This is Interesting: Free Magazines for Graphics designers and webmasters
Home > Archive > Computer Graphics with Photoshop > June 2005 > CMOS x CCD sensors.
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
CMOS x CCD sensors.
|
|
| Joseph Chamberlain, DDS 2005-06-15, 4:14 am |
| Dear members:
I am interested in your opinions on the differences between CCD and CMOS
sensors for SLR digital cameras. Which one is the best ? Which provides the
best image quality, color fidelity and reproduction, greater color space or
color gamut, ... ?
I am also interested in reading reviews on published in either print
journals/photo magazines or online publications. Are there any reviews you
would recommend ?
Thank you in advance and best regards to all.
--
Dr. Joseph Chamberlain, D.D.S.
Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
| |
| Bill Hilton 2005-06-15, 7:16 pm |
| > Joseph Chamberlain, D.D.S. writes ...
>
>I am interested in your opinions on the differences between CCD and
>CMOS sensors for SLR digital cameras. Which one is the best ?
Cameras using either sensor type are fully capable of excellent images,
so most of us probably feel this is an irrelevant question. Things
that have a bigger impact on image quality are the sensor size, number
of pixels, pixel pitch, quality of the lenses available for the system
and sophistication of the built-in image processing software.
| |
| Mike Russell 2005-06-16, 7:14 am |
| Joseph Chamberlain, DDS wrote:
> Dear members:
>
> I am interested in your opinions on the differences between CCD and
> CMOS sensors for SLR digital cameras. Which one is the best ? Which
> provides the best image quality, color fidelity and reproduction,
> greater color space or color gamut, ... ?
>
> I am also interested in reading reviews on published in either print
> journals/photo magazines or online publications. Are there any
> reviews you would recommend ?
If you haven't already, I recommend you check out www.imaging-resource.com
they have comparison images that you can download for a very large number of
cameras, as well as quantitative tests on image quality.
--
Mike Russell
www.curvemeister.com
| |
| Roger4432@att.net 2005-06-16, 7:17 pm |
|
Bill Hilton wrote:
>
>
> Cameras using either sensor type are fully capable of excellent images,
> so most of us probably feel this is an irrelevant question. Things
> that have a bigger impact on image quality are the sensor size, number
> of pixels, pixel pitch, quality of the lenses available for the system
> and sophistication of the built-in image processing software.
Agreed with the list of "bigger impacts". Although each item plays an
important role, some would argue that special attention should be on
software. If the software cannot capture or process the data well, or
does not offer a user friendly interface, an user cannot get optimal
results from the other items on the list, regardless of how good they
are. While it is easy for the manufactures to market their hardware by
the numbers, it is much more difficult for them to convey how good their
software is. Many believe that's this is the primary reason why the
Canons are ahead of the Nikons.
| |
| John A. Stovall 2005-06-16, 7:17 pm |
| On 15 Jun 2005 14:11:10 -0700, "Bill Hilton" <bhilton665@aol.com>
wrote:
>
>Cameras using either sensor type are fully capable of excellent images,
>so most of us probably feel this is an irrelevant question. Things
>that have a bigger impact on image quality are the sensor size, number
>of pixels, pixel pitch, quality of the lenses available for the system
>and sophistication of the built-in image processing software.
I would say in camera processing is largely irrelevant to the person
who shots Raw.
********************************************************
"The condition of civil affairs in Texas is anomalous,
singular, and unsatisfactory."
Maj. Gen. Philip H. Sherdan
to
Bvt. Maj. Gen. John A. Rawlins
November 14, 1866
| |
| Bill Hilton 2005-06-16, 7:17 pm |
| >>Things that have a bigger impact on image quality (than sensor type) ...
[color=darkred]
>John Stovall writes ...
>
>I would say in camera processing is largely irrelevant to the
>person who shots Raw.
I would say this is nonsense, since there is considerable processing
going on just in creating the RAW file. You don't think those powerful
Canon Digic-II chips are there just to do in-camera conversions to
jpeg, do you?
Bill
| |
| John A. Stovall 2005-06-16, 7:17 pm |
| On 16 Jun 2005 06:55:16 -0700, "Bill Hilton" <bhilton665@aol.com>
wrote:
>
>
>I would say this is nonsense, since there is considerable processing
>going on just in creating the RAW file. You don't think those powerful
>Canon Digic-II chips are there just to do in-camera conversions to
>jpeg, do you?
They are for data collection an organization of the sensor data into
the RAW file not "processing" the image.
******************************************************
"I have been a witness, and these pictures are
my testimony. The events I have recorded should
not be forgotten and must not be repeated."
-James Nachtwey-
http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/
| |
| johnboy 2005-06-16, 7:17 pm |
| "John A. Stovall" <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:gds2b1hm2fvmlfg7k0hav4ilcvpi7sr2g6@4ax.com...
> I would say in camera processing is largely irrelevant to the person
> who shots Raw.
Unfortunately, that is a false impression. The sensor is not like film where
only camera and lens factors make the difference. RAW is still the outcome
of software rendering.
| |
| johnboy 2005-06-16, 7:17 pm |
| "John A. Stovall" <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:mo23b153a6v28j723v8l1ua5vniub4esrl@4ax.com...
> They are for data collection an organization of the sensor data into
> the RAW file not "processing" the image.
Mr. Stovall, your assertion deserves a thorough explanation, and to that end
we need to take a decent digital camera and crack the interface. I have to
believe it can be done. To that end, I'm willing to sacrifice an Olympus
8080w. This is a serious offer. How do we begin?
| |
| John A. Stovall 2005-06-16, 7:17 pm |
| On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 09:49:33 -0500, "johnboy" <okaynow@nospam.no>
wrote:
>"John A. Stovall" <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:gds2b1hm2fvmlfg7k0hav4ilcvpi7sr2g6@4ax.com...
>
>
>Unfortunately, that is a false impression. The sensor is not like film where
>only camera and lens factors make the difference. RAW is still the outcome
>of software rendering.
>
You are the one under a false impression.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/t...raw-files.shtml
http://www.earthboundlight.com/phototips/raw-files.html
******************************************************
"I have been a witness, and these pictures are
my testimony. The events I have recorded should
not be forgotten and must not be repeated."
-James Nachtwey-
http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/
| |
| John A. Stovall 2005-06-16, 7:17 pm |
| On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 09:59:28 -0500, "johnboy" <okaynow@nospam.no>
wrote:
>"John A. Stovall" <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:mo23b153a6v28j723v8l1ua5vniub4esrl@4ax.com...
>
>
>Mr. Stovall, your assertion deserves a thorough explanation, and to that end
>we need to take a decent digital camera and crack the interface. I have to
>believe it can be done. To that end, I'm willing to sacrifice an Olympus
>8080w. This is a serious offer. How do we begin?
>
Just go read some:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/t...raw-files.shtml
******************************************************
"I have been a witness, and these pictures are
my testimony. The events I have recorded should
not be forgotten and must not be repeated."
-James Nachtwey-
http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/
| |
|
|
| johnboy 2005-06-16, 7:17 pm |
|
"John A. Stovall" <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:2e53b11m63nmrjmncmhe9qrf0e710t8ve2@4ax.com...
> Just go read some:
I did and I remain unconvinced.
| |
| Bill Hilton 2005-06-16, 7:17 pm |
| >John Stovall writes ...
>
>They are for data collection an organization of the sensor data
>into the RAW file not "processing" the image.
Think about these two different cases, which indicate there is indeed
"processing" going on between exposure and writing the RAW file ...
1) firmware updates that change the quality of the output data (RAW
file) ... best (worst?) example I can think of here is the Kodak 14n
(full frame sensor in a Nikon mount), which was clearly released before
it was ready to compete with the Canon 1Ds ... the first models had
some terrible image problems with banding, noise, moire etc and Kodak
went thru maybe 40 firmware updates trying to fix these. The quality
of the RAW files was much improved from the first rev to the last rev,
indicating there is processing taking place since the sensor was the
same.
2) most sensors are sold by a handful of companies like Sony, Kodak,
Panasonic, maybe others (Canon is one of the few that brews its own),
so the same off-the-shelf sensor is sold to different companies and
appears in competing cameras. If what you imply is true (no
pre-processing, just "data collection") then the RAW files from
different cameras using the same sensors should have equal quality, yet
this is demonstrably not true. Some companies do a better job with the
signal processing than others.
>Just go read some:
>http://www.luminous-landscape.=ADco...-se=ADries/u-r=
a=2E..
To quote from this source ...
"When a digital camera makes an exposure the imaging chip (whether it's
CCD or CMOS) records the amount of light that has hit each pixel, or
photo site. This is recorded as a voltage level. The camera's analog to
digital circuitry now changes this analog voltage signal into a digital
representation."
This processing of the "voltage level" in the sensor array by "The
camera's analog to digital circuitry" into "a digital representation"
is non-trivial, as anyone who has worked with signal processing chips
(DSP) knows. This is what I was referring to in my first post when I
wrote "sophistication of the built-in image processing software",
trying to clean up the signal by removing noise from ground bounce,
voltage drops, effects of the AA filter, etc, and it's done before the
RAW is written out. The RAW file is NOT just an unprocessed collection
of the voltage levels recorded at the pixel sites.
Bill
| |
| Hecate 2005-06-16, 11:17 pm |
| On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 13:07:30 -0500, "johnboy" <okaynow@nospam.no>
wrote:
>"John A. Stovall" <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:d953b1pekildptmh602pq9d3q7c878o6pq@4ax.com...
>
>
>With respect, I simply have no confidence in the manufacturer's claim.
>
A sensible decision. One should never believe any manufacturer's
claims. Especially in this case. It is patently obvious that there is
an analog-digital conversion which requires processing and it's not
just shifting one number value to another.
--
Hecate - The Real One
Hecate@newsguy.com
Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
you don't have, to impress people you don't like...
|
|
|
| | Copyright 2003 - 2008 forum4designers.com Software forum Computer Hardware reviews |
|