Has the IQ160 microlenses or not

[Digic]

Hi all,i am tryng to findout if the iq160 has microlenses and cannot find anything clear about it.
Does the iq160 the dalsa FTF9168C or not.
I find the iq160 much better at high isos than my old p40+ Why¿ since they are supposed to be same sensor, or maybe they are not the same sensor ?
Someone knows a clear response?i am very curious

Thanks

[Paul2660]

There a series of Dalsa sensors, IQ140, IQ160, and IQ80 and now IQ260.  I am still not sure that there is much difference in the 160 and 260 chip, just base this on my photography with both.

The P40+ is Dalsa   You should expect to see a bit better shadows from the Dalsa chips.  Easy way to tell is if you have sensor plus on CCD, which the Dalsa chips offer.  The P40+ has the older interface of the P45+, with older LCD, all this was changed in the IQ140.  However the chip in the P40+ and IQ140 should be the same, differences are the IQ (much better) interface to the chip.  The P65+ and IQ160 also share the exact same chip, abet with different hardware behind the chip.

It's not published much, but yes the Dalsa line in the 140, 160 180, 280 and 260 have micro lenses.  And they do allow for a bit better light reception and thus shadows.  All of the Dalsa chips have a more issues with movements, (microlens ripple, and drop off of saturation/color on shifts) most due to the mirco lenses on the chip which create problems as you move a lens off center with movements.

You can see in this Phase One link, how all the backs in the P4x and P65 class share the same interface.

http://www.phaseone.com/Camera-Systems/P-Series/P-Specifications.aspx

[Digic]

So the chip on the iq160 should be the FTF9168C?

[Paul2660]

It's the same chip in the p65+ whatever that chip number is.

Paul

[Doug Peterson]

There is a myth out there that the sensor is everything.

In reality there are a lot of components that determine the image quality of the final product of a camera system. You don't take a picture with a sensor. You take a picture with a camera system. The sensor is definitely important, but it's just one of many components.

Here is a partial list of the Image Quality Chain:
[Lens coating > Lens elements/design > Aperture blade design > internal body coating > microlens size/shape > Anti aliasing filter > IR filter thickness, rolloff and cutoff characteristics > CFA design > sensor photo well size/design > sensor read-out (heat-sinking and/or active cooling very important here) > A/D converter type/quality > A/D converter control parameters > (read-out of black calibration file from sensor recorded as adjunct to the image) > debayering algorithm > color profile > deconvolution / detail finding algorithm, noise reduction based on black calibration file > noise reduction based on image data > sharpening.]

Yes, the P40+ and IQ140 have identical sensors. Likewise the P65+ and IQ160 have identical sensors (the IQ260 has a different sensor as detailed in my article IQ260 Sensor Story).

But they have different firmware for control of the sensor, different heat sink designs, different A/D converters, and different black cal implementations. Consequently their performance is not identical. Phase One engineers are obsessive about getting the most out of a given sensor, and as they understand a sensor better (which has a learning curve and R+D time) and are able to improve other parts of the chain you do get more out of the same sensor.

Likewise you'll find that several manufacturers make backs with overlapping sensor selection. For instance there were many backs made with the Kodak KAF-39000 39mp sensor. But of those backs with identical sensors only one of those, the Phase One P45+, could exposure for up to an hour.

The overall sensor architecture/generation/performance of the 40mp and 60mp dalsa sensors used in the P40+, P65+, IQ140, and IQ160 are the same. This means they have the same per-pixel noise, dynamic range, tonal gradations, and color performance. So an P40+ and P65+ have the same per-pixel performance and the IQ140 and IQ160 have the same per-pixel performance. Of course having more pixels and a larger sensor helps in some image quality measurements like detail, tonal smoothness on a given subject, ability to achieve shallow DOF, and the size/intrusiveness of noise at a given print size.

All that said, your subjective use of "much better at high isos than my old p40+" is stronger than I would advise a customer. I'd normally tell a customer that in most situation the performance of a P40+ is largely the same as an IQ160 except for the increased resolution. The differences between them largely manifest themselves in situations where the camera is being pushed to the limit and one is "breaking" apart while the other still has a smidgen more head room. Your use of "much better" makes me wonder if your P40+ firmware is up to date (they made progress via firmware upgrades from the release date up until a few years later), or maybe you mostly processed P40+ files in Capture One v6 and you're now processing IQ160 raws in Capture One v8 (which has better noise reduction, and also more pleasant rendering of noise/grain than v6). Or maybe you're judging noise based on a print of a given size, in which case the higher resolution of the IQ160 means that the noise at a given ISO is finer and less intrusive to the image.

[ErikKaffehr]

Dear Dug,

The question the OP asked was weather the IQ160 had microlenses or not. I skimmed your posting but I have not found a clear answer to that question, perhaps I missed?

Best regards
Erik

There is a myth out there that the sensor is everything.

In reality there are a lot of components that determine the image quality of the final product of a camera system. You don't take a picture with a sensor. You take a picture with a camera system. The sensor is definitely important, but it's just one of many components.

Here is a partial list of the Image Quality Chain:
[Lens coating > Lens elements/design > Aperture blade design > internal body coating > microlens size/shape > Anti aliasing filter > IR filter thickness, rolloff and cutoff characteristics > CFA design > sensor photo well size/design > sensor read-out (heat-sinking and/or active cooling very important here) > A/D converter type/quality > A/D converter control parameters > (read-out of black calibration file from sensor recorded as adjunct to the image) > debayering algorithm > color profile > deconvolution / detail finding algorithm, noise reduction based on black calibration file > noise reduction based on image data > sharpening.]

Yes, the P40+ and IQ140 have identical sensors. Likewise the P65+ and IQ160 have identical sensors (the IQ260 has a different sensor as detailed in my article IQ260 Sensor Story).

But they have different firmware for control of the sensor, different heat sink designs, different A/D converters, and different black cal implementations. Consequently their performance is not identical. Phase One engineers are obsessive about getting the most out of a given sensor, and as they understand a sensor better (which has a learning curve and R+D time) and are able to improve other parts of the chain you do get more out of the same sensor.

Likewise you'll find that several manufacturers make backs with overlapping sensor selection. For instance there were many backs made with the Kodak KAF-39000 39mp sensor. But of those backs with identical sensors only one of those, the Phase One P45+, could exposure for up to an hour.

That said your subjective use of "much better at high isos than my old p40+" is stronger than I would advise a customer. I'd normally tell a customer that in most situation the performance of a P40+ is largely the same as an IQ160 except for the increased resolution. The differences between them largely manifest themselves in situations where the camera is being pushed to the limit and one is "breaking" apart while the other still has a smidgen more head room. Your use of "much better" makes me wonder if your P40+ firmware is up to date (they made progress via firmware upgrades from the release date up until a few years later), or maybe you mostly processed P40+ files in Capture One v6 and you're now processing IQ160 raws in Capture One v8 (which has better noise reduction, and also more pleasant rendering of noise/grain than v6). Or maybe you're judging noise based on a print of a given size, in which case the higher resolution of the IQ160 means that the noise at a given ISO is finer and less intrusive to the image.

[Paul2660]

Again, it's not something that is readily published or written about, maybe because of the low total number of MF cameras sold to Tech or movement needed soluitons, vs total units sold.

Here is a link that points to Dalsa's actual information sheet on on of their 60MP CCD sensors,

http://image-sensors-world.blogspot.com/2012/09/teledyne-dalsa-announces-60mp-medium.html

Due to the fact that the Kodak 39 and 50 MP CCD's have marked differences in movements, i.e. no crosstalk issues (which is mainly caused by microlenses), and all the Dalsa modern CCD chips do, along with the chip in this literature, it's safe to say they do.  It's one of the reasons they have the higher overall DR over the Kodak's due to light gathering capabilities of micro lens design.  All the large CCD modern Dalsa's used by Phase One will show the issues created by micro lenses, (ripple and crosstalk are the two I see).

It's interesting to search for information on micro lenses on chips, as I found an entire WP by CMOSIS on their micro lenses, and how they are designed to minimize crosstalk issues.  It's also interesting when you start to read about micro lenses, crosstalk has been around for a long time, as it first seems to have been an issue in camera phone chips, due to their very small pixel pitch, thus even with no movements, early camera phones had crosstalk, (and these are cmos chips).

Paul

[Theodoros]

Sinar is using only Dalsa sensors for their backs (all with MS capability)... Their 86H & Exact MFDBs do have a sensor that is closely related to P-65 & IQs of 60mp or Hassy H-60... However, Sinar sensors are cropped down to 36x48mm in size and they have no microlenses... Current sinarbacks are designed to be used along with cameras with extensive movements and allow the user to choose his own camera mount (via interchangeable adapters) for the MF system of his choice, so that the back will be fully compatible with both... Sinarbacks are for tethered use only, ...obviously in Sinar they believe that MF is aimed for pro or advanced technical use and they also believe that use on location can be served equally with some DSLRs or a Leica S...  I must say, I much agree with them...

[torger]

It has microlenses, at least Phase One's version and yes it's that FTF sensor, which was exclusive to Phase One for a few years until Dalsa could release it on the open market.

Microlenses is a good thing as it improves sensitivity and reduces aliasing, but can lead to some issues in movements on tech wides which indeed can be seen with some lenses. Use Digaron and it will work out fine though.

[torger]

Sinar is using only Dalsa sensors for their backs (all with MS capability)... Their 86H & Exact MFDBs do have a sensor that is closely related to P-65 & IQs of 60mp or Hassy H-60... However, Sinar sensors are cropped down to 36x48mm in size and they have no microlenses... Current sinarbacks are designed to be used along with cameras with extensive movements and allow the user to choose his own camera mount (via interchangeable adapters) for the MF system of his choice, so that the back will be fully compatible with both... Sinarbacks are for tethered use only, ...obviously in Sinar they believe that MF is aimed for pro or advanced technical use and they also believe that use on location can be served equally with some DSLRs or a Leica S...  I must say, I much agree with them...

Where have you found the information that they lack microlenses?  They state openly that they use the FTF-6080c which has microlenses according to the data sheet.

Lacking microlenses is not enough for good wa movement capability either, you need good light shields to minimize crosstalk which the Dalsa 6um doesn't have. But Sinar is rarely used with wides of course so it doesn't matter, and you can always get the retrofocus Digarons.

[Doug Peterson]

The question the OP asked was weather the IQ160 had microlenses or not. I skimmed your posting but I have not found a clear answer to that question, perhaps I missed?

That's because I tend to focus on what a person is actually asking, rather than the way they've phrased it.

He's asking why he's seeing better ISO performance on the IQ160 than P40+.

That leaves two (potentially overlapping) possibilities:
- He's an engineering-oriented nerd* and primarily is intellectually curious about the disparate ISO results and wants to understand the physics of microlens designs and underlying electronics that explain the effect he is seeing
- He's a results-oriented photographer mostly wanting to know why his new camera works better and is grasping at microlenses as one possibility, but in reality isn't that interested in the physical architecture of the silicon at the heart of his camera

I tend to assume even nerdy photographers, at the end of the day, are interested in technical minutia as a means to an end, and not an intellectual end unto itself. In other words they want to know if a camera is USB2 or USB3 because they are interested in a camera which tethers fast. In answering questions about USB3 on an IQ back I'm likely to explain that because P1 has a better processing pipeline, ultra fast processors and coprocessors, and excellent raw compression, and was built with tethering as a core function rather than an add-on feature, it's able to tether with consistently fast speed despite having resolutions much higher than a dSLR. The fact that USB3 is a factor in this is intellectually interesting, but at the end of the day the person is asking "how fast does it tether?" rather than "does it adhere to an international data transfer protocol known as USB3?".

Anyway, in direct response... Most modern-era digital backs have some form of lens in front of each pixel. Generally I refer to backs with "strong microlens" meaning that the microlens significantly increases the effective ISO over similar sensors and reduces the real-world ability to use the back on a tech camera vs similar sensors. For instance the P30+ was a "strong microlens" back in that it had a sensor which was generationally similar to the P45+ but had an aggressive microlens design which severely limited it's use on a tech camera and increased it's native ISO to ISO100 (in comparison the P45+ was a base ISO50 back). In this regard the IQ160 is not a "strong microlens" back. But yes it does technically have microlenses in front of the sensor well. More to the point the presence/type of microlens on the sensors of the IQ160 and P40+ is not the reason why the OP is noticing a difference in high ISO performance between these two backs.

Again the above answer is informed by my assumption that most people who want to know about microlenses are moreso asking about practical things like "can I use this on a tech camera, and if so with what limitations?" or "how good is this camera at ISO X" vs "Can you inform me about the last 10 years of sensor architecture, including varying generations of the types, shapes, and material used to create a microlens which gathers light and handles inbound angles of light with varying strategies and levels of success."

*no slight intended - I'm proudly a nerd

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi Doug,

You are right, I missed the ISO point and jumped conclusions a bit.

Or to say, I have noted the question, but found that I was not the right person to answer it. But I sort of missed that he was asking about ISO.

Best regards
Erik

That's because I tend to focus on what a person is actually asking, rather than the way they've phrased it.

He's asking why he's seeing better ISO performance on the IQ160 than P40+.

That leaves two (potentially overlapping) possibilities:
- He's an engineering-oriented nerd* and primarily is intellectually curious about the disparate ISO results and wants to understand the physics of microlens designs and underlying electronics that explain the effect he is seeing
- He's a results-oriented photographer mostly wanting to know why his new camera works better and is grasping at microlenses as one possibility, but in reality isn't that interested in the physical architecture of the silicon at the heart of his camera

I tend to assume even nerdy photographers, at the end of the day, are interested in technical minutia as a means to an end, and not an intellectual end unto itself. In other words they want to know if a camera is USB2 or USB3 because they are interested in a camera which tethers fast. In answering questions about USB3 on an IQ back I'm likely to explain that because P1 has a better processing pipeline, ultra fast processors and coprocessors, and excellent raw compression, and was built with tethering as a core function rather than an add-on feature, it's able to tether with consistently fast speed despite having resolutions much higher than a dSLR. The fact that USB3 is a factor in this is intellectually interesting, but at the end of the day the person is asking "how fast does it tether?" rather than "does it adhere to an international data transfer protocol known as USB3?".

Anyway, in direct response... Most modern-era digital backs have some form of lens in front of each pixel. Generally I refer to backs with "strong microlens" meaning that the microlens significantly increases the effective ISO over similar sensors and reduces the real-world ability to use the back on a tech camera vs similar sensors. For instance the P30+ was a "strong microlens" back in that it had a sensor which was generationally similar to the P45+ but had an aggressive microlens design which severely limited it's use on a tech camera and increased it's native ISO to ISO100 (in comparison the P45+ was a base ISO50 back). In this regard the IQ160 is not a "strong microlens" back. But yes it does technically have microlenses in front of the sensor well. More to the point the presence/type of microlens on the sensors of the IQ160 and P40+ is not the reason why the OP is noticing a difference in high ISO performance between these two backs.

Again the above answer is informed by my assumption that most people who want to know about microlenses are moreso asking about practical things like "can I use this on a tech camera, and if so with what limitations?" or "how good is this camera at ISO X" vs "Can you inform me about the last 10 years of sensor architecture, including varying generations of the types, shapes, and material used to create a microlens which gathers light and handles inbound angles of light with varying strategies and levels of success."

*no slight intended - I'm proudly a nerd

[Paul2660]

Actually I don't understand why it took so much to answer a one sentence question, regardless of if the OP was curious if the use of microlenses did or did not increase high iso response. 

The link I provided, listed the actual Dalsa sensor by number and clearly stated "yes it has microlenses", that's very simple to answer.

I also strongly feel that don't have any effect on higher iso settings on CCD chips, however they are very important to allowing for a greater amount of light and thus giving a better balanced overall DR for the chip. 

Maybe more information should be be given in many sentences to explain to the OP that with a CCD, high iso really is nothing more than a setting to the raw converter, since you can't increase the gain like on a CMOS chip. If you use sensor plus you do as you are binning 4 to 1.
 
One of the constant questions that comes up on this site, is about high iso and CCD's.  It's been shown over and over that a CCD is best a base iso and maybe one stop higher, and 200, 400, 1600 are just settings, you are not increasing gain like on a CMOS chip.
It also might be helpful to the OP to understand that increasing the iso on a CCD chip is more likely to cause damage to the image, in both color loss and details.  I have always found this to be the case with every CCD back I have owned. 

This to me is one of the single largest misconceptions about CCD technology and the use of "high iso" ranges on CCD chips. 

If I have this wrong and gain is increased, please correct me with the correct information, as I would love to have the correct interpretation of CCD's and iso settings base the base iso.

Paul

[Digic]

That's because I tend to focus on what a person is actually asking, rather than the way they've phrased it.

He's asking why he's seeing better ISO performance on the IQ160 than P40+.

That leaves two (potentially overlapping) possibilities:
- He's an engineering-oriented nerd* and primarily is intellectually curious about the disparate ISO results and wants to understand the physics of microlens designs and underlying electronics that explain the effect he is seeing
- He's a results-oriented photographer mostly wanting to know why his new camera works better and is grasping at microlenses as one possibility, but in reality isn't that interested in the physical architecture of the silicon at the heart of his camera

I tend to assume even nerdy photographers, at the end of the day, are interested in technical minutia as a means to an end, and not an intellectual end unto itself. In other words they want to know if a camera is USB2 or USB3 because they are interested in a camera which tethers fast. In answering questions about USB3 on an IQ back I'm likely to explain that because P1 has a better processing pipeline, ultra fast processors and coprocessors, and excellent raw compression, and was built with tethering as a core function rather than an add-on feature, it's able to tether with consistently fast speed despite having resolutions much higher than a dSLR. The fact that USB3 is a factor in this is intellectually interesting, but at the end of the day the person is asking "how fast does it tether?" rather than "does it adhere to an international data transfer protocol known as USB3?".

Anyway, in direct response... Most modern-era digital backs have some form of lens in front of each pixel. Generally I refer to backs with "strong microlens" meaning that the microlens significantly increases the effective ISO over similar sensors and reduces the real-world ability to use the back on a tech camera vs similar sensors. For instance the P30+ was a "strong microlens" back in that it had a sensor which was generationally similar to the P45+ but had an aggressive microlens design which severely limited it's use on a tech camera and increased it's native ISO to ISO100 (in comparison the P45+ was a base ISO50 back). In this regard the IQ160 is not a "strong microlens" back. But yes it does technically have microlenses in front of the sensor well. More to the point the presence/type of microlens on the sensors of the IQ160 and P40+ is not the reason why the OP is noticing a difference in high ISO performance between these two backs.

Again the above answer is informed by my assumption that most people who want to know about microlenses are moreso asking about practical things like "can I use this on a tech camera, and if so with what limitations?" or "how good is this camera at ISO X" vs "Can you inform me about the last 10 years of sensor architecture, including varying generations of the types, shapes, and material used to create a microlens which gathers light and handles inbound angles of light with varying strategies and levels of success."

*no slight intended - I'm proudly a nerd

One more question
What OP means?if  i can ask

I do not know if i am a nerd...maybe....who knows i do not really care but now i know that my sensor have microlenses and also that my impresion of less noise also is because of C1 7 instead of 6 and other staff.
Thanks for taking your time i appreciate.
I have to admit that  i have fun with technology but it also helps in my work, to have an step ahead of what is next or wich direction to go. In technoloGy freedom means creativity and that  is very expensive, sooo i want to know as much as posible about my investiments and do not expend more than what need it, as in technology prices are not real and brands not clear.

[Paul2660]

OP is Original Poster.  Sorry not to clarify

paul

[Digic]

HAAHHAA OK
 i thought i means something like Optical Problems  or Optimus Pines ji,ji,ji
Anyway , my impresions about the Iq160 and p40+ are based most on sensor+ experiences, i really like to shoot in sensor plus mode, it gives me almost a film feeling but it is also true that i am using a newer C1 7 version in a bigger sensor than in the p40+ times

Anyway thanks for all your replys

mr OP

[Digic]

 i thought i means something like Optical Problems  or Optimus Pines ji,ji,ji


I was kidding :-)

So how really works sensor plus mode?....now i am confused...it is just a singnal amplified or it is a real high iso performance...and after this, do you think that cmos technology has the same cristal feeling as CCDs or it is just a fashion moment in camera systems.... I personaly find CCDs to have a very diferent looking, more crystal ,natural and deep

Thanks

[Paul2660]

There will be no comparison between the P40+/IQ140 in sensor plus at high iso, as you are pixel binning and it's excellent, just as the 160 would be in sensor plus albeit, at 1/4 of the total resolution.

Sensor plus is a 4:1 binning, thus for each output pixel 4 on the sensor are used.  You get much much better high iso here as you are actually using the CCD differently, in that it's being binned.  This is unique to Phase One and is a big advantage if you have a back that will do it, (if you can accept the loss of resolution).

Sensor plus came out with the P65+, and is on all IQ1 and IQ2 CCD backs.  It's not on the 250 or 150 as they are CMOS and thus have a chip that can have gain applied, and thus have real higher iso's up to 6400.  

Read more about sensor + here:  http://www.phaseone.com/en/Camera-Systems/IQ-Series/IQ-Features.aspx
Paul

[Digic]

There will be no comparison between the P40+/IQ140 in sensor plus at high iso, as you are pixel binning and it's excellent, just as the 160 would be in sensor plus albeit, at 1/4 of the total resolution.

Sensor plus is a 4:1 binning, thus for each output pixel 4 on the sensor are used.  You get much much better high iso here as you are actually using the CCD differently, in that it's being binned.  This is unique to Phase One and is a big advantage if you have a back that will do it, (if you can accept the loss of resolution).

Paul

I found the 15 mp of the iq160 to be very easy to upsize up to 150% as the detail of thoose 15mp it is just beautyfull, and the iso 800 to be very film like,
I could sqy that thoose 15 mp are like 30 mp of fine detail

[Ken R]

Would be very useful if the IQ150/250 recorded a smaller resolution RAW file. I love to use sensor+ mode on my IQ160 on higher volume jobs that do not require very high resolution. Really saves me a lot of storage space and processing time.

Thanks to Doug for providing A LOT more info on the Dalsa sensors than was originally asked. Better than a yes or no answer.