/p/ - Photography » Thread #3175350

[35 / 7 / ?]

10KiB, 360x304, SCCD2.gif

Anonymous Mon 23 Oct 2017 04:15:14 No.3175350 View View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>3175364 >>3175461 >>3175475 >>3175500 >>3175557 >>3178224 >>3182415

Why did sensor manufacturers give up on good colour and dynamic range?

Fuji Super CCD was king and still looks a metric fuckton better than modern CMOS. So what if CMOS has a somewhat clean 64000000 ISO

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 23 Oct 2017 04:46:39 No.3175364 Report

Quoted By:

>>3175350
because fucking idiots want 4k video on all their garbage vlogging cameras. yes, they think all stills cameras should prioritize vlogging

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 23 Oct 2017 10:21:18 No.3175461 Report

Quoted By: >>3175671

>>3175350
First, ccd's are more expensive to manufacture, so an aps-c sized ccd would cost even more than cmos foolframe to make.
Second, were not too far from organic sensors anyway so i guess all the sensor manufacturers will sooner or later shift to those.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 23 Oct 2017 10:46:42 No.3175475 Report

Quoted By:

>>3175350
CCD sensors use a lot more power.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 23 Oct 2017 11:39:48 No.3175488 Report

Quoted By: >>3175512 >>3175674

What full frame dslrs have ccd? Does the 5D mk1?

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO sigma-foveon-sensor-larger.jpg, 91KiB, 640x392

Anonymous Mon 23 Oct 2017 12:17:13 No.3175500 Report

Quoted By: >>3175528 >>3178197

>>3175350
foveon a best

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 23 Oct 2017 13:11:21 No.3175512 Report

Quoted By: >>3175527

>>3175488
if im not mistaken the only ccd ff sensor made was the philips 6mp one, used in Contax N.
Heres some techfaggotry about it:
http://pdf.eepw.com.cn/f20090826/ae46cf0eaf830d0935be66d6c73cc084.pdf

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 23 Oct 2017 14:08:10 No.3175527 Report

Quoted By:

>>3175512
Leica M9 was CCD and all Medium Format digital is only recently CMOS with most still using CCD

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 23 Oct 2017 14:11:50 No.3175528 Report

Quoted By: >>3175532 >>3175573

>>3175500
Foveon looks like shiiiit at even relatively low ISOs. Like, by ISO 400 you’ve lost every image quality advantage of a foveon sensor, and by 800 you’re outclassed by a low-end crop Bayer CMOS at 6400

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 23 Oct 2017 14:22:59 No.3175532 Report

Quoted By:

>>3175528
Yes, but at the base ISO Foveon is by far de best one!

They should increase it's ISO capability

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 23 Oct 2017 15:23:33 No.3175557 Report

Quoted By:

>>3175350
because CCD is shit

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 23 Oct 2017 15:48:49 No.3175568 Report

Quoted By: >>3175601

why can't you separately change the ISO for every pixel? this would make HDR out of several exposures obsolete. I heard with magic lantern you can shoot with alternating sensitivities on the pixel lines.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Food-Markets-of-Hong-Kong-08-res (...).jpg, 1MiB, 1920x1920

Anonymous Mon 23 Oct 2017 15:53:54 No.3175573 Report

Quoted By: >>3175588 >>3175666

>>3175528
>Foveon looks like shiiiit
to think i share board with such mongoloids.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 23 Oct 2017 16:55:26 No.3175588 Report

Quoted By:

>>3175573
looks like every other digicuck snapshit

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 23 Oct 2017 17:25:45 No.3175601 Report

Quoted By:

>>3175568
For the most part, when you change the ISO, you're just changing the gain on the signal, not making any changes to the actual sensitivity of the sensor. Whatever can be done to maximize dynamic range with that is almost certainly already being done by onboard processing.

The point of HDR is that it's several separate exposures, changing the amount of light falling on the sensor.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 23 Oct 2017 19:18:31 No.3175666 Report

Quoted By:

>>3175573
Yeah, that’s at ISO 200.

Post an ISO 800 shot and you’ll see what I’m talking about.

(Note this isn’t just mindless brandfagging, it’s actual experience. Like, apparently, you, I own a DP2M. I mainly shoot Canon full frame, so I’ve gotten into the habit of just ignoring ISO most of the time and I can’t do that with my Sigma)

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 23 Oct 2017 19:39:03 No.3175671 Report

Quoted By: >>3175772

>>3175461
>so an aps-c sized ccd would cost even more than cmos foolframe

I don't know of any FF cameras retailing for as little as the D50

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 23 Oct 2017 19:41:11 No.3175674 Report

Quoted By:

>>3175488
>Does the 5D mk1?

No, the only Canon with CCD is the 1D

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 23 Oct 2017 23:42:44 No.3175772 Report

Quoted By:

>>3175671
Saying a CCD APS-C would cost as much as a full frame CMOS is overstating it, but CCD *is* significantly more expensive.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Oct 2017 12:42:50 No.3178197 Report

Quoted By: >>3182389

>>3175500
Foveon are the best sensor in theory, but Sigma cameras are so bad it didn't catch on.
Sony the Sensor God was working on foevon-like sensor few years ago, I don't know if it's still ongoing but I have hope.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Oct 2017 13:38:54 No.3178224 Report

Quoted By: >>3180049

>>3175350
>Why did sensor manufacturers give up on good colour and dynamic range?
They did not. We got like 14 fucking stops of DR on current sensors.

> Fuji Super CCD was king and still looks a metric fuckton better than modern CMOS
They had like 11 stops of DR in the best case and the colors weren't really more accurate either.

It's just your nostalgia. Not objective, measurable reality.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 30 Oct 2017 03:29:04 No.3180049 Report

Quoted By: >>3180105 >>3180108 >>3180544

>>3178224
>We got like 14 fucking stops of DR on current sensors.
DR and colour depth is not the same thing. Kodachrome had lower dynamic range than even the cheapest print films and even the most basic of modern DSLR sensors, yet the colour was phenomenal and unmatched.

The S5 pro had a true 14bit raw rolling right off the sensor, something usually exclusive to digital MF. Even though a lot of DSLRs now have 14bit raw files it is 8bit off the sensor and upsampled.

the Supper CCD had superior colour, deal with it

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO .png, 12KiB, 620x244

Anonymous Mon 30 Oct 2017 06:26:04 No.3180105 Report

Quoted By:

>>3180049
>Even though a lot of DSLRs now have 14bit raw files it is 8bit off the sensor and upsampled.
Can you start sourcing your claims before spouting lies next time?
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d810.htm

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO .png, 62KiB, 1189x605

Anonymous Mon 30 Oct 2017 06:35:51 No.3180108 Report

Quoted By:

>>3180049
And here is how much color you're actually getting out in the end compared to an older APS-C Sony. 14-bits is useless if the sensor doesn't even that much data to output.
https://www.dxomark.com/About/In-depth-measurements/Measurements/Color-sensitivity
>inb4 dxomark
Their final total scores are generally bullshit but their individual measurements are still proper and unbiased raw data.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 30 Oct 2017 22:50:04 No.3180544 Report

Quoted By:

>>3180049
>the Supper CCD had superior colour, deal with it
Find me a comparison between a SuperCCD and regular modern Bayer sensor? I’d wager that the advantage is mostly placebo in practice, but I’m willing to be disproved.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Streamlight_ProTac_1AA.jpg, 15KiB, 285x285

Anonymous Fri 03 Nov 2017 10:08:14 No.3182217 Report

Quoted By:

Dunno, I think megapixel race is on for larger sensor sizes -- effective pixel sizes getting smaller. Except such stuff like Sony A7sii

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 03 Nov 2017 19:16:09 No.3182389 Report

Quoted By: >>3182501

>>3178197
>Sony the Sensor God was working on foevon-like sensor few years ago

I want to see Canon release a camera with the 5 layer Foveon stack they patented a while ago.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 03 Nov 2017 20:30:13 No.3182415 Report

Quoted By: >>3182433

>>3175350
Are there photo comparisons between CCD and CMOS showing how they look side by side, or is it just typical gearfaggy shit wanking about "muh feels" and holds no objective substance?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 03 Nov 2017 21:20:16 No.3182433 Report

Quoted By: >>3182445

>>3182415
http://www.reddotforum.com/content/2015/02/the-great-debate-ccd-vs-cmos-part-1/

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 03 Nov 2017 21:38:59 No.3182445 Report

Quoted By: >>3182482

>>3182433
Wow, at least with film, the difference is obvious, so I can get having a preference, but each of these comparison photos look virtually identical.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 03 Nov 2017 23:04:45 No.3182482 Report

Quoted By: >>3182503 >>3182527

>>3182445
screens only show so much, i wonder how the two print

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 03 Nov 2017 23:34:39 No.3182501 Report

Quoted By:

>>3182389
>5 layer Foveon stack
for the photogs that only use ISO 64

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO E2DC77B2-3A54-42B3-837F-CFDE7288 (...).gif, 690KiB, 500x374

Anonymous Fri 03 Nov 2017 23:35:30 No.3182503 Report

Quoted By:

>>3182482

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 03 Nov 2017 23:55:55 No.3182527 Report

Quoted By: >>3182548

>>3182482
>screens only show so much

If it's not completely obvious what the difference is on a 1000 pixel wide jpeg online, it's not going to be readily apparent in print unless you're talking about resolution/print size, which isn't the case here. I do *not* see superior colors or dynamic range on the CCD examples in that link; they look pretty much the same as the CMOS ones.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 04 Nov 2017 01:02:34 No.3182548 Report

Quoted By:

>>3182527
But i do

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Verified Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Manager Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts Only Founder Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images Only Spoiler Images Only Non-Spoiler Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

On these archives

Your latest searches