Open Photography Forums  
HOME FORUMS NEWS FAQ SEARCH

Go Back   Open Photography Forums > OPF Welcome Hall > Breaking News

Breaking News Updates, innovations, equipment: moderated!

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old June 6th, 2007, 02:16 AM
Paul Bestwick Paul Bestwick is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Hobart Tasmania
Posts: 462
Default Canon 50 megapixel sensor

check this out.........

http://www.pocket-lint.co.uk/news/ne...-monster.phtml


Cheers,

PB
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old June 6th, 2007, 06:11 AM
Bart_van_der_Wolf Bart_van_der_Wolf is offline
pro member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 4,046
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Bestwick View Post
Interesting, besides technical capability, it might even give some sense of direction.

Bart
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old June 6th, 2007, 06:27 AM
Nicolas Claris Nicolas Claris is offline
Administrator/Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Bordeaux
Posts: 5,439
Default

It would fair that the author (Amy-Mae Elliott) does tell where she got that information so we could no if it is a rumor or a well established fact. One could dream!
__________________
WEBSITE - FACEBOOK - INSTAGRAM
Please do no repost my images elsewhere than OPF without my permission.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old June 6th, 2007, 10:59 AM
Alain Briot Alain Briot is offline
pro member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Phoenix, Arizona, USA
Posts: 1,421
Default

But if they can, theoretically, make a 50mp sensor, making a 24mp one should be no big deal ;-)
__________________
Alain Briot
Fine Art, workshops, books: Get 40 Free eBooks when you subscribe to my newsletter:
http://www.beautiful-landscape.com
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old June 6th, 2007, 12:18 PM
Klaus Esser Klaus Esser is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Duesseldorf, Germany
Posts: 473
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicolas Claris View Post
It would fair that the author (Amy-Mae Elliott) does tell where she got that information so we could no if it is a rumor or a well established fact. One could dream!
honestly: i can´t imagine, why they would make a 19x28mm sensor with 50MPx . . . that would be ridiculous. The resulting quality everyone could imagine . . . : terrible.
That´s like making a compact-digi with 16MPx for about 300.-$ . . .

If they would make a 50MPx sensor, it should be MF-size at least 39x48mm. Below that size 50MPx would mean just one thing: noise.

Remenber: actual high-res chips in digibacks need to be cooled to dampen noise. Think about a 1,6-crop-35mm-like camera with such a chip . . . maybe some ice-cubes or a fan attached . . . . :-)

best, Klaus
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old June 6th, 2007, 03:02 PM
Asher Kelman Asher Kelman is online now
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 32,725
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alain Briot View Post
But if they can, theoretically, make a 50mp sensor, making a 24mp one should be no big deal ;-)
Done!

Cooling? Peltier : no moving parts!

Asher
__________________
Follow us on Twitter at @opfweb

Our purpose is getting to an impressive photograph. So we encourage browsing and then feedback. Consider a link to your galleries annotated, C&C welcomed. Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old June 6th, 2007, 03:09 PM
Klaus Esser Klaus Esser is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Duesseldorf, Germany
Posts: 473
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Asher Kelman View Post
Done!

Cooling? Peltier : no moving parts!

Asher
"Full frame (not in size but in readout method) CCD dual sensor readout (DSR) for double capture speed (patent pending)
Bluetooth® wireless technology
Cooling fan for efficient heat removal"

Source: Leaf (Aptus 17/22MPx back)

best, Klaus
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old June 6th, 2007, 03:57 PM
Bart_van_der_Wolf Bart_van_der_Wolf is offline
pro member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 4,046
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Klaus Esser View Post
"Cooling fan for efficient heat removal"
Do remember that CCDs require more power (which generates heat) than CMOS devices do. Another difference is that CCDs are read by the "bucket-brigade" method, thus accumulating noise at each step, while CMOS can be read per sensel.

The amazing thing is that apparently only Canon has mastered CMOS for quality imaging sensors in both Consumer and Professional image sensor devices.

Bart
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old June 6th, 2007, 04:42 PM
Klaus Esser Klaus Esser is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Duesseldorf, Germany
Posts: 473
Default

"The amazing thing is that apparently only Canon has mastered CMOS for quality imaging sensors in both Consumer and Professional image sensor devices."

which professional image sensor devices do you mean? Compared to the digibacks it´s not very prfessional.
Canon´s CMOS are good. No question. But they can compete with none of the backs in terms of dynamics, resolution and noise.
There are good reasons, why photographers spend so much money even for a 17MPx - back.
You´d be surprised by the difference between a 1DsMkII and a P25 for instance . . ask Leonardo!
At least i was surprised using a P25 the first time in comparison to a 1DsMkII!

best, Klaus
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old June 6th, 2007, 05:01 PM
Bart_van_der_Wolf Bart_van_der_Wolf is offline
pro member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 4,046
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Klaus Esser View Post
"The amazing thing is that apparently only Canon has mastered CMOS for quality imaging sensors in both Consumer and Professional image sensor devices."

which professional image sensor devices do you mean? Compared to the digibacks it´s not very prfessional.
Canon´s CMOS are good. No question. But they can compete with none of the backs in terms of dynamics, resolution and noise.
Apples and oranges, please let's compare comparable things. The differences you mention are more related to sensel size (which has its obvious limits in a smaller format sensor array) than CCD/CMOS technology.

Besides, it would be interesting to compare the noise characteristics per sensel (or ultimately per output pixel) scaled for sensel surface area. The dynamic range is largely determined by both the surface area of the sensel, and the 16-bit ADC circuits used (and the 1Ds Mark II successor is rumoured to have just that).

Resolution of the 1Ds Mark II is higher on chip, but because the number of pixels is more limited than from larger sensor arrays the needed magnification works in its disadvantage, so again size related, not technology.

Bart
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old June 6th, 2007, 06:12 PM
Klaus Esser Klaus Esser is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Duesseldorf, Germany
Posts: 473
Default

"size related, not technology."

well, you can´t devide one from the other, can you. I understand what you mean, of course. But i doubt a general superiorness (?) of CMOS.
No maker of HighEnd-Backs use CMOS as far as i know. All CCD.

bigger sensels=greater dynamics. Right. Therefore i asked "which professional image sensor devices do you mean?"

Regarding the above reading and compared to others, they don´t have a really "professional image sensor device" yet . . ;-)

Besides: the 1DsMK II is a great device - no question!

bst, Klaus
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old June 7th, 2007, 01:01 PM
Nathaniel Alpert Nathaniel Alpert is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 168
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bart_van_der_Wolf View Post
Apples and oranges, please let's compare comparable things. The differences you mention are more related to sensel size (which has its obvious limits in a smaller format sensor array) than CCD/CMOS technology.

Besides, it would be interesting to compare the noise characteristics per sensel (or ultimately per output pixel) scaled for sensel surface area. The dynamic range is largely determined by both the surface area of the sensel, and the 16-bit ADC circuits used (and the 1Ds Mark II successor is rumoured to have just that).

Resolution of the 1Ds Mark II is higher on chip, but because the number of pixels is more limited than from larger sensor arrays the needed magnification works in its disadvantage, so again size related, not technology.

Bart
One can imagine uses for sensors with ultra high sampling. If you can make a sensor that has sufffcient sampling to outresolve the lens, it is possible (IMO) to eliiminate the AA filter without penalty. Assuming the packing fraction of the sensels can be close to one, there is little penalty in term of the total number of detected photons. The designer is then free to use postporocessing as desired. For example, one could resample at a lower sampling frequency, recovering signal-to-noise ratio, at the expense of resolution without introducing Moire or alaising artifacts.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old June 7th, 2007, 04:37 PM
Bart_van_der_Wolf Bart_van_der_Wolf is offline
pro member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 4,046
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nathaniel Alpert View Post
One can imagine uses for sensors with ultra high sampling. If you can make a sensor that has sufffcient sampling to outresolve the lens, it is possible (IMO) to eliiminate the AA filter without penalty.
Yes, however... Good lenses (for general imaging) have a limiting resolution of 150 cycles/mm or better (tiny dedicated lenses are much better). That would need an R+G+B sampling density of approx. 3 micron or smaller. In case of a Bayer CFA that would mean something like a 1.5 micron sensel pitch. At a sensel pitch of 1.5 micron, the sensels will have approx. an effective surface of 1x1=1 square micron. If we assume a storage capacity of 1500 electrons per square micron, the photon shot noise is approx. sqrt(1500)=39 with maximum exposure. A signal to noise ratio of 39:1 (at best) will look quite poor (6-7 accurate shades per byte). Such small sensels will also suffer from diffraction at any aperture narrower than f/1.4 .

Quote:
Assuming the packing fraction of the sensels can be close to one, there is little penalty in term of the total number of detected photons. The designer is then free to use post-porocessing as desired. For example, one could resample at a lower sampling frequency, recovering signal-to-noise ratio, at the expense of resolution without introducing Moire or alaising artifacts.
A 24x36mm sensor array with 1.5 micron pitch sensels will be approx. 16000x24000= 384 Megapixels. You'd need a lot of storage and a lot of processing power to process each image. Also, such small sensels are not very sensitive and will need a very low ISO to keep sensor noise limited.

That seems to be quite a penalty just to replace the AA-filter, if you ask me. And it'll require massive averaging to get anything resembling a decent dynamic range, and will result in a number of output pixels that we already achieve routinely today.

No, to me the most plausible solution is still many large (say 9x9 micron) sensels and 16-bit ADC processing.

Bart
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old June 7th, 2007, 05:58 PM
Nathaniel Alpert Nathaniel Alpert is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 168
Default

"A 24x36mm sensor array with 1.5 micron pitch sensels will be approx. 16000x24000= 384 Megapixels. You'd need a lot of storage and a lot of processing power to process each image. Also, such small sensels are not very sensitive and will need a very low ISO to keep sensor noise limited.

That seems to be quite a penalty just to replace the AA-filter, if you ask me. And it'll require massive averaging to get anything resembling a decent dynamic range, and will result in a number of output pixels that we already achieve routinely today.

No, to me the most plausible solution is still many large (say 9x9 micron) sensels and 16-bit ADC processing.

Bart"

Thanks for your comments but it seems to me that you have taken my suggestion to the extreme. It is not necessary to go to 1.5 microns to achieve adequate sampling from real lenses on a 24x36 mm detector. Processing a 50-100 Mpixel array should be within the state-of-the-art. And rather than reducing dynamic range this approach would substantially increase it. On the other hand, too few large pixels will limit image quality, due to aliasing. The charm of my suggestion is that one can contrive a sensor design that is matched to the available lenses and does not depend on imperfect AA filters.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old June 10th, 2007, 06:44 AM
kombizz kashani kombizz kashani is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 74
Default 50 megapixels

Canon crams 50 megapixels into a CMOS prototype

H E R E
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old June 10th, 2007, 09:23 AM
Nicolas Claris Nicolas Claris is offline
Administrator/Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Bordeaux
Posts: 5,439
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kombizz kashani View Post
Canon crams 50 megapixels into a CMOS prototype

H E R E
If you Google "50 megapixels" you'll get (as of today) 59 100 links...

and only 54 800 if you Google ""50 megapixels" canon"!

But be aware that a lot of them are related to "8,50 mégapixels"
__________________
WEBSITE - FACEBOOK - INSTAGRAM
Please do no repost my images elsewhere than OPF without my permission.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old June 12th, 2007, 12:34 AM
Georg R. Baumann Georg R. Baumann is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,482
Default

http://www.dalsa.com/markets/ccd_vs_cmos.asp
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

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

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:58 PM.


Posting images or text grants license to OPF, yet © of such remain with its creator. Still, all assembled discussion © 2006-2017 Asher Kelman (all rights reserved) Posts with new theme or unusual image might be moved/copied to a new thread!