A future technology for dSLRs?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Ray Fischer, Nov 21, 2009.

  1. Ray Fischer

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Given that SLR makers are already incorporating piezo dust shakers,
    it might not be too far a stretch to include this technology as well.
    It would deal with the Bayer sensor's shortcoming and probably end the
    use of the Foveon sensor.

    Hasselblad has announced a Multi-Shot (MS) version of its H3DII-50
    medium format camera. First shown in the H3DII-39 MS in 2008, the
    system captures four shots in a row, moving the sensor by one
    pixel between each shot to record full RGB values at each
    position. THe H3DII-50 MS costs 23,000 euros with less expensive
    trade-in prices and a trade-up route for Hasselblad owners.
    http://www.dpreview.com/news/0911/09111902hasselbladh3d50ms.asp

    --
    Ray Fischer
    Ray Fischer, Nov 21, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Ray Fischer

    Charles Guest

    "Ray Fischer" <> wrote in message
    news:4b084ed5$0$1642$...
    > Given that SLR makers are already incorporating piezo dust shakers,
    > it might not be too far a stretch to include this technology as well.
    > It would deal with the Bayer sensor's shortcoming and probably end the
    > use of the Foveon sensor.


    Interesting idea. I looked closely at the armor shot and could see more
    detail. But, it was not a drop-your-socks event.

    How does one keep the required image shifts to exactly one pixel? In two
    dimensions? Over a period of time? After the camera has been thumped once
    or twice? The cost disadvantage is obvious (at least at this point in
    time).

    I'm still rooting for Foveon II, as it seems more realistic to me as a way
    to leave (progress beyond) Bayer demosaicing.

    Thanks for the post.
    Charles, Nov 21, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Ray Fischer

    nospam Guest

    In article <he9m68$tcg$-september.org>, Charles
    <> wrote:

    > I'm still rooting for Foveon II, as it seems more realistic to me as a way
    > to leave (progress beyond) Bayer demosaicing.


    don't hold your breath on that one, and bayer actually works quite well.
    nospam, Nov 21, 2009
    #3
  4. Ray Fischer

    Charles Guest

    "nospam" <> wrote in message
    news:211120091637482900%...
    > In article <he9m68$tcg$-september.org>, Charles
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> I'm still rooting for Foveon II, as it seems more realistic to me as a
    >> way
    >> to leave (progress beyond) Bayer demosaicing.

    >
    > don't hold your breath on that one, and bayer actually works quite well.


    Agreed as to both points. However, the Foveon technology intrigues me with
    its elegance ... just like nuclear fusion. Probably both great ideas that
    will never actually pan out at any practical level.
    Charles, Nov 21, 2009
    #4
  5. Ray Fischer

    nospam Guest

    In article <he9nis$9ki$-september.org>, Charles
    <> wrote:

    > >> I'm still rooting for Foveon II, as it seems more realistic to me as a
    > >> way
    > >> to leave (progress beyond) Bayer demosaicing.

    > >
    > > don't hold your breath on that one, and bayer actually works quite well.

    >
    > Agreed as to both points. However, the Foveon technology intrigues me with
    > its elegance ... just like nuclear fusion. Probably both great ideas that
    > will never actually pan out at any practical level.


    foveon is anything but elegant. it doesn't actually sense pure red,
    green and blue like in the ads. there's a lot of overlap in the three
    layers, requiring a *lot* of processing to produce r/g/b, and because
    of that, the results are less accurate than bayer with a lot more
    noise, even in ideal conditions. it's tough to break the laws of
    physics.
    nospam, Nov 21, 2009
    #5
  6. Ray Fischer

    ransley Guest

    On Nov 21, 2:34 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
    > Given that SLR makers are already incorporating piezo dust shakers,
    > it might not be too far a stretch to include this technology as well.
    > It would deal with the Bayer sensor's shortcoming and probably end the
    > use of the Foveon sensor.
    >
    >     Hasselblad has announced a Multi-Shot (MS) version of its H3DII-50
    >     medium format camera. First shown in the H3DII-39 MS in 2008, the
    >     system captures four shots in a row, moving the sensor by one
    >     pixel between each shot to record full RGB values at each
    >     position. THe H3DII-50 MS costs 23,000 euros with less expensive
    >     trade-in prices and a trade-up route for Hasselblad owners.
    >    http://www.dpreview.com/news/0911/09111902hasselbladh3d50ms.asp
    >
    > --
    > Ray Fischer        
    >  


    It sounds great, but what does any movement of the camera do to the
    quailty of the photo.
    ransley, Nov 21, 2009
    #6
  7. Ray Fischer

    Charles Guest

    "nospam" <> wrote in message
    news:211120091703587063%...
    > In article <he9nis$9ki$-september.org>, Charles
    > <> wrote:



    > foveon is anything but elegant. it doesn't actually sense pure red,
    > green and blue like in the ads. there's a lot of overlap in the three
    > layers, requiring a *lot* of processing to produce r/g/b, and because
    > of that, the results are less accurate than bayer with a lot more
    > noise, even in ideal conditions. it's tough to break the laws of
    > physics.


    I was not clear enough: the "idea" is elegant. Future vertical processing
    of semiconductors offers hope in this arena. There is a slim, but real,
    possibility that defined energy gaps could be built into a vertical
    photosensor.

    Planar to vertical and planar plus vertical might just give us some
    wonderful new sensor technology. Or not.
    Charles, Nov 21, 2009
    #7
  8. Ray Fischer

    Ray Fischer Guest

    ransley <> wrote:
    >On Nov 21, 2:34 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
    >> Given that SLR makers are already incorporating piezo dust shakers,
    >> it might not be too far a stretch to include this technology as well.
    >> It would deal with the Bayer sensor's shortcoming and probably end the
    >> use of the Foveon sensor.
    >>
    >>     Hasselblad has announced a Multi-Shot (MS) version of its H3DII-50
    >>     medium format camera. First shown in the H3DII-39 MS in 2008, the
    >>     system captures four shots in a row, moving the sensor by one
    >>     pixel between each shot to record full RGB values at each
    >>     position. THe H3DII-50 MS costs 23,000 euros with less expensive
    >>     trade-in prices and a trade-up route for Hasselblad owners.
    >>    http://www.dpreview.com/news/0911/09111902hasselbladh3d50ms.asp

    >
    >It sounds great, but what does any movement of the camera do to the
    >quailty of the photo.


    Dunno. The fallback is to do the usual Bayer processing. Another
    option is to spit out an error.

    Sure, it's a feature with limited need, but I can see it being a cheap
    add-on to an existing camera.

    --
    Ray Fischer
    Ray Fischer, Nov 21, 2009
    #8
  9. Ray Fischer

    nospam Guest

    In article <he9p7p$ot9$-september.org>, Charles
    <> wrote:

    > I was not clear enough: the "idea" is elegant.


    the idea is interesting, but it isn't really solving a problem that
    needs to be solved. the eye can't see the added colour resolution.

    > Future vertical processing
    > of semiconductors offers hope in this arena. There is a slim, but real,
    > possibility that defined energy gaps could be built into a vertical
    > photosensor.


    nikon has a dichroic mirror patent but it's going to be a bitch to
    manufacture. fuji was working on organic dyes but i think they gave up
    on it. canon had a controllable filter, but it would require multiple
    exposures. and nobody mentions that the data processing and storage
    needs go up threefold (at least) with one of these systems.

    meanwhile, bayer works.
    nospam, Nov 21, 2009
    #9
  10. Ray Fischer

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Alfred Molon
    <> wrote:

    > > the idea is interesting, but it isn't really solving a problem that
    > > needs to be solved. the eye can't see the added colour resolution.

    >
    > Nonsense. Zoom or get close enough and you will be able to see the
    > difference.


    i assume by zoom you mean pixel peep, and if you do that you can see
    all sorts of problems. why not look at photos normally? did you grain
    peep film too?

    the eye's colour resolution is about 1/10th its luminance resolution
    and bayer is 1/2. in other words bayer already has more colour than the
    eye can resolve, so there's not much point in making it even higher.
    nospam, Nov 22, 2009
    #10
  11. Ray Fischer

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Alfred
    Molon <> wrote:

    > A full colour sensor, an idea some people here hate so much.


    it's not that people hate it, it's that there's a lot of drawbacks that
    some people blindly dismiss. a full colour sensor would be better *if*
    it didn't compromise on high iso, dynamic range, frame rate and colour
    accuracy. it also triples the storage and processing requirements.
    foveon loses on all of them. nothing is perfect, and bayer is an
    excellent tradeoff of what is currently possible.

    > So why is
    > Hasselblad implementing it, if there is no need for full colour
    > information at each pixel?


    they're moving the sensor and combining the results. that's not the
    same as a full colour sensor and it certainly won't work very well for
    anything with motion in it. it's also not cheap.
    nospam, Nov 22, 2009
    #11
  12. Alfred Molon <> wrote:
    > A full colour sensor, an idea some people here hate so much. So why is
    > Hasselblad implementing it, if there is no need for full colour
    > information at each pixel?


    Well, colour still photography and colour film by shooting through
    3 different filters is actually a very very old technology.
    It never worked well with moving subjects, why should it work
    better for Hasselblad? Do they change the laws of physics?

    As for why H is doing it ... because people like you decide that
    photographers have to have full colour sensors or you won't use,
    buy, etc. their shots. So everyone must buy H.

    -Wolfgang
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Nov 22, 2009
    #12
  13. On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 17:03:58 -0500, nospam <> wrote:

    >In article <he9nis$9ki$-september.org>, Charles
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >> >> I'm still rooting for Foveon II, as it seems more realistic to me as a
    >> >> way
    >> >> to leave (progress beyond) Bayer demosaicing.
    >> >
    >> > don't hold your breath on that one, and bayer actually works quite well.

    >>
    >> Agreed as to both points. However, the Foveon technology intrigues me with
    >> its elegance ... just like nuclear fusion. Probably both great ideas that
    >> will never actually pan out at any practical level.

    >
    >foveon is anything but elegant. it doesn't actually sense pure red,
    >green and blue like in the ads. there's a lot of overlap in the three
    >layers,


    About as much overlap in the filters on a Bayer sensor.

    Go educate yourself, troll.
    Outing Trolls is FUN!, Nov 22, 2009
    #13
  14. "Alfred Molon" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    []
    > It's for static scenes of course, but it is effectively a full colour
    > sensor, regardless of how they collect the full colour information. The
    > only thing they have to add is the piezo actuators, so the additional
    > cost will be small.
    > --
    >
    > Alfred Molon


    ... and probably something which could be easily added to any sensor-shift
    camera at little cost, perhaps providing /some/ image quality improvement.
    It should have better colour accuracy than the Foveon implementation.
    Whether there are many lenses that would justify the potential quadrupling
    of the resolution is another question. To get that resolution means that
    you would want a less severe anti-alias filter, or even omit the AA
    filter, which could then mean that the camera was more likely to see Moiré
    artefacts when not using multi-shot mode.

    Cheers,
    David
    David J Taylor, Nov 22, 2009
    #14
  15. Ray Fischer

    Better Info Guest

    On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 09:44:02 GMT, "David J Taylor"
    <-this-bit.nor-this-part.co.uk.invalid> wrote:

    >"Alfred Molon" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >[]
    >> It's for static scenes of course, but it is effectively a full colour
    >> sensor, regardless of how they collect the full colour information. The
    >> only thing they have to add is the piezo actuators, so the additional
    >> cost will be small.
    >> --
    >>
    >> Alfred Molon

    >
    >.. and probably something which could be easily added to any sensor-shift
    >camera at little cost, perhaps providing /some/ image quality improvement.
    >It should have better colour accuracy than the Foveon implementation.
    >Whether there are many lenses that would justify the potential quadrupling
    >of the resolution is another question. To get that resolution means that
    >you would want a less severe anti-alias filter, or even omit the AA
    >filter, which could then mean that the camera was more likely to see Moiré
    >artefacts when not using multi-shot mode.
    >
    >Cheers,
    >David


    If the sensor is shifted in sub-pixel increments, then much higher
    resolutions are available for both chroma and luma.

    http://www.photoacute.com/mtf.html
    Better Info, Nov 22, 2009
    #15
  16. "Alfred Molon" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In article <CJ7Om.7526$>, David J
    > Taylor says...
    >> Whether there are many lenses that would justify the potential
    >> quadrupling
    >> of the resolution is another question.

    >
    > Hasselblad are not quadrupling the resolution, they are just achieving
    > the full nominal resulution of the sensor (as opposed to Bayer sensors,
    > where the effective resulution is somewhere between ~ 30-100% of the
    > pixel count, depending on the scene captured).
    > In other words with their 39MP sensor, with this shift technology they
    > obtain an image with 39MP of information, while with a Bayer sensor you
    > are somewhere between 10 and 39MP of information. The numbers are of
    > course just guesstimates.
    > --
    >
    > Alfred Molon


    So 10 => 39 isn't potential quadrupling? Even as a guesstimate? <G>

    My question about lenses stands - how many are actually good enough the
    reach the full resolution (rather than the lower "Bayer resolution") of
    today's high-end DSLRs, even with ideal taking conditions?

    Cheers,
    David
    David J Taylor, Nov 22, 2009
    #16
  17. Ray Fischer

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Outing Trolls
    is FUN! <> wrote:

    > >foveon is anything but elegant. it doesn't actually sense pure red,
    > >green and blue like in the ads. there's a lot of overlap in the three
    > >layers,

    >
    > About as much overlap in the filters on a Bayer sensor.


    significantly more. see the foveon patents.
    nospam, Nov 22, 2009
    #17
  18. Ray Fischer

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Alfred
    Molon <> wrote:

    > > i assume by zoom you mean pixel peep, and if you do that you can see
    > > all sorts of problems. why not look at photos normally? did you grain
    > > peep film too?

    >
    > No. Make an enlargement and you will see how much resolution a photo
    > really has. And if you can't make enlargements, what is the point of
    > having a high pixel count?


    since bayer cameras have as much as 5 times as many pixels (in the same
    35mm form factor), you can make substantially bigger enlargements than
    with foveon. if you step up to medium format backs, it's over 12 times
    as many pixels.

    do you regularly make 20" x 30" posters?
    nospam, Nov 22, 2009
    #18
  19. Ray Fischer

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Alfred
    Molon <> wrote:

    > In article <211120091910312644%>, nospam says...
    > > In article <>, Alfred
    > > Molon wrote:
    > >
    > > > A full colour sensor, an idea some people here hate so much.

    > >
    > > it's not that people hate it, it's that there's a lot of drawbacks that
    > > some people blindly dismiss. a full colour sensor would be better *if*
    > > it didn't compromise on high iso, dynamic range, frame rate and colour
    > > accuracy. it also triples the storage and processing requirements.
    > > foveon loses on all of them. nothing is perfect, and bayer is an
    > > excellent tradeoff of what is currently possible.

    >
    > We are not discussing the implementation, only if it would be preferable
    > to have full colour sensor.


    of course it would be preferable *if* you could do it without
    compromising anything else. unfortunately, there's no free lunch.

    the reality is you end up compromising on things which are far more
    important than having higher colour resolution. you *will* see higher
    noise and colour casts, but you won't see the added colour resolution
    and a slow frame rate is not desirable for some types of photography,
    such as sports.
    nospam, Nov 22, 2009
    #19
  20. Ray Fischer

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Alfred
    Molon <> wrote:

    > Hasselblad are not quadrupling the resolution, they are just achieving
    > the full nominal resulution of the sensor (as opposed to Bayer sensors,
    > where the effective resulution is somewhere between ~ 30-100% of the
    > pixel count, depending on the scene captured).


    completely wrong.

    > In other words with their 39MP sensor, with this shift technology they
    > obtain an image with 39MP of information, while with a Bayer sensor you
    > are somewhere between 10 and 39MP of information. The numbers are of
    > course just guesstimates.


    yes, wild guesstimates that are completely bogus.
    nospam, Nov 22, 2009
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Bill Karoly

    Re: Is DSLR the best (future) technology?

    Bill Karoly, Aug 26, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    302
    Ken Alverson
    Aug 29, 2003
  2. Jason O'Rourke

    Re: Is DSLR the best (future) technology?

    Jason O'Rourke, Aug 26, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    383
    Peter
    Aug 28, 2003
  3. Matt Benson

    Re: Is DSLR the best (future) technology?

    Matt Benson, Aug 27, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    302
    Paul H.
    Aug 29, 2003
  4. Waylon Kenning
    Replies:
    31
    Views:
    1,070
  5. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    832
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page