Closer to perfection (current camera sensors)

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Me, Mar 10, 2012.

  1. Me

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Alfred
    Molon <> wrote:

    > > it's not a mess at all and 'pixel level sharpness' is meaningless
    > > twaddle.

    >
    > It's one big HUGE mess...


    it's not a mess at all. the output of bayer cameras is very, very good,
    about as good as it can get.
     
    nospam, Mar 11, 2012
    #21
    1. Advertising

  2. Me

    PeterN Guest

    On 3/11/2012 4:18 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
    > On Sun, 11 Mar 2012 14:44:50 -0400, PeterN
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> On 3/11/2012 5:57 AM, Bruce wrote:
    >>> Rich<> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> "David J. Littleboy"<> wrote in
    >>>> news::
    >>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> "Me"<> wrote in message
    >>>>> news:jjfhuv$ifp$...
    >>>>>> On 10/03/2012 10:48 p.m., Alfred Molon wrote:
    >>>>>>> In article<jjefu7$dg0$>, Me says...
    >>>>>>>> Ideal DX would be defined by a Bayer type sensor with 100% quantum
    >>>>>>>> efficiency and no read noise.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> No, an ideal sensor would be a full-colour sensor, not a Bayer one.
    >>>>>>> But at the moment full-colour sensor technology is not good enough
    >>>>>>> yet.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>> I think I mentioned that. Yes, an "ideal" foveon outperforms an
    >>>>>> "ideal" bayer sensor.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I suppose. But a real Bayer gets quite close to an ideal Bayer,
    >>>>> whereas Foveon needs 100% transparency to the bands not detected in
    >>>>> the top two layers, and that's never going to happen, not even close.
    >>>>> Also, getting high QE out of Foveon in the detection layers is going
    >>>>> to be way harder.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Meanwhile, as I keep saying over and over again, Bayer is flipping
    >>>>> amazing. 12MP FF Bayer makes 35mm film look sick at 12x18. There's
    >>>>> just no comparison. And 36MP FF Bayer is going to match 6x9 film at
    >>>>> 16x24. This is friggin' amazing: a measly 24x36mm of silicon competing
    >>>>> with 56x92 mm of film.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Which is to say, I don't get the folks complaining about the Bayer
    >>>>> array + AA filter technology. It produces amazing images, and trying
    >>>>> to do better is a fool's errand, since all you get is worse
    >>>>> color/noise performance (real life Foveon) and horrific artifacts
    >>>>> (from leaving out the mathematically required AA filter).
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Is...the sky...really falling on Nikon?
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> No, the sky is falling in on Littleboy and his ilk.
    >>>
    >>> Problem is, they are too busy peeping at pixels, searching for the
    >>> elusive moire and aliasing to notice the sky is falling. ;-)
    >>>

    >>
    >> Aw Brucie, is moire bad for your sales?

    >
    > Where sales are concerned, better moire than less.
    >


    Only were there is more gross resolution.


    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Mar 11, 2012
    #22
    1. Advertising

  3. Me

    Bryan Guest

    David J. Littleboy wrote:
    > But to get back to my now clipped point: if you actually look at
    > the images cameras like the D700, 5D, and 5D2 produce, they are superb.
    > Worlds better than we ever got with 35mm film. Medium format quality with
    > 35mm convenience. For anyone who actually takes photos and actually cares
    > about print quality, life is really really good.
    >
    > Folks who don't take photos play counting angels on heads of pins games.


    We have a right to our jealousy ever since you got your 5D. And you're
    *still* happy with it? That's just rubbing it in.
     
    Bryan, Mar 12, 2012
    #23
  4. Me

    Me Guest

    On 12/03/2012 8:57 p.m., Bryan wrote:
    > David J. Littleboy wrote:
    >> But to get back to my now clipped point: if you actually look at
    >> the images cameras like the D700, 5D, and 5D2 produce, they are superb.
    >> Worlds better than we ever got with 35mm film. Medium format quality with
    >> 35mm convenience. For anyone who actually takes photos and actually cares
    >> about print quality, life is really really good.
    >>
    >> Folks who don't take photos play counting angels on heads of pins games.

    >
    > We have a right to our jealousy ever since you got your 5D. And you're
    > *still* happy with it? That's just rubbing it in.

    IIRC he got a 5d - then a 5dII.
    Data on raw performance of the 5dIII seems to be showing that it's
    damned near exactly the same as the 5dII, which is good and not so good.
    It's good, because if you're happy with the 5dII focus system, (and
    shoot raw) then there's absolutely no point spending $3500 on a 5dIII.
    It's not so good, because what the heck have Canon been doing with
    sensor development over the past 4 years? There seems to have been major
    effort in improving in-camera jpeg NR, but almost no advance in reducing
    read noise.
     
    Me, Mar 12, 2012
    #24
  5. Me

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Alfred
    Molon <> wrote:

    > > it's not a mess at all. the output of bayer cameras is very, very good,
    > > about as good as it can get.

    >
    > Then why do Bayer images look so soft when watched at 100%? They are
    > only sharp when downsized.


    did you also look at individual grains of film?

    looking at individual pixels is meaningless. not only that but the more
    pixels you have the softer it will be at 100%.

    > If a 12MP Bayer image has to be downsized to 3MP to get sharpness, the
    > information content is only 3MP.


    nonsense.
     
    nospam, Mar 12, 2012
    #25
  6. "David J. Littleboy" <> writes:

    > Exactly. But to get back to my now clipped point: if you actually look at
    > the images cameras like the D700, 5D, and 5D2 produce, they are superb.
    > Worlds better than we ever got with 35mm film. Medium format quality with
    > 35mm convenience. For anyone who actually takes photos and actually cares
    > about print quality, life is really really good.


    Yes, life is extremely good that way. And in another direction, I can
    get much cleaner pictures at high ISO than I could with film also
    *especially* in color.

    But "good" isn't the same as "entirely satisfactory". I'm still
    interested in more. I admit I'm less hungry than I used to be.
    --
    David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
    Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
    Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
    Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Mar 12, 2012
    #26
  7. Rich <> writes:

    > "David J. Littleboy" <> wrote in
    > news::
    >
    >>
    >> "Ray Fischer" <> wrote in message
    >> news:4f5c0089$0$12041$...
    >>> nospam <> wrote:
    >>>>In article <>, Alfred
    >>>>Molon <> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> > and not likely to ever be, plus if you oversample with bayer,
    >>>>> > full colour sensors are not needed.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Nonsense. Besides oversampling with Bayer is a very poor idea. If
    >>>>> you want to oversample you better use full-colour pixels.
    >>>>
    >>>>actually it's a very good idea.
    >>>
    >>> Foveon religious zealots are as irrational as any other religious
    >>> zealot.

    >>
    >> Exactly. But to get back to my now clipped point: if you actually look
    >> at the images cameras like the D700, 5D, and 5D2 produce, they are
    >> superb. Worlds better than we ever got with 35mm film. Medium format
    >> quality with 35mm convenience.

    >
    > Could be even better. Get rid of the mirrors and the huge bodies and you
    > have medium format quality with P&S convenience.


    We're not to the point of having fully solved the focus problem yet, but
    we're certainly making progress. We'll get there. In pretty much every
    other way, it's better without mirrors :).
    --
    David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
    Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
    Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
    Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Mar 12, 2012
    #27
  8. Alfred Molon <> writes:

    > In article <110320121132304832%>, nospam says...
    >
    >> it's not a mess at all. the output of bayer cameras is very, very good,
    >> about as good as it can get.

    >
    > Then why do Bayer images look so soft when watched at 100%? They are
    > only sharp when downsized.


    The same is true of film images (except that "100%" is more obviously
    meaningless on film ;-) ).
    --
    David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
    Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
    Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
    Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Mar 12, 2012
    #28
  9. Me

    Bruce Guest

    David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:
    >We're not to the point of having fully solved the focus problem yet, but
    >we're certainly making progress. We'll get there. In pretty much every
    >other way, it's better without mirrors :).



    The Panasonic G3, GH2 and GX1 and Olympus E-P3, E-PL3 and E-PM1 all
    have the fastest and most accurate AF available for static and
    slow-moving subjects. The E-M5 should have it too. If you need fast
    AF on moving subjects, the Nikon V1 has it, although its low light
    focusing (using contrast detect AF) is on the slow side.

    If these cameras haven't solved the focus problem, they are getting
    very close indeed. They offer faster and more accurate AF than any
    entry-level DSLR, even on moving subjects. They only fall down when
    compared with mid to high end DSLRs, and only on fast moving subjects.
     
    Bruce, Mar 12, 2012
    #29
  10. Me

    Me Guest

    On 13/03/2012 8:34 a.m., David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
    > Rich<> writes:
    >
    >> "David J. Littleboy"<> wrote in
    >> news::
    >>
    >>>
    >>> "Ray Fischer"<> wrote in message
    >>> news:4f5c0089$0$12041$...
    >>>> nospam<> wrote:
    >>>>> In article<>, Alfred
    >>>>> Molon<> wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>> and not likely to ever be, plus if you oversample with bayer,
    >>>>>>> full colour sensors are not needed.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Nonsense. Besides oversampling with Bayer is a very poor idea. If
    >>>>>> you want to oversample you better use full-colour pixels.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> actually it's a very good idea.
    >>>>
    >>>> Foveon religious zealots are as irrational as any other religious
    >>>> zealot.
    >>>
    >>> Exactly. But to get back to my now clipped point: if you actually look
    >>> at the images cameras like the D700, 5D, and 5D2 produce, they are
    >>> superb. Worlds better than we ever got with 35mm film. Medium format
    >>> quality with 35mm convenience.

    >>
    >> Could be even better. Get rid of the mirrors and the huge bodies and you
    >> have medium format quality with P&S convenience.

    >
    > We're not to the point of having fully solved the focus problem yet, but
    > we're certainly making progress. We'll get there. In pretty much every
    > other way, it's better without mirrors :).
    >

    It is about time Nikon/Canon made some mirrorless dx/fx models with EVF.
    As soon as this gets mentioned, dslr users seem to get defensive, but
    there's no reason mirrorless models can't exist alongside slrs.
    With the extra flange distance available, perhaps they could make
    tilt/shift adapters which would work with normal lenses. (image circle
    might be smaller than "real" tilt/shift lenses, but an FX lens should be
    fine on dx, some lenses would probably be fine on both formats.
     
    Me, Mar 12, 2012
    #30
  11. Bruce <> writes:

    > David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:
    >>We're not to the point of having fully solved the focus problem yet, but
    >>we're certainly making progress. We'll get there. In pretty much every
    >>other way, it's better without mirrors :).

    >
    >
    > The Panasonic G3, GH2 and GX1 and Olympus E-P3, E-PL3 and E-PM1 all
    > have the fastest and most accurate AF available for static and
    > slow-moving subjects. The E-M5 should have it too. If you need fast
    > AF on moving subjects, the Nikon V1 has it, although its low light
    > focusing (using contrast detect AF) is on the slow side.


    And I'm shooting a D700 normally.

    Possibly the Olympus has improved, but the EPL-2 most certainly is not
    even in the ballpark. And the V1 gets good reviews but largely from
    people comparing it to the *entry-level* DSLRs, and I don't think it can
    focus as many places around the frame.

    So, I think we're coming along, but we're not anywhere near *there* yet
    so far as I can see.

    (The complexities from routing light to the phase AF sensors are a
    source of expense and of error, and I'm sure in the long run it will go
    away. And I'm sure that for many people, a bit slower AF that's always
    *accurate* is a better tradeoff.)

    > If these cameras haven't solved the focus problem, they are getting
    > very close indeed. They offer faster and more accurate AF than any
    > entry-level DSLR, even on moving subjects. They only fall down when
    > compared with mid to high end DSLRs, and only on fast moving subjects.


    Yes, exactly. But I'm using a D700 to track the jammer making her way
    through the pack in roller derby.
    --
    David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
    Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
    Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
    Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Mar 12, 2012
    #31
  12. Me

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, David J.
    Littleboy <> wrote:

    > >> Exactly. But to get back to my now clipped point: if you actually look at
    > >> the images cameras like the D700, 5D, and 5D2 produce, they are superb.
    > >> Worlds better than we ever got with 35mm film. Medium format quality with
    > >> 35mm convenience. For anyone who actually takes photos and actually cares
    > >> about print quality, life is really really good.

    > >
    > > Yes, life is extremely good that way. And in another direction, I can
    > > get much cleaner pictures at high ISO than I could with film also
    > > *especially* in color.
    > >
    > > But "good" isn't the same as "entirely satisfactory". I'm still
    > > interested in more. I admit I'm less hungry than I used to be.

    >
    > The problem is that if you ask for more than is mathematically possible or
    > engineeringly reasonable, you end up with worse than you started with.


    foveon fans not only ask for what is mathematically impossible, but
    they fully believe they are getting it.

    > You can't correctly resolve high contrast lines just under the Nyquist
    > frequency without an AA filter, so removing the AA filter reduces resolution
    > (and leaves you with jaggies on every edge in every image). You do get a
    > strong bogus sharpening effect, though. And if you ask for a full-color
    > sensor, you get worse color and noise. And that's doubly stupid because
    > Bayer sensors already have a higher ratio of color to luminance resolution
    > than the human eye, which is, essentially, just an inferior Bayer sensor
    > since the random arrangement of color sensors doesn't do as well as Bayer.


    all true.
     
    nospam, Mar 13, 2012
    #32
  13. Me

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Alfred Molon <> wrote:
    > nospam says...


    >> it's not a mess at all. the output of bayer cameras is very, very good,
    >> about as good as it can get.

    >
    >Then why do Bayer images look so soft when watched at 100%?


    That says everything you need to know about sensor-technology cultists.

    --
    Ray Fischer | None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.
    | Goethe
     
    Ray Fischer, Mar 13, 2012
    #33
  14. Me

    Bryan Guest

    Me wrote:
    > IIRC he got a 5d - then a 5dII.


    Seems you recall correctly. And offer less than no help on my jealousy
    issues.

    > Data on raw performance of the 5dIII seems to be showing that it's
    > damned near exactly the same as the 5dII, which is good and not so good.
    > It's good, because if you're happy with the 5dII focus system, (and
    > shoot raw) then there's absolutely no point spending $3500 on a 5dIII.


    Because Amazon is still selling the 5dII for $2,169.00. How much it
    must suck for those early adopters, to see their tech toy lose all of
    14% of it's before-inflation dollar value, with only a couple years of
    photographs to show for it. Boo hoo for them.

    > It's not so good, because what the heck have Canon been doing with
    > sensor development over the past 4 years? There seems to have been major
    > effort in improving in-camera jpeg NR, but almost no advance in reducing
    > read noise.


    I had a bunch of reasons for not buying a 5D, nor a 5D II.
    Insufficient megapixels and excessive read noise were not among them.
     
    Bryan, Mar 13, 2012
    #34
  15. "David J. Littleboy" <> writes:

    > "David Dyer-Bennet" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> "David J. Littleboy" <> writes:
    >>
    >>> Exactly. But to get back to my now clipped point: if you actually look at
    >>> the images cameras like the D700, 5D, and 5D2 produce, they are superb.
    >>> Worlds better than we ever got with 35mm film. Medium format quality with
    >>> 35mm convenience. For anyone who actually takes photos and actually cares
    >>> about print quality, life is really really good.

    >>
    >> Yes, life is extremely good that way. And in another direction, I can
    >> get much cleaner pictures at high ISO than I could with film also
    >> *especially* in color.
    >>
    >> But "good" isn't the same as "entirely satisfactory". I'm still
    >> interested in more. I admit I'm less hungry than I used to be.

    >
    > The problem is that if you ask for more than is mathematically possible or
    > engineeringly reasonable, you end up with worse than you started with.


    Not if the engineers are any good; good ones will smile sadly and say
    "Sorry about that!"

    > You can't correctly resolve high contrast lines just under the Nyquist
    > frequency without an AA filter, so removing the AA filter reduces resolution
    > (and leaves you with jaggies on every edge in every image). You do get a
    > strong bogus sharpening effect, though. And if you ask for a full-color
    > sensor, you get worse color and noise. And that's doubly stupid because
    > Bayer sensors already have a higher ratio of color to luminance resolution
    > than the human eye, which is, essentially, just an inferior Bayer sensor
    > since the random arrangement of color sensors doesn't do as well as Bayer.


    I don't have any special hankering for Foveon; I understand my own eyes
    have much lower spatial resolution in color than in monochrome, and in
    fact match Bayer quite well. So a Bayer image is adequate for me to
    look at. No big complaints there from me.

    Look, people producing professional photography in a number of areas are
    enthusiastically working without AA filters (on very high-res medium
    format systems). The problems you describe aren't practical imaging
    problems at least in that environment.

    I am kind of interested in the playing around with filter layouts Fuji
    is doing in the new X<whatever>Pro model. I'm not yet convinced Bayer
    is completely optimal.
    --
    David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
    Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
    Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
    Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Mar 13, 2012
    #35
  16. "David J. Littleboy" <> writes:

    > "Me" <> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>> Could be even better. Get rid of the mirrors and the huge bodies and
    >>>> you
    >>>> have medium format quality with P&S convenience.
    >>>
    >>> We're not to the point of having fully solved the focus problem yet, but
    >>> we're certainly making progress. We'll get there. In pretty much every
    >>> other way, it's better without mirrors :).
    >> >

    >> It is about time Nikon/Canon made some mirrorless dx/fx models with EVF.
    >> As soon as this gets mentioned, dslr users seem to get defensive, but
    >> there's no reason mirrorless models can't exist alongside slrs.

    >
    > Well, mirrorless would be nice if the electronic viewfinders and AF didn't
    > blow dead camels. But they do.
    >
    > Next time you wish for an EVF, look through a 5D or D700 viewfinder and
    > report back.


    I chose to use Live View rather than looking through my D700 viewfinder
    last night. Does that count? (It was more convenient for the
    particular setup, and it was a completely static subject.)

    > And in terms of practical photography, SLRs mirrors simply aren't the
    > problem: subject motion and hand-induced camera shake are. Using a larger
    > sensor with higher ISO and IS are the solutions to those problems.


    The system directing light to the AF sensors is largely the cause of
    systematic AF system inaccuracies in most sample cameras, though. And
    the mirror slap IS quite significant around the lower shutter speeds
    that would otherwise be hand-holdable. (I shoot in places where subject
    motion is the limiting factor quite a lot, but I still have to worry
    about other things too.)

    > Now, I might be interested in a FF rangefinder camera of some sort. But
    > that's a different beast altogether.


    Not that different, to my mind.
    --
    David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
    Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
    Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
    Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Mar 13, 2012
    #36
  17. On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 08:12:57 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
    <> wrote:
    > Next time you wish for an EVF, look through a 5D or D700 viewfinder

    and
    > report back.


    Well, for me, wearing glasses, I never get to see the entire frame
    through any of todays dslr viewfinders. Let alone seeing the exposure
    data at the same time. On top of that I find myself composing more
    consciously and with better results when I use digital screens like
    with P&S cameras. That does not speak in favor of evfs, but somewhat
    neutralizes the advantage of large bright dslr viewfinders.

    Tom
     
    Thomas Richter, Mar 13, 2012
    #37
  18. David J. Littleboy <> wrote:

    > Exactly. But to get back to my now clipped point: if you actually look at
    > the images cameras like the D700, 5D, and 5D2 produce, they are superb.
    > Worlds better than we ever got with 35mm film. Medium format quality with
    > 35mm convenience. For anyone who actually takes photos and actually cares
    > about print quality, life is really really good.


    > Folks who don't take photos play counting angels on heads of pins games.


    If they were taking photos, would a loupe lens like the MP-E
    suffice or would you need a microscope adapter? And (given
    that they probably have a halo) is ISO 800 enough to freeze
    them with enough DOF? Or do we need flash (and wouldn't they
    go up in smoke from too much light)?

    Finally, were all the angles that appeared behind powerful
    enlarger lenses, or were they ... ah, somewhat taller,
    preventing them from dancing on heads of pins in first place?

    And what loupe lens would one use if one used a D800E?

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Mar 13, 2012
    #38
    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. lmnop

    Getting closer to to rip/burn decisions

    lmnop, Nov 27, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    15
    Views:
    788
    Toolman Tim
    Nov 27, 2004
  2. Annika1980

    D60: CLOSER THAN YOU WANNA BE !!!

    Annika1980, Jul 22, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    364
    Roger Halstead
    Jul 24, 2003
  3. mimi
    Replies:
    62
    Views:
    1,715
    Urra Dipschitt
    Jun 23, 2005
  4. joe

    Closer!!!

    joe, Nov 17, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    443
    =?ISO-8859-1?Q?BenOne=A9?=
    Nov 19, 2004
  5. steve

    closer...closer....RAM-based system

    steve, Sep 12, 2006, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    440
    Dogboy
    Sep 15, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page