk of bursting into flames, it'll be ok. And worth it, for 0.01e- read noise.

I do suspect, however, that viable fuel cells the size of current batteries will arrive soon enough. And provide much more power. They will probably cost a good bit more than the average battery, but such is the price of progress, I guess...

Fuel cells...you mean those that use natural gas? Or what type of fuel cell are you referring to?

The only time (so far) that I have been able to visit CA...I traveled with my brother to silicon valley, to check out a fuel cell that was about to be purchased by the university my brother worked for at the time. Funds for this purchase came from various places (some public). I think they paid a total of $8 million. It was spec'ed to produce only 4000 to 5000 watts...but for the brief weeks it actually worked at all, it produced about half that. It is now gathering dust, does not work at all.

A fuel cell is simply an energy cell that produces energy by controlled chemical reaction. Technically speaking, batteries are a type of fuel cell, albeit ones that do not produce much energy. Basic fuel cells generally oxidize hydrogen with oxygen in some controlled chemical process that ultimately produces water (the reaction is obviously not direct, otherwise that would likely cause an explosion), which is an energy-producing reaction that can produce a lot more energy than your average battery.

Theoretically fuel cells can be remarkably efficient, especially when waste heat energy is reemployed, reaching the 85-90% efficiency mark. Even if the kind of fuel cells that might be employed in DSLRs only reached the 50-60% efficiency range, they can still produce more power than a battery. Fuel cells are an area of pretty intense research, and many fuel cells exist that function quite well. High temperature fuel cells have been known to reach as high as 83% efficiency when recycling and reusing heat waste.

Also theoretically, since a fuel cell functions by combining hydrogen and oxygen...they can be "refueled" with water which is then split into hydrogen atoms and oxygen via electrolysis. A well built fuel cell could last for a very long time, and be repeatedly recharged with an external device and clean water.

Now, this is all theory. There have been some applications. Fuel cells have been used in laptops in recent years. Apple is considering powering future macbooks with fuel cells. Fuel cells are being used more frequently in Europe to power all kinds of things. I don't think we will see a rechargeable hydrogen fuel cell any time soon, but I do think that at some point, fuel cells will probably become the standard means of powering larger cameras.

I'll grant you that, anything is possible...just as travelling through wormholes to various points in the universe and time, are "theoretically possible".

I'm not sure anything will replace the current lithium ion batteries cameras are using in the next 5 or even 10 years.

 

[jrista]

A lithium ion battery out of a Dreamliner ... That wouldn´t be very reliable, would it? :

You would only run the low risk of bursting into flames, it'll be ok. And worth it, for 0.01e- read noise.

I do suspect, however, that viable fuel cells the size of current batteries will arrive soon enough. And provide much more power. They will probably cost a good bit more than the average battery, but such is the price of progress, I guess...

Fuel cells...you mean those that use natural gas? Or what type of fuel cell are you referring to?

The only time (so far) that I have been able to visit CA...I traveled with my brother to silicon valley, to check out a fuel cell that was about to be purchased by the university my brother worked for at the time. Funds for this purchase came from various places (some public). I think they paid a total of $8 million. It was spec'ed to produce only 4000 to 5000 watts...but for the brief weeks it actually worked at all, it produced about half that. It is now gathering dust, does not work at all.

A fuel cell is simply an energy cell that produces energy by controlled chemical reaction. Technically speaking, batteries are a type of fuel cell, albeit ones that do not produce much energy. Basic fuel cells generally oxidize hydrogen with oxygen in some controlled chemical process that ultimately produces water (the reaction is obviously not direct, otherwise that would likely cause an explosion), which is an energy-producing reaction that can produce a lot more energy than your average battery.

Theoretically fuel cells can be remarkably efficient, especially when waste heat energy is reemployed, reaching the 85-90% efficiency mark. Even if the kind of fuel cells that might be employed in DSLRs only reached the 50-60% efficiency range, they can still produce more power than a battery. Fuel cells are an area of pretty intense research, and many fuel cells exist that function quite well. High temperature fuel cells have been known to reach as high as 83% efficiency when recycling and reusing heat waste.

Also theoretically, since a fuel cell functions by combining hydrogen and oxygen...they can be "refueled" with water which is then split into hydrogen atoms and oxygen via electrolysis. A well built fuel cell could last for a very long time, and be repeatedly recharged with an external device and clean water.

Now, this is all theory. There have been some applications. Fuel cells have been used in laptops in recent years. Apple is considering powering future macbooks with fuel cells. Fuel cells are being used more frequently in Europe to power all kinds of things. I don't think we will see a rechargeable hydrogen fuel cell any time soon, but I do think that at some point, fuel cells will probably become the standard means of powering larger cameras.

I'll grant you that, anything is possible...just as travelling through wormholes to various points in the universe and time, are "theoretically possible".

I'm not sure anything will replace the current lithium ion batteries cameras are using in the next 5 or even 10 years.

Maybe not in the next five, but quite possibly within the next ten. They never had a real commercial foothold until the last few years...but now that they do, I think they will start to take hold much faster. My dad works on a lot of high end, cutting edge stuff, fuel cells are one of them. It's one of the hottest things in engineering today, across the globe...so I wouldn't be surprised to see them becoming more common in the not so distant future.

 

[nicku]

What I wish to see from Canon in 2014 :

1. An big megapixel camera in a 5D body.
2. An APS-H 7Dmk2
3. An improved version of the 6D (improved AF in particular)

What i believe Canon will release:

1. Big MP camera in a 1D series body with a considerable price tag.
2. APS-C 7Dmk2 with a improved version of the 20.2 MP sensor.
3. EOS 700D replacement