New Sensor Has Real Per-Pixel RGB Sensitivity 354
jonr writes: "Well, the holy grail of digital photography is finally found. A company named Foveon have developed a sensor that captures RGB colours on each pixel. So what you say? Well, for the past 30 years (or since the CCD was invented) we have been using CCD with with red, green & blue sensors (or cyan/magneta/yellow) and then used software to figure out the real colour. But Foveon is the first company to deliver RGB-in-each-pixel sensor.
For those of you who are not into digital imaging, this makes a lot of difference, it's would be just as revelutionary if somebody would make a flatscreen with a real colour pixels, instead of the RGB dots. dpreview.com has the scoop.
(No, it won't mean the death of film, but I suspect we'll see dramatic improvement in quality)."
Sweet (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Sweet (Score:3, Informative)
A 400% increase in the amount of red and blue light accounted for and a 200% increase in the amount of green. (See figure 1.) [dpreview.com] A mean increase of 300%, but the overall image quality will be exponentially better because the true color balance will be maintained.
This is freakin' awesome, btw.
Well, sweet in a way... (Score:2, Interesting)
The reality will be, assuming the price on these sensors is competitive, that manufacturers will run the same crummy resolution, because Joe Consumer is amazingly happy already with 35mm ASA 400 and 800 quality prints, which look terrible after a lifetime of ASA 25 & 64 film use, not to mention medium format, which is the only plausible choice for quality poster size prints.
It's a neat technology, but I'm underwhelmed until it translates into a high enough resolution sensor in a body I can use my existing glass on for a price comparable to buying a 35mm body. Granted, you get the luxury of instant feedback on your photo (though there are drawbacks, i.e. on how fast these hi-res images process in the camera see my webpage for SF Grand Prix pictures for further explanation and examples), film is still fast and affordable. All I really need is a better way to transfer negatives or slides to my PC. I have an HP photo/slide/negative scanner, but it's unimpressive.
Re:Well, sweet in a way... (Score:2)
I have an HP photo/slide/negative scanner, but it's unimpressive.
But don't scanners use the same kind of chips that the cameras do? I thought scanners used ccd as well, but I'm willing to be called an idiot. (I'm posting on /., so of course I must be) But my first thought was that scanners should also improve with these chips. And scanners are much cheaper than cameras to buy.
Anyone know what this will do to scanners?
Re:Well, sweet in a way... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Sweet (Score:3, Informative)
All the 5Mpixel stuff on the market, like the CoolPix 5000 mean 5 million sensors, not 5 million of each sensor. Really. Go check some of the spec pages on dpreview [dpreview.com] if you don't believe me.
It makes a lot less difference then you would think, but it does make some difference.
Ah the circle of technology... (Score:3, Interesting)
No matter how many time I tell myself I'm over the fact that this will alway happen (stuff being outdated right after you buy it), the first thing that pops into my mind is "damn, if only I could have waited a little longer..."
Actually, this is very cool. Combine it with the depth capturing story we heard about earlier and hopefully dept projection and the future looks really really awesome!
Re:Dont feel too bad (Score:2, Informative)
Pixel count in camera specs... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Pixel count in camera specs... (Score:3, Informative)
Check out:
http://www.dpreview.com/learn/key=colour+filter
The pixel count is going to hurt them, Sigma will try to sell a 3.43MP Digital SLR for $3000 with an undersized (1.7X) sensor using this technology. I do not think this will compete well against a 6MP Canon D30 at a similar price.
Re:Pixel count in camera specs... (Score:4, Informative)
No, it's almost entirely wrong. The most common configuration for a digital camera uses what's known as a Bayer filter pattern for discerning color. Each pixel will only sense red, green, or blue (there are as many green as there are red and blue combined), and it will use neighboring pixels to extrapolate the true color. While it's true that some of the pixels are lost from the stated resolution (stated pixels actually refers to photosites), it's only about 200,000 in a 2mp CCD.
Re:Pixel count in camera specs... (Score:2, Informative)
(a) about 3 million red sensors + 3 million green sensors + 3 million blue sensors
or
(b) about 1 million red sensors + 1 million green sensors + 1 million blue sensors
The truth is 0.75 million red sensors + 1.5 million green sensors + 0.75 million blue sensors, not too far from (b). So killthiskid is essentially right. The current marketing numbers are deceiving, which was the spirit of his question.
Sounds Good to Me (Score:2)
Re:Sounds Good to Me (Score:2)
While cameras are the 'killer app' for this tech, I think we'll probably see it show up in flatbed document scanners first.
Still, that's not an unwelcome tradeoff. I can't wait to scan an image and *not* have to correct for saturation or gamma levels.
In the opinion of many people, an expertly shot film image is still superior to an expert digital camera image. This will be the test of that supposition.
Re:Sounds Good to Me (Score:2)
Why? A flatbed can "just" make multiple passes with different color filters (that is how most film scanners work, an R pass, G pass, B pass, and an IP pass to find the dust and scratches). This is much more useful for something capturing the moving world...
Yes, but that frequently has more to do with depth of field and quality of the digital camera. If you look in Sports Illustrated or Time magazine for example you will be very hard pressed to identify the Nikon D1/D1H/D1X shots, or the Canon D30/1D shots because they are of very high quality and offer the same creatave control over depth of field. Except for the D30 they also cost 2 to 3 times as much as a high end film body (and a high end film body at $2000 costs far more then an intro level SLR which can make the same images, just slower).
There are still plenty of areas film wins though, very slow and very fast films get results you normally can't get with digitals, and even at more normal speeds if you enlarge past 8x10 or at least past 16x10 (the D1X has done "double truck" images in SI for example) film will win again. Of corse at those sizes you almost always need a tripod, and seldom use 35mm film...
Re:Sounds Good to Me (Score:2)
I didn't say they did, I said they could (or at least that was what I intended to say). However if you want an example of a scanner that does multiple passes look at the Nikon CoolScan 4000, or the Canon CannoScan 4000...
Re:Sounds Good to Me (Score:3, Interesting)
Not so fast, though...IIRC, the upper limit right now is something like 6 megapixels, for a ludicrously expensive unit. 6 megapixels scales to roughly the granularity of 200 ASA film - fine for everyday photography, not so fine when you want to blow up images to ludicrous sizes. People who like to make poster-size prints will continue using ASA 40 and 50 film with cameras that cost a fraction of what one of these digital-wonders cost, with film that gives them not only better resolution, but superior color balance as well.
Seems like every time there's an advance in digital imaging, somebody has to whang the "death of film" gong - the fact of the matter is, even _after_ digital cameras have surpassed analog ones, there will be people who will _still_ prefer film, if for no other reason than they like the images better. You can't measure artistic value with "real color, nn megapixel" stats - and as such, film will really never die.
Wrong: 16 MP (Score:2)
Re:Sounds Good to Me (Score:2)
You don't measure artistic value with ASA numbers and the size of prints either. In many cases, the technical shortcomings are seen as an aid to artistic interpretation (think of Lomo for example). So even while today's digital cameras are worse in image quality, I cannot see why they should be less artistic.
Screw resolution (Score:5, Interesting)
More resolution, while nice, is not what digital photography primarily lacks. Light and shadow sensitivity is what really sucks with digital cameras. Film has a logarithmic sensitivity to light, while a digital sensor has a linear sensitivity.
Just out of curiosity, does anyone know of any technologies in development to give better light/shadow sensitivity.
Re:Screw resolution (Score:2)
Re:Screw resolution (Score:2)
Sure you could transform the scale, but the problem is that you typically only have 8 bits of intensity information (or maybe 10 in some cases, I believe). That not a very wide range. I don't remember exactly what the dynamic range of film is, but it's way higher than this (maybe someone knowledgeable could give their 2c about this).
Re:Screw resolution (Score:3, Informative)
i don't think that's the problem Reality Master 101 was referring to. i forget my terms and exact figures, but the general idea is like this:
let's say pure black is light level 0 and pure white is level 10. now if traditional film can capture the range from 2-8 then digital film captures 3-7, so digital provides less shadow detail and less highlight detail than traditional film.
Re:Screw resolution (Score:2)
What do you classify as "pure white"? Typical indoor lighting? Typical outdoor lighting on a sunny day? Typical lighting when there's a thermonuclear explosion happening a kilometer away?
Pure black is well defined -- zero photons -- but pure white is, well, completely bogus.
Re:Screw resolution (Score:2)
pure white is, well, completely bogus
No, pure white is defined as maximum response for your sensor. This is, of course dependent on what you're looking with, but there isn't really any other way. If you want to compare two cameras, you should probably choose a candlepower near the limit of what a human can handle.
Re:Screw resolution (Score:3, Informative)
Well the problem is mostly that there aren't enough bits coming out of the camera, so adjacent intensities get combined into one and you lose the shadow detail.
Plus a lot of cameras have a lot of noise in the sensor, which further screws up shadow detail.
Re:Screw resolution (Score:2)
Image sensors with Foveon X3 technology gather more light. In a mosaic sensor, each pixel collects only one color out of three, or roughly one-third of the light. The remaining two-thirds of incident light is absorbed by color filters and not used - which is a significant reduction in the efficiency of the pixels. Foveon X3 pixels maximize the use of light since all three colors are collected at each pixel.
Doesn't mention if this also means the range it captures is any greater (whats the technical term for that again?), but i'd like to have a camera that acts like ISO 3200.
Also, this technology has less artifacts because it does not need to do any interpolation. I think that the higher response rate will be a great benefit too; i use a nikon 990 and the wait after taking a shot is crazy. and if this technology helps prolong battery life (less computing, but the main drain is lcd anyways) i'm happier. or i will be once it's in a camera that costs less than $3000.
Personally, i'd love to have a lot more resolution so's i can crop like crazy when necessary. That and i like my Good photos printed out 20x30.
Waiting for the Nikon 990 (Score:2)
--Mike--
Re:Screw resolution (Score:2)
It doesn't look like it since Sigma's X3 using camera (is it the SA-9 or SD-9?) only offers ISO 100, 200, 400 and can "push" to 800 and 1600. That more or less matches what the two year old EOS-D30 can do, so I imagine that has more to do with sensor well size (the D30's sensors are just a little bigger I think).
That probbably has more to do with JPEGing it, or writing it to the CF card (esp those huge TIFF images).
Maybe you should give film a try then :-) Try Kodak techpan, or Ilford Pan F, or if you want color Fuji Velvia. Bring a tripod though.
Re:Screw resolution (Score:2)
The D30 buffers images, so I never have to wait for them to be saved to the CF card. When I had the Nikon 990, I had the same problem you do now, and it was horribly aggrivating.
The D30 cost me $3,385, including lens and CF card, so if $3,000 is really your top, it's not that far away. If you got a cheap prime lens instead of the fancy zoom I got, you could probably just squeeze under the $3,000 limit.
You might enjoy reading my review of the D30:
http://www.epinions.com/content_55600909956
D
Re:Screw resolution (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Screw resolution (Score:4, Insightful)
RZ
Re:Screw resolution (Score:2)
Olympus puts f1.4 lenses on many of its digital cameras these days. Admittedly, these are "prosumer" cameras and not low-end consumer cameras, but you can buy an Olympus C2040 for about $450 these days. Sony and a few other manufacturers use Carl Zeiss lenses, which while not as fast optically as the Olympus lenses, seem to frequently have more accurate imaging.
Re:Screw resolution (Score:2)
That depends a lot on the camera and the output mode you use. For example look at the Nikon D1H in NEF mode, or the Canon D30 or D1 in RAW (or is that CRW?) mode.
FUGA and Dual Slope look promising (Score:2, Informative)
You might be interested in Fill Factory's goodies:
The FUGA is kinda cool in that it doesn't integrate like a CCD. It has no 'shutter time' and pixel values can be read on the fly.
The site has an excellent FAQ [fillfactory.com].
logs (Score:5, Informative)
Conventional AgX can capture around 14 stops of light (thats 2^14) - conventional paper can handle 8 stops or so... a typical scene has 2^11, give or take. Depends on the scene and the subject- obviously a shot of a barn with the door open in broad daylight is going to have a bit more range than a shot inside in a white room with light bouncing everywhere.
So, what you really want, is to have the SOFTWARE be cognizant of higher bitdepth images. When you have 8 bits to capture a 10 bit scene, information is lost. So you throw some out... and you end up with muddled highlights and muddled shadows, and something in the middle that looks decent.
Believe it or not, but alot of companies have spent alot of money trying to figure out the correct 'mental' representation of a greyscale- not even including colour. I'm partial to Kodak (I work there, but these views are mine).
I've worked with extended bit depth images quite a bit and know that there is none (read, big fat ZERO) ms support for anything over 8 bits.... in fact, ImageViewer simply locks up and crashes. So any sort of solution that gives you extended tonal rendering are going to have to be custom solutions... and that probably won't sit well with the average person- "what do you mean i have to process my pictures before I can view them?!?!? I'll just go buy another camera" etc etc. Even if the benefits are enormous, there is the simplicity factor that drives it.
I personally am interested in this sensor, but there seems to be the wrong website linked... which worries me...
Re:logs (Score:3, Insightful)
Or RGB, or PNG, or RGB/LZ, or RLE, or one of the many other open formats out there.
Because- (Score:3, Insightful)
If you don't understand the difference between colour space and format of the data, you really don't need to post a response to either this or the previously mentioned topic. Because you don't understand it, may I reccommend a book, Digital Encoding Solutions, available from Amazon for around $45.
Re:Screw resolution (Score:5, Informative)
They are increasing the amount of light captured per element.
Succinct overview: (Let's say we have a camera with 16 pixel (4x4 matrix)
In a typical mosaic CCD pixels would be the following:
gbgr
rgbg
grgb
bgrg
That's 8 green pixels, 4 red and 4 blue.
Thus 50% green, 25% red and 25% blue.
Now, after the image is captured, the camera has to do some serious image manipulation to translate the average color per pixel into an RGB value. Depending on the "correctness" of the algorithm used, you'll get all sorts of fun... low light noise, color shifts, purple fringing, moire patterns.. etc. and all that processing chews cpu time and battery life, and slows down the speed from picture to picture.
(Yes, some cameras have higher speed processors... just means yet more battery drain)
In their new method of capturing the layout is as follows:
aaaa
aaaa
aaaa
aaaa
In this case, all 16 pixels capture red green and blue. This means NO processing to be done to calculate color per pixel.
It also means a 2x increase in the amount of green light captured. And a 4x increase in the amount of both red and blue light captured.
More light being captured = more light and shadow detail.
Not having to process (interpolate) pixel colors = no more fringing, moire or other funkiness.
Now, that doesn't change the fact that digital sensors rely on converting a given set of photons into an electrical charge, and that's tough work... but having more light detected at each photo element is going to give you a LOT more light and shadow definition.
But, I digrees. I don't know of anyone pioneering new ways of doing ADC for photo elements.
Re:Screw resolution (Score:2)
So then, isn't the question of what type of sensitivity *human eyes* have? Do we have logarithmic or linear sensitivity?
Logarithmic Response (Score:3, Informative)
For a linear sensor, the photosite is generally a floating N+ diffusion, that makes up one side of an NMOS transistor. At reset, the voltage here is set to VDD. As incident light generates electron-hole pairs, the electrons are collected in the diffusion, lowering the voltage in a linear fashion, dependent upon the parasitic capacitance of the photosite. When the integration time is up, this charge/voltage is sampled, and you have a linear sensor.
For logarithmic response, the reset level of the photosite is actually even with the biasing of the gate to that transistor (minus the Vt, of course). Incident light generates electrons, and the transistor operates in the sub-threshold region, making the voltage at the photosite vary as the logarithm of the current being generated and flowing through the gate region. Sample that voltage, and tah-dah, you've got a logarithmic response to light.
I admit, this is much easier to understand with diagrams of the diffusions, so if you want, here is a pdf of a paper discussing a sensor that has combined linear-logarithmic response:
CMOS Active Pixel Sensor With Combined Linear and Logarithmic Mode Operation [uwaterloo.ca]
Re:Screw resolution (Score:3, Informative)
See for example the "Creating Digital Dynamic Range Wider than Film's" chapter [digitalsecrets.net] from the excellent "Mastering Nikon Compact Digital Cameras" book.
when's this comming out? (Score:3, Interesting)
According to this article [com.com] it says the first camera with this new sensor will be Sigma's SD9 SLR digital camera. No details on when, how much, what features. Anyone have more info on when this will be available? domo
Re:when's this comming out? (Score:2, Informative)
The first camera to use the new sensor will be the $3,000 Sigma SD9 D-SLR (Sigma lens mount), Kodak have also shown an interest in using the X3 technology.
You _did_ ask for "how much"
Re:when's this comming out? (Score:2, Informative)
Question
When will the Sigma SD-9 be available?
Answer
Sigma will begin taking orders for the SD-9 digital SLR camera at the PMA show on Feb. 24, 2002. The company plans to begin shipping in May 2002. Please refer to the Sigma website for more information (http://www.sigma-photo.com).
Question
How much will the Sigma SD-9 cost?
Answer
Please refer to the Sigma website for specific information regarding the Sigma SD-9 digital SLR camera (http://www.sigma-photo.com).
I couldnt find any info on the camera on the sigma site though..
Re:when's this comming out? (Score:2)
Sure, the front page of dpreview has 3 pointers to X3 stuff, including the Sigma camera [dpreview.com]. More info in the forums, but you have to dig for that.
great news (Score:2, Troll)
When I went vegan over 10 years ago I chose to give up my darkroom (paper & film contain gelatine). I've been waiting in earnest for the photographic digital revolution!
Hopefully this will bring down the price of decent digital SLR cameras. All the ones I like the look of are about $1k and I've got too many other things on the list without burning a grand on a camera (+ a decent sized IBM microdrive + lenses etc.etc.)
I wonder if this will bring other benefits like clarity & shutter speeds available.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:great news (OT) (Score:2)
ok i'll bite
er, how is living in a crate part of the life cycle of a pig?
How is living 3 to a 2 foot cage the life cycle of a chicken?
Since when was having your children taken away unweaned and being drugged with hormones so you'll keep making milk part of the life cycle of a cow.
The trouble with country folk is they've lost touch with nature.
Re:great news (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't have any idea why digital cameras that'll take my Nikon lenses are so ridiculously expensive. The reason I haven't bought a digital camera yet is that I can't stand the idea of spending more money on a camera which has the optics of a cheap compact camera than I did on my SLR camera. That and the very noticable artifacts present in most digital photographs (and the lack of being able to do things like leave the shutter open for long exposure shots).
Yeah, unfortunately... (Score:2)
You just can't win...
Re:great news (Score:2)
to sum up:
Jello bad, Slavery good.
nice belief you got there.
Re:great news (Score:3, Funny)
I have been involved in direct action to try and highlight the horrors of 3rd world debt resulting in some tokenism from our government.
I am appalled that Western consumerism drives such business models. Almost everything in this room is an imported good manufactured outside my native country.
I try and buy as much of my food as possible from local producers.
So you've got your own electronics manufacturing plant there then I guess. The computer is one you built by hand from locally sourced components I suppose. I'm impressed at your resourcefulness.
Re:great news (Score:2, Insightful)
as far as i can without going completely crazy
"Strive to survive causing the least suffering possible"
thankfully it includes my own
Re:Ok, everybody together now... (Score:2, Interesting)
how's that then?
Re:great news (Score:3, Informative)
As for the deer, they got along just fine for millions of years before people shot them. Looks like the shooters killed all the predators. What a mess! A difficult situation, my in the field decision would probably be different from the one I'm about to type. The population means nothing. Shooting an individual means everything to that individual. Deer, like most animals, self regulate their populations to food supply. Weak animals can't breed. The population will find a sustainable level given enough time.
Solution, do nothing. Except maybe take some food down once in a while.
Is it better to let nature take its course even if that's bad for the animals?
"the animals" don't exist. Individuals do. Nature will take it's course no matter what we do.
Can humans and their tools ever be seen as part of nature?
They already are, humans seem to think that they aren't animals. The tools at our disposal means we can produce more food with less animal products. You may have gathered it's the suffereing at the individual level that I feel is important. That may not be true of other vegans.
Is there ever a time when a human can kill an animal and not be "exploiting" it?
I try to think without the distinction between species. So replace the word animal with the word human and see how you feel about that. That's generally how I feel.
Is it acceptable to "exploit" an individual animal for the benefit of the group?
An eternal philisophical question. Humans often sacrifice themselves for the good of the group. My existence is exploited every day by those that have power over my life. Everywhere I turn profit is deemed king over people. Power & wealth isn't distributed anywhere near fairly.
If you stop considering animals and people distinct then your own values about fairness and cooperation can be applied.
Just because a cow can't talk doesn't mean it has no emotions. It's such biological arrogance to consider NO OTHER BEING except once branch of hairless monkeys sentient.
It's simple to see that a dog will feel hungry or cold. So why not lonely or happy?
I've worked on farms and been involved in the "animal rights" movement. I used to eat meat. I used to shoot rabbits and birds. I've seen first hand the disdain people have for the creatures around them. It's not difficult to witness the many terrible ways humans treat each other.
Here I am in my safe comfortable surroundings. I have no need to eat cows so why make them die for me? Mass murderers of humans are generally reviled and yet we kill millions and millions of cows, pigs & chickens. It's so wrong.
There's no real reason I shouldn't shoot you in the face and eat your tasty flesh. Out of courtesy, I choose not to and I extend that courtesy to other species. If it came down to it though and I wasn't feeling noble you might find yourself on the barby (unless you got me first of course
Carrion - nope, no reason why not (except digestion problems)
thanks for your curiosity, much better than the usual hostility people give me just for being nice!
It's all quite irrational but I have the luxury of choice and this is the choice I've made.
Incedentally and quite ironically I was diagnosed with Crohn's disease a couple of years ago. Recent research has made strong links between the consumption of cows milk and the onset of the disease. Just my luck eh! The cows got me.
New camera? New batteries? (Score:3, Insightful)
Will these require more umph from batteries too? It says " Today's digital cameras must use complex mathematical algorithms to estimate the red, green, and blue values of each pixel, since only one color per pixel is being truly measured. To accomplish this interpolation, dedicated processing hardware and software are required inside the camera." but what about the power to drive an array of three sensors?
Oh well, guess it just means that I need to put off my next camera purchase.
Interesting, but no revolution (Score:3, Informative)
High-end digital imaging devices (mostly digital and analog video cameras, but perhaps some still cameras) have been using 3 CCD chips for a long time to achieve RGB values for each pixel. It's usually done with a prism system that splits the incoming light into different colors which then are registered on different CCD chips.
In 1-chip devices, color is acheived through a matrix of filters which covers the CCD chip, allowing only certain wavelengths of light to reach each pixel on the CCD.
It seems to me that what this will really do is give us smaller, higher quality imaging devices. Let's hope X10 doesn't launch a while new popunder campaign...
Actually... it is revolutionary (Score:5, Informative)
This thing could also make one heck of a nice nightvision system, if used properly... so we could all have nice color pictures at night, just like the military folks have had for a long time. (Green screens are just for the media to consume).
--Mike--
Higher Quality at lower resolution... (Score:2)
Re:Higher Quality at lower resolution... (Score:2)
If you want on-screen display, anything larger than your monitor resolution is kinda wasted, unless you want to spend time cropping images. So that's, what, 1600x1200 as a working maximum necessary?
If you want to print an image, you want 300pixels per linear inch, as a working minimum for something you won't mind looking at from 14inches away. Do the math there, and you get your required image resolution...
For "normal" print sizes:
3"x5" = 900x1500 pixels (1.3MPixel)
4"x6" (standard 35mm print, now) = 1200x1800 pixels (2.1MP)
5"x7" = 1500x2100 pixels (3.1MP)
8"x10" = 2400x3000 pixels (7.2MP)
24"x36" (poster) = 7200x10800 pixels (77.7MP)
Okay, the poster resolution is mildly ridiculous, but that's less than what you get with a good 8x10 viewcamera.
Resolution still matters, depending on your use. It's still nice to have the benefits of this sensor for the other reasons mentioned, though.
Vaporware (Score:2)
I'll believe it when I see it. Maybe in 2005. Or 2020.
-Martin
Re:Vaporware (Score:2)
About two years, yes. As far as I know the Sigma will be the first camera using their stuff that costs less then $50,000 or so. (Assuming the Sigma doesn't meet the fate of the Pentax 6Mpixel full frame digital...)
On the other hand Sigma seems pretty sure of when they will release, and Phil did shoot a prototype camera using the chip... so not totally vapor.
Speaking of resolution (Score:5, Interesting)
If anyone is interested how photography resolution compares to digital, I found a great link once about this: http://www.users.qwest.net/~rnclark/scandetail.htm [qwest.net]
It's pretty eye-opening if you think digital photography is getting close to film.
Re:Speaking of resolution (Score:4, Interesting)
I'll direct you to Philip 'Ex-Ars Digita' Greenspun's more balanced review here: http://www.photo.net/photo/digital/choosing.html
(Barring the fact he's talking about older digicams, there's newer stuff on photo.net, and the theory on colorspace is valid.
Further, having dont both film scanning and digital, there's NO DUST ISSUES in a picture that starts it's life out as a digital picture!
Re:Speaking of resolution (Score:2)
In general, it's an interesting link, but should be taken with some skepticism.
Re:Speaking of resolution (Score:2)
Re:Speaking of resolution (Score:2)
Re:Speaking of resolution (Score:2)
Interesting. The first thing I noticed switching from APS to a mid-range digital was the much better color from digital. When I switched to a film SLR I noticed much worse color until I discovered that you could buy more the Kodak Gold. When I went back to digital (this time a DSLR) the color was still pretty good, better then most films, but not better then say Fuji Relia.
I think this is going to depend a lot on the camera, your monitor, and whatever you print it on.
Re:Speaking of resolution (Score:3, Insightful)
Depends on what you're calling 'film photography.' If you mean professionally prepared, then scanned 35mm slides, then no, digital cameras aren't quite there yet. But, if you're talking the average person who uses an automatic 35mm camera with average 35mm film and then takes it to the nearest 1-hour developer at the cost of $0.75 per picture, then yes, digital cameras have already far surpassed film in both quality and economics. Not to mention the fact that digital cameras, while not capturing quite as large a colorspace, are quite linear. IMO, color rendition is far superior to film with regards to capturing what our eyes see compared to the exaggerated colors that film often portrays. Yes, I know our eyes are logarithmic in color sensitivity, but that doesn't mean you want to compound this with non-linearities in film!
Does this mean... (Score:2, Funny)
another article on business2.com (Score:3, Interesting)
There's also a decent article on business2.com
http://www.business2.com/articles/web/print/0,165
If I may out-geek the original article... (Score:5, Interesting)
some limitations of this technology (Score:3, Informative)
Doug Moen
What about CMOS? (Score:5, Interesting)
There are already some (very high-end) digital cameras using CMOS technology, and judging on the sample images I've seen, they are awesome. Take a look at the review of Canon's EOS-D30 [dcresource.com], for example.
Re:What about CMOS? (Score:3, Informative)
Note that the EOS-D30 is not a "very high end" camera. It is very nice, but it's AF sucks, it has a fairly low frame rate and a small buffer (it's 3ish mega pixels on the other hand tend to crank out better images then all the 5 mega pixel $1000 cameras). The EOS-1D, Nikon D1h/D1x, and Kodak 760 are more like high end cameras (costing from $4000 to $8000), and medium format digital backs are even more expensive...
That's not to disparage the D30 though, it is a great camera, I own one, and enjoy it quite a bit. It is just far from "very high end"...
Re:What about CMOS? (Score:3, Informative)
They actually made cameras too in the past, but have stopped that in favor of focusing solely on the chip technology and leaving the rest to the "pros".
Their first camera used an "analog" CMOS chip (their words... better tonal reproduction, wider exposure lattitude)... actually three of them on a prism system, just like a 3-CCD video camera. It was/is stunning... achieving the same effect as their new X3 chip, with a little more complication/cost.
Although the new chip comes along with it's fair share of "buzz talk", they're definately a player, and have a proven track record of amazing quality cameras/chips on their side.
MadCow.
How It Works (Score:2, Informative)
Depth of Field Limitations? Lens Requirements? (Score:5, Interesting)
Due to the sensor thickness, is depth of field going to be restricted to smaller stops in order to have the entire thickness of the sensor in focus?
Re:Depth of Field Limitations? Lens Requirements? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Depth of Field Limitations? Lens Requirements? (Score:2)
Not likely, the different layers of the sensor are still likely to be closer together then the "plane" of the film in all but the vacuum back cameras, and even there pretty much all color film has 3 or more layers (and some B&W film as well!).
Re:Depth of Field Limitations? Lens Requirements? (Score:3, Informative)
-AP
Film is dead in 1-2 decades anyway (Score:2, Interesting)
Question though: Why does someone (Nikon) not produce a truly modular upgradable digital SLR camera?
The D1 is a step in the right direction, but it's too big and way too expensive.
CCD's should be replacable like film backs on film cameras, so that you don't have to throw the whole camera away, just replace your 3Mp back with an 8, then a 12 etc.
And interchangable lenses, preferably standard F mount, for Christ's sakes people. You can't do serious photography with crappy builtin zooms.
My dream camera would be an updated Nikon F3, but with upgradable digital backs, and an option for an LCD screen, but not built in.
Re:Film is dead in 1-2 decades anyway (Score:2)
I think you can't really replace the sensor without replacing the CPU and it's memory unless you seriously overspec the CPU and buffer size (enough CPU to JPEG 4Mpixel images at 5 fps won't handle 6Mpixel images at 12 fps! Nor will the buffer keep up!). If you replace the sensor plus the imager you are talking about replacing most of the value of the camera. I'm not sure what body the $5000 D1X is based on, but I would be surprised if it was more then $1000 or so. I know the D30 (originally $3000, now down to $1450) is based on a $300 body. In both cases the resale value of a still working old one will normally be worth more then the body.
Also since you need to carefully line up the imager with the "film" plane you are going to need to get a repair shop to do it, which eats into your savings.
As if that wasn't enough the newer imagers may allow more features, but you want controls for them, so you might want to change the body anyway. You may also want to throw in a better autofocus system or faster shutter to help lure new customers in...
All i can say is.. (Score:5, Interesting)
The subject is a GretagMacbeth color checker (a bunch of square swatches of color with a black boarder)
With a pro-sumer camera, say around 3k, the image overall looks OK, but zoom in to any "grayscale" swatch, and you'll see that the image is still very much little RGB dots blurred together, and your grey never has all the same RGB vales as a true grey should.
As you go up to the 20k price range, a variety of tech is used to get more accurate color. The best I have seen was a back for a large format camera (can't remember the name for the life of me) that, when used in a studio setting only, could capture exact grey values for each pixel. What this means, is that if you took the captured image in to Photoshop, with no image correction, and you used the eyedropper over a grey swatch, your RGB values would read (x , x , x) over the whole swatch without a hiccup (1 pixel sample).
The camera achieved this by physically moving the CCD array so that it took something like 3 or 4 shots of the image (hence needing to be in a studio set up).
Now, a single CCD camera setup that can be used in the field, probably generating the same results as above, is going to be HUGE.
I don't know the target price range to start, but cameras using this tech, if it lives up to its promises will be HUGE in the pro photo field. Capturing a more true color vs. totally interpolated has enormous impact on color correction and manipulation images. In my experience, images for lower end cameras don't always manipulate in ways you expect because of the interpolated nature.
Life is not a GretagMacbeth Colour Checker (Score:2)
Personally, I prefer reality
What about better compression? (Score:2)
Re:What about better compression? (Score:2)
I'd rather see more effort going into putting decent video compression codecs into these cameras, as some of them already capture MPEG movies, although the frame-rate is low. With a higher frame-rate and better compression ratios in a semi-economical camera, "regular" digital cameras could give DV cameras a real run for their money - and would probably merge into one, as the price of DV comes down dramatically.
steve
Very important breakthrough (Score:2, Insightful)
Parallax and other artifacts cause headaches in all forms of digital processing... causing countless software algorithms to be written that bring things back *inline*. This should do away with much of error correction in imaging.
Even in areas where we do noise removal and color balancing by additive techniques (e.g., image white through rgb sensors... negate it and use that as a additive mask to remove dirt, flys, etc... from your lens as well as color correct by printing the output and again subtracting that from the original to find unbalance in guns) - this will greatly improve the errors that abound surrounding such subtractive and additive region processing.
This will also reduce geometric distortion that often affects sensors where the RG and B components are split out and each sent to a different sensor (assuming that their RGB masks in this sensor are layered properly).
Very good work.
Flat Screens with real Colour Pixels Exist (Score:2, Interesting)
Here's the link if anyone is interested:
LumiLeds [lumileds.com]
Carver Mead (Score:2, Interesting)
Also invented integrated circuit compiler (Score:4, Insightful)
Three CCD's and 3 CRT projectors (Score:2)
It's engineering. (Score:2)
I don't know the specifics, but I can easily look at everything else in technology. Just about everything is -conceived of- before someone actually manages to -build it-, and build it -cheap enough-. That's the reality of engineering.
It does go the other way -- new technical capability can cause people to think of things they wouldn't have before -- but as you say, the already evident facts of the situation make that unlikely.
Re:Whats new? (Score:2)
Just think about it a minute. You've just discovered a new property of a substance. Does that mean you can just run out and start making new revolutionary things?
No, of course not, you still have to take the time to work out the engineering.
Certainly the most commonly known story of this phenomenon is the invention of the light bulb by Dr. Swan.
Oh, sorry. Most people don't know that story, they know the one about Edison, which actually further illustrates my point.
When a new basic principle is discovered there are generally thousands of people to whom the implications are patently evident, and the race is on to see who gets the credit for exploiting it first.
Swan actually demonstrated his light bulb before Edison did, and if Edison hadn't even bothered to try the light bulb would have been just as available in the exact same time frame. ( By the way, the same thing applies to the idea that Bill Gates is somehow personally responsible for the PC revolution).
But we DO pretty much all know the story of how Edison understood the basic principle involved, and how long it took, and the sacrifices he had to undergo, in order to learn how to *apply* that principle usefully.
N'cest pas?
KFG
Overly simplistic explanation (Score:3, Interesting)
If I'm right in my assumption, it should be possible to build an arbitrary stack of layers (with reduced efficiency) for any color ranges you care to deal with. It might be possible to make a camera that has a special layer to pick up the 700nm wavelength that chlorophyll absorbs [nasa.gov] line to determine plant health for use in agriculture.
I suppose it could be stacked the other way, but that would probably be a much larger engineering challenge.
--Mike--
Re:Hope Canon uses it (Score:2)
Interestingly, Contax just came out with what I believe is the first full-size sensor in a digital SLR, here's an article [imaging-resource.com] about it. But yeah full-size sensor, EOS lenses, in an SLR, that would rock! Oh yeah and it would be nice if it was under $1000...someday..
Re:Wow, better than the human eye (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Actually, RGB dots on a flatscreen are better (Score:2)
2D spectral photometer (Score:2)
It goes in the wish list, along with my personal KiloWatt, and personal MegaWatt, and the 10k*10k pixel CCD camera.
--Mike--