Then end of FF bulk?
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: Official: Nikon D3s the new benchmark in DSLR low noise capability
Next: Sigma's new 85mm f1.4 re-bodied Samyang optics with AF?
From: Robert Spanjaard on 20 Feb 2010 14:01 On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 10:50:00 -0800, c_atiel wrote: > The last major hurdle of digital image capture is exposure latitude. > Even the best digital sensors still have very little latitude for over > exposure. This is compensated for/disguised by improvements in sensor > noise that allow the signal from relatively underexposed areas to be > amplified. Presumably readers here understand that is why you shoot in > raw mode for optimal results. > I personally believe that the concept behind Fuji sensors that mix image > capture cells of different sensitivities on the same sensor and use > sophisticated processing algorithms to blend the data is the way to go. Their approach is prehistoric compared to individual pixel exposure. -- Regards, Robert http://www.arumes.com
From: R Davis on 20 Feb 2010 15:23 On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 10:50:00 -0800, "c_atiel" <fac_187(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >The last major hurdle of digital image capture is exposure latitude. >Even the best digital sensors still have very little latitude for over >exposure. This is compensated for/disguised by improvements in sensor noise >that allow the signal from relatively underexposed areas to be amplified. >Presumably readers here understand that is why you shoot in raw mode for >optimal results. No, only people who don't know how to use their camera in the first place need RAW consistently. They don't know how to expose their subjects properly. Or more commonly, their camera is just very poor at the RAW to JPG conversion and they have to resort to the RAW data to try to repair what their camera fails to do. Good cameras will have the full dynamic range of the RAW sensor data properly represented in the JPG file. There's no need to use the RAW file from them. Even when you do use the RAW file you will have a very difficult time trying to get anything more out of the RAW data. How do I know this? I only buy those cameras which accomplish the RAW to JPG conversion properly. You might be able to repair this camera defect in your own camera by just shooting with the lowest contrast setting possible. Many camera makers unnaturally boost the contrast for that "gosh wow" effect right from the camera so they can sell more cameras. Clipping the full range from the sensor in doing so. But your greatest cure will come from learning how to properly expose your subjects in the first place. About the only thing you might get is slightly higher resolution by using more advanced RAW-JPG algorithms on the computer than what might be used in-camera. The increased resolution is so slight though that it's generally not worth the bother except for special projects like astrophotography, or when you are desiring the best resolution possible for panoramas. But in panoramas it's easier to just shoot an extra row or a few more frames with a longer-focal-length to get more resolution than you'll ever get from using the RAW data. I've measured the differences using ISO-12233 resolution test targets to determine this resolution increase from the RAW. It's only barely perceptible and not useful at all with most subjects. Generally it's just a RAW editing waste of time. >I personally believe that the concept behind Fuji sensors that mix image >capture cells of different sensitivities on the same sensor and use >sophisticated processing algorithms to blend the data is the way to go. >This system has worked very well for mammalian retinae and brains for quite >a while. >Sadly, many primates do not seem to use the brain part very well. > Yes, I noticed that about you.
From: Doug Jewell on 20 Feb 2010 15:35 ron_tom wrote: > On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 18:26:00 +1000, Doug Jewell > <ask(a)and.maybe.ill.tell.you> wrote: > >> Rich wrote: >>> I'll believe this claim when I see it. >>> >>> http://www.eoshd.com/entry.php?29-Panasonic-engineer-reveals-workings-of- >>> GH2-dual-exposure-sensor >>> >>> Here are the key points: >>> >>> * Panasonic have developed a 4K x 2K image sensor (approx. 12 >>> megapixel) based on 'dual exposure technique' >>> * The sensor is described as having new architecture that tries to >>> improve sensitivity by a factor of 4 or more >>> * The architecture change is a new design which allows green pixels >>> to be read independently of the blue and red ones on the sensor. >>> * The green pixels are exposed 4 times longer than the red and blue, >>> thus achieving the sensitivity gain >>> * Motion artifacts are introduced as a result, but clever signal >>> processing of the red and blue channels corrects the motion artifacts >>> introduced in the green channel by the long exposure >>> * Red and blue channel gain achieved by pixel binning in 4x4 mode >>> >>> >>> The technique is similar to the Intelligent Resolution feature of the new >>> Panasonic TZ10 sensor, but on a larger scale. >>> >>> A factor of 4 increase in sensitivity will allow the Micro 4/3rds camera >>> to surpass the full frame Canon 5DMkII. GH2 is currently slated for a >>> September release date >> You forget of course, that if this technology is really as >> good as it sounds, and makes a 4/3 sensor as sensitive as a >> current 24x36 sensor, that the same technology can be >> applied to a 24x36 sensor making it once again better than a >> 4/3 sensor. >> >> No matter which way you look at it, smaller sensors will >> always be behind large sensors. They may make momentary >> gains during the early implementation phase of a new >> technology, but as soon as that technology is applied to the >> larger sensor, it will leap ahead again. >> >> A larger sensor can have larger photosites for better >> dynamic range and lower noise, more photosites for better >> spatial resolution, or a combination of both. > > What planet are you living on? What's the color of the sky in your world? > Technological innovations in sensor technology are *always* applied to > small sensor cameras first. It is only 1-3 years later where those > innovations are then applied to larger sensors. I know improvements are always applied to small sensors first, but it takes a lot of improvements before a small sensor will get ahead of a larger sensor. It wasn't until just prior to the 5DII, that APS-C cameras had caught up to the old 5D in resolution and noise, and even then noise is arguable. The 5DII set the bar higher again, and no APS-C camera currently comes close to beating it for noise and resolution. Similar scenario happened with Nikon and the D3/700 family. Likewise, 4/3 is mostly behind APS-C, and compact cameras are behind 4/3. As I said, they may make momentary gains, but the larger formats soon implement the improved technology and leap ahead. > > Catch up! > -- What is the difference between a duck?
From: Chris Malcolm on 21 Feb 2010 05:20 In rec.photo.digital R Davis <spamless(a)anon.com> wrote: > On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 10:50:00 -0800, "c_atiel" <fac_187(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>The last major hurdle of digital image capture is exposure latitude. >>Even the best digital sensors still have very little latitude for over >>exposure. This is compensated for/disguised by improvements in sensor noise >>that allow the signal from relatively underexposed areas to be amplified. >>Presumably readers here understand that is why you shoot in raw mode for >>optimal results. > No, only people who don't know how to use their camera in the first place > need RAW consistently. Or who happen to be using one of the camera models well known to produce noticeably better results from RAW then from the in-camera jpegs, or who happen to do most of their shooting in conditions where processing from RAW is always better, etc.. -- Chris Malcolm
From: John McWilliams on 21 Feb 2010 11:39
Chris Malcolm wrote: > In rec.photo.digital R Davis <spamless(a)anon.com> wrote: >> On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 10:50:00 -0800, "c_atiel" <fac_187(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >>> The last major hurdle of digital image capture is exposure latitude. >>> Even the best digital sensors still have very little latitude for over >>> exposure. This is compensated for/disguised by improvements in sensor noise >>> that allow the signal from relatively underexposed areas to be amplified. >>> Presumably readers here understand that is why you shoot in raw mode for >>> optimal results. > >> No, only people who don't know how to use their camera in the first place >> need RAW consistently. > > Or who happen to be using one of the camera models well known to > produce noticeably better results from RAW then from the in-camera > jpegs, or who happen to do most of their shooting in conditions where > processing from RAW is always better, etc.. Vitrually without exception, if you have good tools- ie a good RAW converter such as Lightroom- and know what you're doing, you can get superior results from a RAW file than the in-camera processed JPEG. For some, it's not worth the trouble. For others, they can't see the difference, and some just don't have the knowledge or time to do so. -- john mcwilliams |