Topic: CCD vs CMOS (Read 19056 times)

alifatemi · « **on:** April 24, 2016, 02:11:41 pm »

hi, with recent advancement in CMOS MF DB, I wonder if anyone compare picture quality of them together, say, Phase one 80Mp with Phase one new 100; Some people always used to say colors were better with CCD sensors compare to CMOS. Is it the case with new hi res CMOS too? any difference at all? Upgrading from CCD to CMOS, won't I regret to lose my excellent color quality of CCD? I got PhaseOne iq3 80 and planning to move to their 100.

eronald · « **Reply #1 on:** April 24, 2016, 03:19:07 pm »

Quote from: alifatemi on April 24, 2016, 02:11:41 pm

hi, with recent advancement in CMOS MF DB, I wonder if anyone compare picture quality of them together, say, Phase one 80Mp with Phase one new 100; Some people always used to say colors were better with CCD sensors compare to CMOS. Is it the case with new hi res CMOS too? any difference at all? Upgrading from CCD to CMOS, won't I regret to lose my excellent color quality of CCD? I got PhaseOne iq3 80 and planning to move to their 100.

Maybe you should say what sort of subject is in front of the camera

Lust4Life · « **Reply #2 on:** April 24, 2016, 05:27:44 pm »

I have always felt much of how a given array looks is as much a function of the algorithms being used to process the data off the array.

I'm curious to see what others feel and hope someone has done a true test to advise their findings!

Some of it is addressed recently in this chaps post:
http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=109798.0

Jack

BernardLanguillier · « **Reply #3 on:** April 24, 2016, 05:41:10 pm »

Thousands of owners have been working for nearly 2 years with CMOS equipped backs from Phase, Leaf, Hassy and Pentax and I haven't noticed any negative report about CMOS colors being inferior. Phaseone has also clearly stated with the release of their 100mp that color was most important for them and that they considered their CMOS backs to be at least as good as the CCD backs before them.

My personal takeaway is that the previous talks about CCD colors being superior were not grounded in reality but more of marketing nature, just like DR talks before them. At least they were not about CCD being inferior as a technology, but more about the full imaging chain.

Cheers,
Bernard

Bart_van_der_Wolf · « **Reply #4 on:** April 24, 2016, 05:49:05 pm »

Quote from: BernardLanguillier on April 24, 2016, 05:41:10 pm

My personal takeaway is that the previous talks about CCD colors being superior were not grounded in reality but more of marketing nature, just like DR talks before them.

Correct. Besides minor possible differences in the CFA transmittance, colors are mainly the result of the profiles. There is no reason to believe that Phase One would put in less of an effort for their future moneymakers.

Cheers,
Bart

eronald · « **Reply #5 on:** April 24, 2016, 06:04:20 pm »

Yes, and what are the latest commercial offerings really like? All CFAs are not equal. There are engineering tradeoffs to be made in each set of pigment choices. I am seeing rather mediocre green discrimination in the published A7RII images.

Quote from: BartvanderWolf on April 24, 2016, 05:49:05 pm

Correct. Besides minor possible differences in the CFA transmittance, colors are mainly the result of the profiles. There is no reason to believe that Phase One would put in less of an effort for their future moneymakers.

Cheers,
Bart

Bart_van_der_Wolf · « **Reply #6 on:** April 24, 2016, 06:28:40 pm »

Quote from: eronald on April 24, 2016, 06:04:20 pm

Yes, and what are the latest commercial offerings really like? All CFAs are not equal. There are engineering tradeoffs to be made in each set of pigment choices. I am seeing rather mediocre green discrimination in the published A7RII images.

Edmund,

You are assuming that it's due to the CFA's and that it's not caused by, or correctable by, the profiles (BTW which profiles?). Any independent confirmation, or just speculation?

I have little difficulty in modifying the default Profiles in Capture One, by using its Color Editor and saving to a modified ICC profile.

Cheers,
Bart

Joe Towner · « **Reply #7 on:** April 24, 2016, 07:32:42 pm »

The differences are all in the shooter and their processing. Remember, the differences between the Phase and Hasselblad implementations of the same chip come down to color science. Their goal is for you to have identical images shot with different backs side by side and unable to see the difference. Both companies did well in this regard, to the point that high-iso from the CMOS has replaced other innovations (Sensor+, for example).

JaapD · « **Reply #8 on:** April 25, 2016, 04:07:57 am »

In the early days CCD had the better specs (fill factor, full well spec, s/n ratio, …) but over the last decade(s) CMOS has made huge incremental improvements, not in the last place due to the implementation of multiple on chip A/D converters (not feasible with CCD). I think CMOS is the way to go.

synn · « **Reply #9 on:** April 25, 2016, 04:23:44 am »

Most people who have access to both CCD and CMOS backs of similar specs are busy shooting to be on forums and providing test images, only to be ridiculed down by a dozen folks with a dozen agendas.

JaapD · « **Reply #10 on:** April 25, 2016, 04:59:41 am »

“…. CCD and CMOS backs of similar specs”, really? That’s the same as saying a Ford and a Toyota have similar specs, referring to the fact that they both have 4 black wheels. Mind you, a CCD is a very different device than a CMOS sensor. On the other hand …. there are indeed people thinking a Ford is equal to a Toyota, so I guess you’re right

Christoph B. · « **Reply #11 on:** April 25, 2016, 05:13:20 am »

It's more like two Fords but one's a bit faster than the other. Which is nice if you need it - otherwise you don't need it and you can drive with it just as well as with the other.

synn · « **Reply #12 on:** April 25, 2016, 06:21:28 am »

Quote from: JaapD on April 25, 2016, 04:59:41 am

“…. CCD and CMOS backs of similar specs”, really? That’s the same as saying a Ford and a Toyota have similar specs, referring to the fact that they both have 4 black wheels. Mind you, a CCD is a very different device than a CMOS sensor. On the other hand …. there are indeed people thinking a Ford is equal to a Toyota, so I guess you’re right

leave the snark at home where it belongs.
I am talking about say, a 50MP CCD and 50MP CMOS from Hasselblad, or a 40MP CCD and 50MP CMOS from Phase/ leaf, for example.

JaapD · « **Reply #13 on:** April 25, 2016, 07:14:00 am »

Quote from: synn on April 25, 2016, 06:21:28 am

leave the snark at home where it belongs.
I am talking about say, a 50MP CCD and 50MP CMOS from Hasselblad, or a 40MP CCD and 50MP CMOS from Phase/ leaf, for example.

I could explain more of the differences between CCD and CMOS, like the by you mentioned 50Mp Hasselblad ones, but all of a sudden I lost all appetite. I'm not writing this for *me*, you know.

Bye bye.

ErikKaffehr · « **Reply #14 on:** April 25, 2016, 07:39:39 am »

Hi,

Two fundamental differences between CMOS and CCD are that CMOS generally offer good live view and good high ISO capability while CCD does not. If you need any of those, the systems are quite different.

On the other hand, both CMOS and CCD are photovoltaic devices that use a colour filter array to supply colour to a monochromatic image. In that sense they are very similar.

Best regards
Erik

Quote from: synn on April 25, 2016, 06:21:28 am

leave the snark at home where it belongs.
I am talking about say, a 50MP CCD and 50MP CMOS from Hasselblad, or a 40MP CCD and 50MP CMOS from Phase/ leaf, for example.

Jager · « **Reply #15 on:** April 25, 2016, 07:47:08 am »

From a IQ standpoint, I don't think it matters. Both CCD and CMOS deliver the goods when wielded by capable hands.

eronald · « **Reply #16 on:** April 25, 2016, 10:02:37 am »

All CMOS and all CCD are not equal. At the moment "CMOS" in this forum means just one sensor from Sony corp with one CFA. The last CCD generation of MF has Kodak and Dalsa chips with their own CFAs, and the previous Kodak chips have a completely different CFA, I believe.

There are also texture differences due to fundamentally different noise reduction.

How do people here who have moved to Sony feel about the results?

Edmund

Quote from: Jager on April 25, 2016, 07:47:08 am

From a IQ standpoint, I don't think it matters. Both CCD and CMOS deliver the goods when wielded by capable hands.

Christoph B. · « **Reply #17 on:** April 26, 2016, 03:36:57 am »

Quote from: eronald on April 25, 2016, 10:02:37 am

How do people here who have moved to Sony feel about the results?

Edmund

I think that's the most important question that hasn't been answered so far. You always hear people talking about how happy they are with their ISO performance but the rest..

BernardLanguillier · « **Reply #18 on:** April 26, 2016, 05:49:04 am »

Quote from: C+B on April 26, 2016, 03:36:57 am

I think that's the most important question that hasn't been answered so far. You always hear people talking about how happy they are with their ISO performance but the rest..

To be fair, it takes a lot of cool to be able to state that you don't like the results from a camera on which you just spent 40,000 US$...

But that was also the case with CCDs.

Cheers,
Bernard

synn · « **Reply #19 on:** April 26, 2016, 06:22:36 am »

Quote from: BernardLanguillier on April 26, 2016, 05:49:04 am

To be fair, it takes a lot of cool to be able to state that you don't like the results from a camera on which you just spent 40,000 US$...

But that was also the case with CCDs.

Cheers,
Bernard

This is why smart buyers book a demo before they spend 40k.
That was the case with CCDs too.

Author Topic: CCD vs CMOS (Read 19056 times)