Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

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

Reply
Thread Tools

M is for Magenta

 
 
Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-13-2006
David J. Littleboy wrote:

> "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>I thought I read recently that Kodak was the largest or at
>>least a major supplier of digital cameras, and since
>>they no longer have DSLRs, it must be the small dcams.

>
>
> I haven't heard of Kodak supplying dcams, but they have been the leader in
> the US dcam market for a long time. With rebadged cameras. (That Kodak
> purchases their dcams OEM is old news.)
>
> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0009/00...harpnkodak.asp
>
> "Kiyoshi Osaki, a spokesman for Kodak Japan Ltd., confirmed that Eastman
> Kodak is getting digital cameras from Sharp for sale in the U.S. He declined
> to provide further details."
>
>
>>>Here are some older ones. (Click the pdf image.)
>>>
>>>http://www.datasheetarchive.com/search.php?q=ICX084AL
>>>
>>>Which I got to from
>>>
>>>http://www.datasheetarchive.com/I-15.shtml

>>
>>David, Thanks for the info.

>
>
> Sheesh, I can do better than that.
>
> http://www.sony.co.jp/~semicon/english/90203.html
>
> Also, you might find back issues of their bimonthly CX-News useful.
>
> http://www.sony.net/Products/SC-HP/c...acknumber.html
>
> If you go through the back issues of CX-News looking for articles on CCD
> sensors, you can
> the model numbers of their CCDs, and then you can search for what's out
> there. There have been CX-News overview articles giving their history +
> roadmaps for CCD development in the past, but not recently. You can
> sometimes get an idea of what Sony is thinking by reading between the lines
> in the CX-News articles.
>
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan
>
>

David,
Thanks. That got me far in to Sony data sheets. Unfortunately,
they don't include critical data I need, including saturation
level in electrons, read noise in electrons, thermal noise
in electrons/second, and quantum efficiency. The Kodak
data sheets have that, and seem to get better with more
detailed info in the latest sensors, including great spectral
curves of the Bayer and IR filters, and absolute quantum efficiency
with and without the filters on the sensor.

Check out this spec sheet, which should be the M8 sensor:
http://www.kodak.com/ezpres/business...00LongSpec.pdf
(Pages 14 and 28 have the response curves)

Pages 17 and 18 show the IR leak on this sensor:
http://www.kodak.com/ezpres/business...02LongSpec.pdf

I'll call a Sony rep this week.

Roger
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Rich
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-13-2006

Scott W wrote:
> Rich wrote:
> > Why not make the most of it and use it for IR (which it might be

> good
> > at) until the fix comes in. It actually isn't the only camera to do
> > this.

>
> For some people this will not be bad. But the worry is that the fix
> might be a filter in front of the lens and some people are not too keen
> on this.
>
> I think for many people if Leica has said up front that you needed to
> use a filter on your lenses they would not have had too big a problem
> with that. It was that they did not bother to tell anyone about this,
> and in fact would have appeared to have suppressed this bit of data
> that has people upset.
>
> Scott


If they spec'd out the sensor, including the filter on it, then they
are responsible for the problem. It seems that they'll have to scrap
the sensors (I doubt it's economical to rip off the filter and put a
new one it) and pay for new ones. Good thing the camera isn't a $1000
entry level DSLR, so maybe they'll be able to absorb this loss?
Using a filter on the lens would be an issue in some instances, like
whenever there are light sources in the picture. But some Leica lens
purists don't like filters.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Bart van der Wolf
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-14-2006

"David J. Littleboy" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:ej47or$ni8$(E-Mail Removed)...

SNIP
> The claim that the microlenses are shaped differently towards the
> corners makes it an interesting camera.


The proximity of the exit pupil to the sensor (no mirror box in the
way) will cause a large angle of incidence in their non-retrofocus WA
lens designs. I'd wager the offset microlenses are a compromise
between tele and wide-angle designs.

--
Bart

 
Reply With Quote
 
Scott W
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-14-2006

Bart van der Wolf wrote:
> "David J. Littleboy" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:ej47or$ni8$(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> SNIP
> > The claim that the microlenses are shaped differently towards the
> > corners makes it an interesting camera.

>
> The proximity of the exit pupil to the sensor (no mirror box in the
> way) will cause a large angle of incidence in their non-retrofocus WA
> lens designs. I'd wager the offset microlenses are a compromise
> between tele and wide-angle designs.


I think this is likely to be the case, it may also be why Leica did not
come out with
a FF sensor in the M8.

Scott

 
Reply With Quote
 
Bart van der Wolf
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-14-2006

"Dave Martindale" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:ej5fdm$kn0$(E-Mail Removed)...
SNIP
> 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.


There will be implications with that approach as well.

Hot mirrors alter their efficiency with angle of incidence, and are
thus unsuited for normal or wide angle lenses. IR absorbing lens
filters will either cut into the red sensitivity, or will not
eliminate enough IR. It's do-able but costly due to the large size of
the filter (and is needed for each lens with a different filter
diameter).

--
Bart

 
Reply With Quote
 
David J. Littleboy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-14-2006
"Bart van der Wolf" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> "David J. Littleboy" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> SNIP
>> The claim that the microlenses are shaped differently towards the corners
>> makes it an interesting camera.

>
> The proximity of the exit pupil to the sensor (no mirror box in the way)
> will cause a large angle of incidence in their non-retrofocus WA lens
> designs. I'd wager the offset microlenses are a compromise between tele
> and wide-angle designs.


Probably. But some number of years from now, I might be interested in an FF
rangefinder body that could use lenses like the Cosina 12mm, the Zeiss Ikon
Leica mount wide angles, and what have you, even if it only worked for
lenses in the 12 to 35mm range, assuming it provided significantly better
performance* than Canon FF.

Of course my best guess here is that it won't. But it'd be a shame if they
messed up and we never saw a reasonable proof-of-concept.

*: Which is quite difficult. Despite all the complaints, the Canon wide
angles do provide sharp corners with minimal vignetting at f/11, so the
question is how much are you willing to pay to get sharp corners and minimal
vignetting at f/5.6.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan


 
Reply With Quote
 
John Turco
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-14-2006
"David J. Littleboy" wrote:
>
> "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.


Hello, David:

Strangely, the part about Kodak's refusing to disclose the maker(s)
of its digicam's sensors, doesn't show up, on that particular Web page.
[Not in either of my browsers (Internet Explorer 6.0.2 and Netscape
Communicator 4., at least.]

> > 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.


Hey, Kodak ain't no punk! It boasts an imposing and diverse array of
CCD and CMOS goodies:

Kodak Image Sensor Solutions
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/dpq/site/...S/name/ISSHome

> >> (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.


I've never been a huge fan of Sony's efforts, in any industry; in
consumer electronics, I believe Panasonic has been the real leader,
during the post-RCA era.

> >> 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.


Chinon was Kodak's main OEM partner, early on, it seems. Sharp later
came aboard, in 2000, and I don't know about Sanyo.

Last July, Kodak designated the Flextronics Corporation (of Singapore)
as its new OEM.

>So Kodak doesn't put _anything_ in any of its cameras.


Not even its esteemed "Color Science" DSP chips?

> > 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.


Neither Kodak nor Canon, produces small sensors, themselves, then?

> > 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


I got the impression that those old, floppy-using Mavicas sealed Sony's
reputation, as a "toy camera" manufacturer. <g>


Cordially,
John Turco <(E-Mail Removed)>
 
Reply With Quote
 
John Turco
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-14-2006
"David J. Littleboy" wrote:

<edited, for brevity>

> But as I mentioned before, Kodak doesn't make their P&S cameras, they're
> OEM'ed from Japan and/or Korea.
>
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan



Hello, David:

The label, at the bottom of my new P850, states this:

Made in China
Designed in Japan for
Eastman Kodak Company
Rochester, NY 14650

(Note: All of Kodak's present models say the same thing, judging from
those I've examined, in stores.)

The P850 came out, in 2005. My older, used ones - DX3900 (2001) and
DX6490 (2003) - were built in Japan; I, myself, have never seen a
Korean Kodak.


Cordially,
John Turco <(E-Mail Removed)>


PS: How many major outfits "make their P&S cameras," anymore? I even
wonder whether Canon or Nikon do, in fact!

This DigiTimes <http://www.digitimes.com> story sheds some light on
the subject:

Taiwan digital camera makers may get order increase from global brands
http://www.digitimes.com/pda/a20061031A7035.html
 
Reply With Quote
 
acl
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-14-2006
Bart van der Wolf wrote:
>
> "Dave Martindale" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:ej5fdm$kn0$(E-Mail Removed)...
> SNIP
>> 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.

>
> There will be implications with that approach as well.
>
> Hot mirrors alter their efficiency with angle of incidence, and are thus
> unsuited for normal or wide angle lenses. IR absorbing lens filters will
> either cut into the red sensitivity, or will not eliminate enough IR.
> It's do-able but costly due to the large size of the filter (and is
> needed for each lens with a different filter diameter).
>


However, as Scott has pointed out to me (at least I think that's what he
meant), absorption IR blocking filters don't appreciably alter their
efficiency with angle (except, I would have thought, inasmuch as the
thickness of the filter through which light travels increases). This
strong sensitivity to angle is true for interference filters, for
reasons that are clear if you imagine a diagram of how they work.
 
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