Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > EOS 20D Low Noise

Reply
Thread Tools

EOS 20D Low Noise

 
 
Rob Davison
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-20-2004
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) wrote:

> Kibo informs me that Rob Davison <(E-Mail Removed)> stated
> that:
>
>
>>(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>>
>>>Kibo informs me that Alfred Molon <(E-Mail Removed)> stated
>>>that:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>des <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>According to Canon press release images taken at ISO 1600 with the 20D
>>>>>are approximately equal in noise to those taken with the EOS 10D model
>>>>>at ISO 400. Pretty impressive if true..
>>>>
>>>>How can that be since pixels are smaller (same CCD size with a higher
>>>>pixel count) ?
>>>
>>>
>>>Better processing on the analog side, presumably, as with the 1DMkII.

>>
>>I'm doubtful. If it were true I'd be really tempted. The 1D-II has a
>>much larger sensor and the same imaging chip as the 20D.

>
>
> No, it's a different sensor.


I was talking about DIGIC-II. Somehow 'image processing' got turned
into 'Imaging'. Sorry.

I do realise the sensors are different. The 1D-II sensor being larger
should make for cleaner pixels was the gist of my argument.

>>http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/cano...kii/page18.asp
>>http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos10d/page18.asp
>>
>>The different size and layout of the crops makes it a bit hard to judge

>
>>from these pages but I'd say not. I think the 1D-II at 1600 might be

>
>>fairly close to the 10D at 800, but not 400.

>
>
> Bear in mind that DPreview used their newer testing method on the
> 1DMkII, so you can't compare the 10D & 1DMkII results directly. If you
> look at the top of the first link you quoted, you'll find that they have
> a notice there pointing that out.




Scrolling down I see the 10D is included in the luminance noise graph
on that page.

I'll be keen to see the test results for a production 20D but at the
moment I'm still just a bit doubtful about this claim.

My credit card hopes its all hyperbole for a start...


Rob.
--
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Chris Brown
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-20-2004
In article <IZiVc.15612$(E-Mail Removed)>,
Rob Davison <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> No, it's a different sensor.

>
>I was talking about DIGIC-II. Somehow 'image processing' got turned
>into 'Imaging'. Sorry.
>
>I do realise the sensors are different. The 1D-II sensor being larger
>should make for cleaner pixels was the gist of my argument.


There's some mutterings about new microlenses, so perhaps that has something
to do with it. Also, some of the 10D noise was due to the electronics in the
camera, and better shielding could reduce that.

The point is that there's no reason to assume that thne 10D and 300D had the
lowest noise possible for their pixel size. If Canon have managed to improve
their technology by a greater extent than the increase in noise inherrent in
using smaller pixels (and therefore capturing fewer photons for a given
exposure), then there can still be a net benefit.

Now what would be interesting is a full-frame camera with this pixel pitch.
It would weigh in at 20.5 megapixels.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Marli
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-20-2004
Easy. Its called better technology


"Alfred Molon" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) ...
> des <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >According to Canon press release images taken at ISO 1600 with the 20D
> >are approximately equal in noise to those taken with the EOS 10D model
> >at ISO 400. Pretty impressive if true..

>
> How can that be since pixels are smaller (same CCD size with a higher
> pixel count) ?
> --
>
> Alfred Molon
> ------------------------------
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Olympus_405080/
> Olympus 5060 resource - http://www.molon.de/5060.html
> Olympus 8080 resource - http://www.molon.de/8080.html



 
Reply With Quote
 
Mitch Alsup
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-20-2004
Phil Wheeler <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:<fCfVc.8688$(E-Mail Removed)>...
> Alfred Molon wrote:
>
> > des <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >
> >>According to Canon press release images taken at ISO 1600 with the 20D
> >>are approximately equal in noise to those taken with the EOS 10D model
> >>at ISO 400. Pretty impressive if true..

> >
> >
> > How can that be since pixels are smaller (same CCD size with a higher
> > pixel count) ?

>
> o New CMOS imager
> o New processing firmware.
>
> How can we think improvements have topped out with the 10D/300D?
>
> Phil


Technology moves forward. For example, is the 2 years since the 6.3 MP
with 1.6 crop was introduced, CMOS technology has advance to the point
where the transistors associated with each cell are now only 1/2 as big
as they used to be. In addition a resent Canon patent application shows
using 3 transistors for 2 cells whereas the previous sensor cell had two
transistors per sensor. Other advancements in semiconductors (borrowed
from DRAMs) allow a cell to retains its high 'full well capacity' even
as the footprint of the cell is reduced. Then outside the sensor, there
has been progress in lower noise amplifiers and A/Ds.

If camera senseor technology moves forward at the same rate semiconductor
technology moves forward, one can expect 10 MP at 1.6 crop in 2 to 2.5
years, and 14 MP at 1.6 crop by the end of the decade.

Mitch
 
Reply With Quote
 
des
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-20-2004
In article <(E-Mail Removed) >,
(E-Mail Removed) says...
> Phil Wheeler <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:<fCfVc.8688$(E-Mail Removed)>...
> > Alfred Molon wrote:
> >
> > > des <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> > >
> > >>According to Canon press release images taken at ISO 1600 with the 20D
> > >>are approximately equal in noise to those taken with the EOS 10D model
> > >>at ISO 400. Pretty impressive if true..
> > >
> > >
> > > How can that be since pixels are smaller (same CCD size with a higher
> > > pixel count) ?

> >
> > o New CMOS imager
> > o New processing firmware.
> >
> > How can we think improvements have topped out with the 10D/300D?
> >
> > Phil

>
> Technology moves forward. For example, is the 2 years since the 6.3 MP
> with 1.6 crop was introduced, CMOS technology has advance to the point
> where the transistors associated with each cell are now only 1/2 as big
> as they used to be. In addition a resent Canon patent application shows
> using 3 transistors for 2 cells whereas the previous sensor cell had two
> transistors per sensor. Other advancements in semiconductors (borrowed
> from DRAMs) allow a cell to retains its high 'full well capacity' even
> as the footprint of the cell is reduced. Then outside the sensor, there
> has been progress in lower noise amplifiers and A/Ds.
>
> If camera senseor technology moves forward at the same rate semiconductor
> technology moves forward, one can expect 10 MP at 1.6 crop in 2 to 2.5
> years, and 14 MP at 1.6 crop by the end of the decade.
>
> Mitch
>


I agree. Everyone seems to assume that progress in quality means bigger
sensor. Of coarse when it comes to digital that isn't the case. Kind
of like thinking that the old computer which took a warehouse to fit in
had to get bigger to be better. Now a better computer sits in my lap.
Canon is releasing new EF-S lenses probably knowing that 1.6x will be
plenty large for the future.





 
Reply With Quote
 
Brian C. Baird
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-20-2004
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
(E-Mail Removed) says...
> How can that be since pixels are smaller (same CCD size with a higher
> pixel count) ?


Because Canon kicks noise's ass?
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/
 
Reply With Quote
 
Alfred Molon
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-20-2004
Mitch Alsup <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Technology moves forward. For example, is the 2 years since the 6.3 MP
>with 1.6 crop was introduced, CMOS technology has advance to the point
>where the transistors associated with each cell are now only 1/2 as big
>as they used to be. In addition a resent Canon patent application shows
>using 3 transistors for 2 cells whereas the previous sensor cell had two
>transistors per sensor. Other advancements in semiconductors (borrowed
>from DRAMs) allow a cell to retains its high 'full well capacity' even
>as the footprint of the cell is reduced. Then outside the sensor, there
>has been progress in lower noise amplifiers and A/Ds.
>
>If camera senseor technology moves forward at the same rate semiconductor
>technology moves forward, one can expect 10 MP at 1.6 crop in 2 to 2.5
>years, and 14 MP at 1.6 crop by the end of the decade.


That's all fine, but then why doesn't the more advanced 2/3" CCD of the
8MP prosumer cameras have less noise than the 1/1.8" CCD of 5MP prosumer
cameras ?

Cell size is almost the same (2.8 micrometer for the 5MP CCD, 2.7 for
the 8MP one). But a test shows that the 8MP CCD has slightly higher
noise levels - the 8MP CCD has at ISO 50 the same noise as the 5MP CCD
at ISO 64. Or do you suggest that there has been only progress in the
CMOS area, but none in the CCD area ?
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Olympus_405080/
Olympus 5060 resource - http://www.molon.de/5060.html
Olympus 8080 resource - http://www.molon.de/8080.html
 
Reply With Quote
 
leo
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-20-2004
"Alfred Molon" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) ...
> Mitch Alsup <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>Technology moves forward. For example, is the 2 years since the 6.3 MP
>>with 1.6 crop was introduced, CMOS technology has advance to the point
>>where the transistors associated with each cell are now only 1/2 as big
>>as they used to be. In addition a resent Canon patent application shows
>>using 3 transistors for 2 cells whereas the previous sensor cell had two
>>transistors per sensor. Other advancements in semiconductors (borrowed
>>from DRAMs) allow a cell to retains its high 'full well capacity' even
>>as the footprint of the cell is reduced. Then outside the sensor, there
>>has been progress in lower noise amplifiers and A/Ds.
>>
>>If camera senseor technology moves forward at the same rate semiconductor
>>technology moves forward, one can expect 10 MP at 1.6 crop in 2 to 2.5
>>years, and 14 MP at 1.6 crop by the end of the decade.

>
> That's all fine, but then why doesn't the more advanced 2/3" CCD of the
> 8MP prosumer cameras have less noise than the 1/1.8" CCD of 5MP prosumer
> cameras ?
>
> Cell size is almost the same (2.8 micrometer for the 5MP CCD, 2.7 for
> the 8MP one). But a test shows that the 8MP CCD has slightly higher
> noise levels - the 8MP CCD has at ISO 50 the same noise as the 5MP CCD
> at ISO 64. Or do you suggest that there has been only progress in the
> CMOS area, but none in the CCD area ?
> --
>
> Alfred Molon
> ------------------------------
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Olympus_405080/
> Olympus 5060 resource - http://www.molon.de/5060.html
> Olympus 8080 resource - http://www.molon.de/8080.html



The CMOS has circuitry next to each sensor cell so there are room to improve
in this regard, shrinking the size of the electronic components, using
better micromirror etc. Still, there's a limit. Let's see what's the optimal
pitch size for CMOS sensors.


 
Reply With Quote
 
jpc
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-21-2004

>
>Technology moves forward. For example, is the 2 years since the 6.3 MP
>with 1.6 crop was introduced, CMOS technology has advance to the point
>where the transistors associated with each cell are now only 1/2 as big
>as they used to be. In addition a resent Canon patent application shows
>using 3 transistors for 2 cells whereas the previous sensor cell had two
>transistors per sensor. Other advancements in semiconductors (borrowed
>from DRAMs) allow a cell to retains its high 'full well capacity' even
>as the footprint of the cell is reduced. Then outside the sensor, there
>has been progress in lower noise amplifiers and A/Ds.
>

Do you have a patent number and a site where I could download a copy
of the patent application. TIA

jpc

 
Reply With Quote
 
Bruce Murphy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-21-2004
(E-Mail Removed) (Mitch Alsup) writes:

> If camera senseor technology moves forward at the same rate semiconductor
> technology moves forward, one can expect 10 MP at 1.6 crop in 2 to 2.5
> years, and 14 MP at 1.6 crop by the end of the decade.


But it's not going to. What people fail to grasp is that the rate of
development you can get out of near-analogue sensors with many many
levels is not going to follow the rate of development of digital
on/off memory devices.

Physical limits are looming a lot larger right now for imaging sensors
than they are for binary processing devices. Don't forget, also, that
the development in process technology that you've seen improve other
electronic devices over the last two decades has already been applied
to current sensors.

B>
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Pcos low carb diet. Low carb diet program. Cholesterol low carb diet.Low carb diet foods. zyraco C++ 0 11-10-2009 01:44 PM
Low carb diabetes diet. Low fat high carb diet. The low carb diet.Low carb diet pregnancy. zyraco C++ 0 11-10-2009 01:44 PM
Low carb calorie diet. No low carb diet. Free low carb diet. Low carbdiet meal plan. zyraco C++ 0 11-10-2009 01:44 PM
Low Fat, Low Carb, Low Calorie and every other crazy fad diet youhave tried. ruxandra C++ 0 04-14-2009 07:00 PM
EOS 20D vs. EOS Rebel XT? Ivan Digital Photography 13 08-23-2005 02:55 PM



Advertisments