Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > M is for Magenta

Reply
Thread Tools

M is for Magenta

 
 
ASAAR
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-11-2006
On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 08:19:25 GMT, David J Taylor wrote:

>> Totally unacceptable! That's the type of performance one would expect
>> of a lousy "keychain camera" (of which I own a few), but not from a
>> ridiculously-overpriced, status symbol of a digicam.
>>
>> Why, my own, lowly Kodak models produce stunning and accurate colors.
>> Oh, hold on...the M8, itself, contains a Kodak sensor! What it
>> probably needs (even more than a better "IR blocking filter") is a
>> Kodak "Color Science" chip.
>>
>> This tiny DSP (digital signal processor) would undoubtedly improve the
>> M8's image quality significantly, if not enough to justify the Leica's
>> exorbitant cost. <g>
>>
>>
> > Cordially,
> > John Turco <(E-Mail Removed)>

>
> How is a DSP going to distinguish between IR and other
> energy illuminating the sensor?


I'll give you 10 to 1 odds that the "<g>" was there for a reason!

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
David J Taylor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-11-2006
ASAAR wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 08:19:25 GMT, David J Taylor wrote:
>
>>> Totally unacceptable! That's the type of performance one would
>>> expect of a lousy "keychain camera" (of which I own a few), but not
>>> from a ridiculously-overpriced, status symbol of a digicam.
>>>
>>> Why, my own, lowly Kodak models produce stunning and accurate
>>> colors. Oh, hold on...the M8, itself, contains a Kodak sensor! What
>>> it probably needs (even more than a better "IR blocking filter") is
>>> a Kodak "Color Science" chip.
>>>
>>> This tiny DSP (digital signal processor) would undoubtedly improve
>>> the M8's image quality significantly, if not enough to justify the
>>> Leica's exorbitant cost. <g>
>>>
>>>
>>> Cordially,
>>> John Turco <(E-Mail Removed)>

>>
>> How is a DSP going to distinguish between IR and other
>> energy illuminating the sensor?

>
> I'll give you 10 to 1 odds that the "<g>" was there for a reason!


I missed it, with it being in lower-case!

Of course, if they added an anti-alias filter with an IR block, everything
would then be perfect. <G>

David


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
David J. Littleboy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-11-2006

"David J Taylor" <(E-Mail Removed)-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk>
wrote:
>
> Of course, if they added an anti-alias filter with an IR block, everything
> would then be perfect. <G>


I'd leave out the <G> on that one. The claim that the microlenses are shaped
differently towards the corners makes it an interesting camera.

Of course, it needs to be FF to see whether that works or not, so I guess
the <G> is needed after all. Sigh.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan


 
Reply With Quote
 
Dave Martindale
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-11-2006
"Scott W" <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

>And this is the rub, Leica has already said the solution was filters in
>front on the lens. Will Leica change their mind on this and re-chip
>the cameras with a sensor that has a working IR blocking filter?


The IR filter is not normally part of the sensor chip or its package -
the filter goes in front of the package, along with the anti-aliasing
filter. To put the filter in-camera, Leica needs to figure out how to
mechanically mount a suitable filter somewhere between the lens and
sensor. Close to the lens is better for making dust invisible, while
close to the sensor is better for lens interchangability.

However, the extra glass between lens and sensor will change the optical
distance between sensor and lens mount, so the lens mount thickness may
have to be changed to compensate for that. The reason Leica likes the
idea of a filter in front of the lens is that no adjustments to the
camera are needed.

>Digital cameras that are overly sensitive to IR are not new, but the
>other camera companies fixed the problems years ago. I would imagine
>that are some pretty tense phone calls between Kodak and Leica right
>about now.


I don't see how it is Kodak's fault at all. Didn't they just supply the
sensor?

Dave
 
Reply With Quote
 
Dave Martindale
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-11-2006
"Scott W" <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

>The other thing I am not sure of is how far can Hoya or Schott push
>their absorption, I have been through this before where we had a lens
>what was not designed to work with a cover glass and wanted to get the
>filter as thin as possible. In the end we redesigned the lens to work
>with the 1mm thick filter.


Reading between the lines, I think this is part of Leica's problem.
They have a bunch of excellent lenses that are excellent only when the
path between the rear element of the lens and the sensing surface is all
air. So they work great with film, but when you put a 1 mm cover
glass/filter in the path, the performance degrades. And they don't want
to redesign the lenses to work with the glass, so they make the glass as
thin as they can get away with.

Dave
 
Reply With Quote
 
Scott W
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-11-2006

Dave Martindale wrote:
> "Scott W" <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>
> >The other thing I am not sure of is how far can Hoya or Schott push
> >their absorption, I have been through this before where we had a lens
> >what was not designed to work with a cover glass and wanted to get the
> >filter as thin as possible. In the end we redesigned the lens to work
> >with the 1mm thick filter.

>
> Reading between the lines, I think this is part of Leica's problem.
> They have a bunch of excellent lenses that are excellent only when the
> path between the rear element of the lens and the sensing surface is all
> air. So they work great with film, but when you put a 1 mm cover
> glass/filter in the path, the performance degrades. And they don't want
> to redesign the lenses to work with the glass, so they make the glass as
> thin as they can get away with.


Since the sensor was made for them I am guessing that the cover glass
over the CCD is also the filter. From what Leica has said this seems
likely. But even if this is not the case most people will opticaly
bond the IR filter to the cover glass to remove one more air gap.

Scott

Scott

 
Reply With Quote
 
Scott W
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-11-2006
Dave Martindale wrote:
> "Scott W" <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>
> >And this is the rub, Leica has already said the solution was filters in
> >front on the lens. Will Leica change their mind on this and re-chip
> >the cameras with a sensor that has a working IR blocking filter?

>
> The IR filter is not normally part of the sensor chip or its package -
> the filter goes in front of the package, along with the anti-aliasing
> filter. To put the filter in-camera, Leica needs to figure out how to
> mechanically mount a suitable filter somewhere between the lens and
> sensor. Close to the lens is better for making dust invisible, while
> close to the sensor is better for lens interchangability.
>
> However, the extra glass between lens and sensor will change the optical
> distance between sensor and lens mount, so the lens mount thickness may
> have to be changed to compensate for that. The reason Leica likes the
> idea of a filter in front of the lens is that no adjustments to the
> camera are needed.
>
> >Digital cameras that are overly sensitive to IR are not new, but the
> >other camera companies fixed the problems years ago. I would imagine
> >that are some pretty tense phone calls between Kodak and Leica right
> >about now.

>
> I don't see how it is Kodak's fault at all. Didn't they just supply the
> sensor?


I think it is very likely that Kodak is supplying the sensor with the
filter as one unit.

So then the question is did Kodak specify the filter or did Leica?

Scott

Scott

 
Reply With Quote
 
John Turco
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-12-2006
"David J. Littleboy" wrote:
>
> "John Turco" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> > "David J. Littleboy" wrote:
> >>
> >> "John Turco" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Why, my own, lowly Kodak models produce stunning and accurate colors.
> >> > Oh, hold on...the M8, itself, contains a Kodak sensor!
> >>
> >> But your Kodak camera uses a Sony sensor...

> >
> >
> > Hello, David:
> >
> > It does? Not according to Kodak <http://www.kodak.com>, itself:

>
> That was a _particular_ Sony sensor that had a problem. Read the fine print
> carefully<g>.


Hello, David:

Could you provide a link to this "fine print," please?

> "We cannot disclose which manufacturer's sensors we use in our digital
> cameras. The Sony charge-coupled device (CCD) issue does not affect Kodak
> digital cameras."


How can Kodak keep that a secret? Surely, there are those (repairmen,
reviewers, hackers, etc.) who've "popped the hood," so to speak, on
its cameras; and hence, they should've been able to discern the sensor
maker's name and/or part number? (I'm not ripping apart any of >my<
babies, just to find out, though! <g>)

> (Kodak _might_ not be using Sony sensors, but it's exceedingly unlikely.


Bad decision on Kodak's part, given Sony's notorious quality control
issues of recent years.

> The
> two other main CCD mfrs (Panasonic and Fuji) don't appear to be selling this
> class of sensor. I think.)
>
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan


<deleted extraneous quoted text, from my previous message>

Well, I logically assumed Kodak - the inventor of the Bayer sensor -
would stay in-house, on this specific hardware component. It seems odd,
that the company would supply sensors to Leica and Olympus, but not put
them in its own digicams?

On a related topic, doesn't Canon sometimes choose Sony sensors, too?
If so, I find it truly baffling, considering Canon's vaunted sensor
technology and impressive line of DSLR's.

Whereas Sony, itself, has never been seen as a serious player in the
camera field -- and if it ever becomes one, it'll be primarily due
to its absorption of Konica Minolta's digital photography business.


Cordially,
John Turco <(E-Mail Removed)>
 
Reply With Quote
 
John Turco
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-12-2006
ASAAR wrote:
>
> On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 08:19:25 GMT, David J Taylor wrote:
>
> >> Totally unacceptable! That's the type of performance one would expect
> >> of a lousy "keychain camera" (of which I own a few), but not from a
> >> ridiculously-overpriced, status symbol of a digicam.
> >>
> >> Why, my own, lowly Kodak models produce stunning and accurate colors.
> >> Oh, hold on...the M8, itself, contains a Kodak sensor! What it
> >> probably needs (even more than a better "IR blocking filter") is a
> >> Kodak "Color Science" chip.
> >>
> >> This tiny DSP (digital signal processor) would undoubtedly improve the
> >> M8's image quality significantly, if not enough to justify the Leica's
> >> exorbitant cost. <g>
> >>
> >>
> > > Cordially,
> > > John Turco <(E-Mail Removed)>

> >
> > How is a DSP going to distinguish between IR and other
> > energy illuminating the sensor?

>
> I'll give you 10 to 1 odds that the "<g>" was there for a reason!



Hello, ASAAR:

Oh, you thought I was kidding about the M8's laughable expensiveness,
did you? :-J


Cordially,
John Turco <(E-Mail Removed)>
 
Reply With Quote
 
David J. Littleboy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-12-2006
"John Turco" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> "David J. Littleboy" wrote:
>> "John Turco" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> >> "John Turco" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > Why, my own, lowly Kodak models produce stunning and accurate
>> >> > colors.
>> >> > Oh, hold on...the M8, itself, contains a Kodak sensor!
>> >>
>> >> But your Kodak camera uses a Sony sensor...
>> >
>> > It does? Not according to Kodak <http://www.kodak.com>, itself:

>>
>> That was a _particular_ Sony sensor that had a problem. Read the fine
>> print
>> carefully<g>.

>
> Hello, David:
>
> Could you provide a link to this "fine print," please?
>
>> "We cannot disclose which manufacturer's sensors we use in our digital
>> cameras. The Sony charge-coupled device (CCD) issue does not affect Kodak
>> digital cameras."


You provided the link! The above is from the FAQ you linked to.

> How can Kodak keep that a secret? Surely, there are those (repairmen,
> reviewers, hackers, etc.) who've "popped the hood," so to speak, on
> its cameras; and hence, they should've been able to discern the sensor
> maker's name and/or part number? (I'm not ripping apart any of >my<
> babies, just to find out, though! <g>)


I don't know. What I do know is that Sony is the main supplier of CCDs to
the dcam industry, so it's seriously unlikely that a Kodak dcam doesn't have
a Sony sensor.

>> (Kodak _might_ not be using Sony sensors, but it's exceedingly unlikely.

>
> Bad decision on Kodak's part, given Sony's notorious quality control
> issues of recent years.


Yep. Sony's been taking a beatin'. I wonder how PS3 will do.

>> The
>> two other main CCD mfrs (Panasonic and Fuji) don't appear to be selling
>> this
>> class of sensor. I think.)

>
> Well, I logically assumed Kodak - the inventor of the Bayer sensor -
> would stay in-house, on this specific hardware component. It seems odd,
> that the company would supply sensors to Leica and Olympus, but not put
> them in its own digicams?


I'm not aware of Kodak making anything smaller than 4/3" in a dcam sensor. I
could be wrong.

As I understand it, Kodak's dcams are OEM from Sanyo (I seem to remember) or
some other Asian mfr. So Kodak doesn't put _anything_ in any of its cameras.

> On a related topic, doesn't Canon sometimes choose Sony sensors, too?
> If so, I find it truly baffling, considering Canon's vaunted sensor
> technology and impressive line of DSLR's.


As I understand it, Canon uses Sony sensors in all its dcams, and Canon
sensors in all it's dSLRs.

> Whereas Sony, itself, has never been seen as a serious player in the
> camera field -- and if it ever becomes one, it'll be primarily due
> to its absorption of Konica Minolta's digital photography business.


Until recently, Sony was a respected player in the dcam field. It's S75,
S85, F505, F707, and F717 were among the most respected in their
generation/market sector. (From personal experience, the S85 and F707 were
lovely cameras.) IMHO, they lost it with the F828, but that's my _opinion_.

By the way, Sony is releasing Zeiss primes (85/1.4 Planar, 135/1.8 Sonnar)
in the KM mount. I think they're AF, too.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan


 
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
printing problem magenta cast canon i9900 manunderstress@gmail.com Digital Photography 8 10-17-2005 11:39 PM
Fix magenta in E-300?? RK Digital Photography 6 06-04-2005 12:07 AM
qimage magenta nef Terry Digital Photography 1 01-17-2004 05:54 AM
Epson printer 1280/1290, is there a red/magenta cast? nobody nowhere Digital Photography 2 07-30-2003 11:13 AM
EPSON 785 and magenta Argon3 Digital Photography 0 07-17-2003 12:51 PM



Advertisments