Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: The View on May 03, 2014, 10:35:27 pm
-
I have read the thread CCD vs CMOS - but it was mainly about technical details.
I'd like to focus on the esthetics, the look, the image itself.
I looked at the test images of the Phase One IQ250 and of the new Pentax 645, both of which I think are using the same Sony sensor.
First I thought the photographers had messed up. The images looked just like a DSLR image, just with a little bit more detail, and a bit smoother.
Gone was the stunning detail and light quality and sharpness that I admired in medium format files.
I find that CCD images have a quality of light, a glow, a sharpness, that sticks out in comparison to the rather "smeared" look of a CMOS.
I was particularly shocked by the files of the Pentax 645: while it shows more detail without doubt, I can't say that the files look better than the files of a 5D mark III - which I would truly expect from any medium format camera worth its salt.
It could be, that with the introduction of CMOS sensors into medium format, medium format has shot itself into the foot.
If all I can get is a bit more resolution, but not a higher end look - why should I bother with a much more expensive camera that weighs a ton and is much slower to use than a DSLR?
I see the introduction of the CMOS sensor into medium format as a continuation of the High Iso War (which started after the Megapixel war ended).
The CMOS sensor has everything working for him in a test chart sense.
But I think, from an esthetic point of view, it is an inferior sensor.
CMOS has been named a "game changer" for medium format. I don't think so. I'd be happy if it didn't become a "game ender".
CMOS has hit its limits. Even in the SLR world. Canon, for example, experiments with the Foveon sensor for the 5D mark IV.
Or is there really something in an image created on a CCD, that the CMOS cannot get?
What's your take? Do you agree or disagree that CCD has a very distinct look IF HANDLED RIGHT? (I have seen comparisons of poorly lit images, where CMOS and CCD had very comparable poor quality - looks like a CCD is more demanding on lighting to get to its maximum quality - let me know if you share my impression, or no. I have only shot medium format in film, but never digitally).
Please only argue about esthetics, and don't use test charts like dxoMark as an argument. All technical details are irrelevant for an esthetic discussion. All that counts is: how good an image quality can you get when using a camera with either a CCD or a CMOS sensor.
-
I have read the thread CCD vs CMOS - but it was mainly about technical details.
I'd like to focus on the esthetics, the look, the image itself.
I looked at the test images of the Phase One IQ250 and of the new Pentax 645, both of which I think are using the same Sony sensor.
First I thought the photographers had messed up. The images looked just like a DSLR image, just with a little bit more detail, and a bit smoother.
Gone was the stunning detail and light quality and sharpness that I admired in medium format files.
I find that CCD images have a quality of light, a glow, a sharpness, that sticks out in comparison to the rather "smeared" look of a CMOS.
I was particularly shocked by the files of the Pentax 645: while it shows more detail without doubt, I can't say that the files look better than the files of a 5D mark III - which I would truly expect from any medium format camera worth its salt.
It could be, that with the introduction of CMOS sensors into medium format, medium format has shot itself into the foot.
If all I can get is a bit more resolution, but not a higher end look - why should I bother with a much more expensive camera that weighs a ton and is much slower to use than a DSLR?
I see the introduction of the CMOS sensor into medium format as a continuation of the High Iso War (which started after the Megapixel war ended).
The CMOS sensor has everything working for him in a test chart sense.
But I think, from an esthetic point of view, it is an inferior sensor.
CMOS has been named a "game changer" for medium format. I don't think so. I'd be happy if it didn't become a "game ender".
CMOS has hit its limits. Even in the SLR world. Canon, for example, experiments with the Foveon sensor for the 5D mark IV.
Or is there really something in an image created on a CCD, that the CMOS cannot get?
What's your take? Do you agree or disagree that CCD has a very distinct look IF HANDLED RIGHT? (I have seen comparisons of poorly lit images, where CMOS and CCD had very comparable poor quality - looks like a CCD is more demanding on lighting to get to its maximum quality - let me know if you share my impression, or no. I have only shot medium format in film, but never digitally).
Please only argue about esthetics, and don't use test charts like dxoMark as an argument. All technical details are irrelevant for an esthetic discussion. All that counts is: how good an image quality can you get when using a camera with either a CCD or a CMOS sensor.
Does it matter? the world would be a sadder place if every artist had to use the same paints.
Edmund
-
Does it matter? the world would be a sadder place if every artist had to use the same paints.
Edmund
First, I very much agree with this. The world would be very boring with out many different paints.
However, I too am seeing a difference between the color of CMOS and CCD, even with MF. Personally, I think that this would primarily be due to the Bayer grid placed over the sensor during manufacturing. Most of Sony's sensors are used for high ISO optimization, or at least partially optimized for this. Redesigning their grid, along with the manufacturing process, for the very small number of MF orders is probably not (currently) within their interest. Whereas Dalsa is manufacturing sensors for the highest possible color quality, due to the high demand for aerospace applications and markets other then commercial photography.
Personally, horses for courses. Shoot what you love, and love what you shoot. I dont use MF primally for the "CCD look," but more the tech camera capabilities. The "CCD look" is a plus.
-
I agree with Edmond in that its great to have options but I also feel its important to know what each brings to the table. I also see a difference in CCD vs CMOS. CMOS somehow looks flatter to me as well but I've never known if its just the CFA or not.
-
Hi my experience with high quality CCD cameras has been limited to the Fuji S2pro, Pentax 645D and now the PhaseOne IQ160 all of which I have owned (or still own as in the case of the IQ160) and the Leica S which I played with in a NY studio. Each has a different look ("out of the box" using basic adjustments on the ACR or C1Pro Raw converters).
The IQ160 has a more cyan bias in general and has an unreal amount of color differentiation capability, specially if there is a lot of green present in the scene. It is VERY sensitive to white balance / color adjustments. It is great because I feel that it seems and distinguishes color incredibly well even in complex scenes. But it can take a bit of more work in post production with images made under mixed and or changing light conditions.
The 645D was more biased towards green / yellow it has a bit less color differentiation capability than the IQ160 but more than the CMOS DSLRs I have used but it is also tricky camera also to get the right white balance and color in mixed / changing light. The Leica S files seemed VERY similar to the Pentax 645D files but the Leica lenses are just waaaay better.
The IQ160 files feel more malleable and "deeper" when adjusting in post. A lot has to do with the awesome dynamic range and color depth of the file.
From looking at images online from other cameras like the Leica M9 the CCD cameras do have a different, more snappy / edgy and unique look. Not all CCD cameras really look the same. Some are quite close but each seems pretty distinctive.
That is also the case between some CMOS cameras although I agree that there is a bunch that are pretty much alike.
Why is that I have no idea. I suspect the differences in the Color Filter Array of each sensor plus the on-chip processing of the CMOS data produces different results. Do most CMOS sensors use similar CFA's? ("thinner", to let more light in to increase high iso performance) and that makes the out of the box look of the CMOS files similar?
-
Hi,
No, I am actually quite sure this CCD stuff is just BS. Michael Reichmann also indicated that he got similar information from Phase One developers.
Regarding the images I have seen from the Pentax 645Z I was not impressed at all, but I have seen a lot of impressive images from the 645D, so I am pretty sure it can deliver.
Doug Peterson posted some impressing test images from the IQ-250 (the library shots). It is not possible to judge colour rendition from those shots, I guess. I would agree that many of the IQ-250 samples posted stressed high ISO capability.
Personally I have shot CCD and CMOS in parallel (Sony Alpha 100 and Sony Alpha 700) in the past. I also shoot CCD and CMOS in parallel today (P45+ and Sony Alpha 99). If I use a ColorChecker for WB and adjust exposure similarly with the P45+ profiled I get similar results.
Doug Peterson wrote an article about the development of the IQ-250, and he clearly wrote that Sony offered two different CFA options.
There are a lot of factors in colour rendition. I would say that white balance is the most important one, WB is a bit of a secret sauce. Shoot a grey card reference shot and many of the differences go away. If you use Capture 1 with an MF back it may give better colour rendition than say with a Nikon camera, but that may depend on Phase One building better profiles for their own backs and also that Capture One would utilise the calibration data in each IIQ image (it is said to have 1 MByte or so of invidual calibration data).
Another factor which may play a role is the strength of the IR filter. Colour profiles can correct for weak IR filtering to some extent.
Tim Parkin, who publishes "On Landscape", looked a bit into colour rendition, and he is quite confident that the Sony Alpha 900 (a CMOS camera) has the best colour rendition of the cameras he used and the P45+ is something he wouldn't touch with a barge pole. His buddy Joe Cornish on the other hand has been a happy P45+ shooter a long time.
Just to say, there are many things involved in colour rendition. WB, raw converter, camera profiles and CFA design is part of that, too.
CFA doesn't affect sharpness. There may be some reasons CCD/MFD images look sharper:
- Larger sensor makes less demands on the lens
- Larger pixels will always look sharper than smaller pixels, but quantity has a quality of it's own
- Some may argue that MF lenses are better than 135 lenses, but that may vary from case to case
- Leica (who is the only maker of CCD based 135) makes excellent lenses
- Microlenses will reduce apparent sharpness (area sampling vs. point sampling) but will also reduce aliasing
Regarding Canon experimenting with Foevon type sensors, I don't think they do. Sigma has the IP-rights for Foevon, which lacks filtration and essentially reproduces colour by math. (It has three stacked sensels, light of different wavelength diffuses to different depth in Silicon and this is the effect the Foevon uses to calculate colour).
Very clearly, several sensor vendors work on different non-bayer designs, but it is not very probably that they would go with the Foevon concept.
Best regards
Erik
I have read the thread CCD vs CMOS - but it was mainly about technical details.
I'd like to focus on the esthetics, the look, the image itself.
I looked at the test images of the Phase One IQ250 and of the new Pentax 645, both of which I think are using the same Sony sensor.
First I thought the photographers had messed up. The images looked just like a DSLR image, just with a little bit more detail, and a bit smoother.
Gone was the stunning detail and light quality and sharpness that I admired in medium format files.
I find that CCD images have a quality of light, a glow, a sharpness, that sticks out in comparison to the rather "smeared" look of a CMOS.
I was particularly shocked by the files of the Pentax 645: while it shows more detail without doubt, I can't say that the files look better than the files of a 5D mark III - which I would truly expect from any medium format camera worth its salt.
It could be, that with the introduction of CMOS sensors into medium format, medium format has shot itself into the foot.
If all I can get is a bit more resolution, but not a higher end look - why should I bother with a much more expensive camera that weighs a ton and is much slower to use than a DSLR?
I see the introduction of the CMOS sensor into medium format as a continuation of the High Iso War (which started after the Megapixel war ended).
The CMOS sensor has everything working for him in a test chart sense.
But I think, from an esthetic point of view, it is an inferior sensor.
CMOS has been named a "game changer" for medium format. I don't think so. I'd be happy if it didn't become a "game ender".
CMOS has hit its limits. Even in the SLR world. Canon, for example, experiments with the Foveon sensor for the 5D mark IV.
Or is there really something in an image created on a CCD, that the CMOS cannot get?
What's your take? Do you agree or disagree that CCD has a very distinct look IF HANDLED RIGHT? (I have seen comparisons of poorly lit images, where CMOS and CCD had very comparable poor quality - looks like a CCD is more demanding on lighting to get to its maximum quality - let me know if you share my impression, or no. I have only shot medium format in film, but never digitally).
Please only argue about esthetics, and don't use test charts like dxoMark as an argument. All technical details are irrelevant for an esthetic discussion. All that counts is: how good an image quality can you get when using a camera with either a CCD or a CMOS sensor.
-
Hi,
Just to put it a bit in a context:
Phase One IQ 160 uses a Dalsa sensor while Pentax 645D, Leica S2 and M9 uses a Kodak sensor.
Much of the colour rendition depends on camera profiles in each raw converter.
Best regards
Erik
Hi my experience with high quality CCD cameras has been limited to the Fuji S2pro, Pentax 645D and now the PhaseOne IQ160 all of which I have owned (or still own as in the case of the IQ160) and the Leica S which I played with in a NY studio. Each has a different look ("out of the box" using basic adjustments on the ACR or C1Pro Raw converters).
The IQ160 has a more cyan bias in general and has an unreal amount of color differentiation capability, specially if there is a lot of green present in the scene. It is VERY sensitive to white balance / color adjustments. It is great because I feel that it seems and distinguishes color incredibly well even in complex scenes. But it can take a bit of more work in post production with images made under mixed and or changing light conditions.
The 645D was more biased towards green / yellow it has a bit less color differentiation capability than the IQ160 but more than the CMOS DSLRs I have used but it is also tricky camera also to get the right white balance and color in mixed / changing light. The Leica S files seemed VERY similar to the Pentax 645D files but the Leica lenses are just waaaay better.
The IQ160 files feel more malleable and "deeper" when adjusting in post. A lot has to do with the awesome dynamic range and color depth of the file.
From looking at images online from other cameras like the Leica M9 the CCD cameras do have a different, more snappy / edgy and unique look. Not all CCD cameras really look the same. Some are quite close but each seems pretty distinctive.
That is also the case between some CMOS cameras although I agree that there is a bunch that are pretty much alike.
Why is that I have no idea. I suspect the differences in the Color Filter Array of each sensor plus the on-chip processing of the CMOS data produces different results. Do most CMOS sensors use similar CFA's? ("thinner", to let more light in to increase high iso performance) and that makes the out of the box look of the CMOS files similar?
-
Please only argue about esthetics, and don't use test charts like dxoMark as an argument. All technical details are irrelevant for an esthetic discussion. All that counts is: how good an image quality can you get when using a camera with either a CCD or a CMOS sensor.
Discussing esthetics without caring about the technical details can very easily lead to poor conclusions. Just like discussing technology without caring about the esthetics can lead to poor conclusions.
1. Any image comparision (esthetics or technical) really should be made at the same place and time (or using a truly static scene), using equivalent settings, and developed in a "fair" manner.
2. CFA, OLPF, IR-filter and electronic post-processing are linked to the sensor for us mortal people. We don't get to change them independently, making it hard to conclude if esthetic differences are due to one or the other.
3. Color correction and WhiteBalance affects color. A lot.
If "digital MF" (somewhat larger sensor than 24x36mm) is really worth $10.000-ish more than garden-variety 24x36mm in terms of image quality, then I expect it to be possible to display this difference in a fair*) side-by-side. If CCD gives significantly better image quality than CMOS, then I expect it to be possible to display this difference in a fair*) side-by-side.
When comparing smaller sensor sizes of different manufacturers (I am not rich, nor a professional photographer, thus I don't have anything larger than a crop DSLR), I have been humbled by how much color and settings affect the result, compared to how little sensor size/tech affects the result.
-h
*)Fairness can be difficult to agree upon
-
Hi,
I have tried to do that, with what I have, and I don't feel there is a real difference, except large sensors giving more resolution. Modern CMOS has less noise than CCDs.
I was happy making A2 prints from my 12 MP APS-C camera, many of the best images I have were made with that one.
I did some side by side comparisons between CCD cameras (Alpha 100, P45+) and CMOS (Alpha 700, Alpha 99) and I would agree on no difference with same processing, WB etc.
Worth listening to Ctein in the interview with Michael Reichmann, he finds that his 16 MP 4/3 camera is good enough for A2. Ctein knows a thing or two about image quality.
Best regards
Erik
If CCD gives significantly better image quality than CMOS, then I expect it to be possible to display this difference in a fair*) side-by-side.
When comparing smaller sensor sizes of different manufacturers (I am not rich, nor a professional photographer, thus I don't have anything larger than a crop DSLR), I have been humbled by how much color and settings affect the result, compared to how little sensor size/tech affects the result.
-h
*)Fairness can be difficult to agree upon
-
Does it matter? the world would be a sadder place if every artist had to use the same paints.
Edmund
Yes, it does.
If CCD is going away, then every artist does use the same paint, so to speak.
-
Hi my experience with high quality CCD cameras has been limited to the Fuji S2pro, Pentax 645D and now the PhaseOne IQ160 all of which I have owned (or still own as in the case of the IQ160) and the Leica S which I played with in a NY studio. Each has a different look ("out of the box" using basic adjustments on the ACR or C1Pro Raw converters).
The IQ160 has a more cyan bias in general and has an unreal amount of color differentiation capability, specially if there is a lot of green present in the scene. It is VERY sensitive to white balance / color adjustments. It is great because I feel that it seems and distinguishes color incredibly well even in complex scenes. But it can take a bit of more work in post production with images made under mixed and or changing light conditions.
The 645D was more biased towards green / yellow it has a bit less color differentiation capability than the IQ160 but more than the CMOS DSLRs I have used but it is also tricky camera also to get the right white balance and color in mixed / changing light. The Leica S files seemed VERY similar to the Pentax 645D files but the Leica lenses are just waaaay better.
The IQ160 files feel more malleable and "deeper" when adjusting in post. A lot has to do with the awesome dynamic range and color depth of the file.
From looking at images online from other cameras like the Leica M9 the CCD cameras do have a different, more snappy / edgy and unique look. Not all CCD cameras really look the same. Some are quite close but each seems pretty distinctive.
That is also the case between some CMOS cameras although I agree that there is a bunch that are pretty much alike.
Why is that I have no idea. I suspect the differences in the Color Filter Array of each sensor plus the on-chip processing of the CMOS data produces different results. Do most CMOS sensors use similar CFA's? ("thinner", to let more light in to increase high iso performance) and that makes the out of the box look of the CMOS files similar?
You are combining a lot of experience with different medium format cameras with a lot of modesty - thanks for your input.
So I'm not alone with having the impression that a CCD has a more characterful file (you were using the words snappy, edgy, unique, which pretty much describes it).
I know what I want in a camera, and, honestly, while my current 5D III is a very good camera (and way better than the 5D II), it doesn't have that crispness that I wish it had.
My ideal of crispness is slide film (and I even forgot the names was it the ISO 50 Fuji Provia that was so great in its greens and blues?)
I just couldn't find anything good with the CMOS MF - it's just like full frame, just larger.
I'm sure a camera will come along sooner or later that gets crisp and characterful files.
The upside of many people seemingly liking the CMOS MF cameras is that CCD backs may soon be available second hand at good prices.
I'm currently in an exploring phase for my next system, and MF CMOS is definitely not it.
In regards to the High Iso wars, I'm just as sceptical to them as I was of the Megapixel wars. (I just wish we'll get a push on esthetic qualities).
There are immeasurable qualities of an esthetic kind.
Immeasurable, because it's not about depicting a line as sharp as possible or a color as correct as possible, and contrast and microcontrast as correct as possible.
This is why great camera builders and lens crafters are artists, and they get the relationship of sharpness, contrast, and color right so it's great for the human eye.
And exactly this I am missing when I look at the cameras using that new Sony MF sensor.
-
It's weird I know, but I've been thinking about buying a used 5D (Mk 1) just so my photos don't look the same as everyone else who's using a 5D3.
To hell with ISO performance. I've the 1DX for that.
-
I have read the thread CCD vs CMOS - but it was mainly about technical details.
Hi,
Because that's the difference, they both convert light into electrons, and have different ways of storing and reading those electrons as a representation of what the lens saw. It's just a capture device, same photons make the same image.
I'd like to focus on the esthetics, the look, the image itself.
[...]
I find that CCD images have a quality of light, a glow, a sharpness, that sticks out in comparison to the rather "smeared" look of a CMOS.
Frankly, that is nonsense (not your impression but what's causing it), provided that the same lens and CFA and Raw processing was used. It has almost nothing to do with the photovoltaic conversion method, but everything with the other system choices. Did the tests you saw use the same lens? If not, let's stop here. Apples and oranges from that point on, and it only gets more cconfusing.
All the other technical effects you do not want to talk about, are exactly what makes a 'look' different. AA-filter or not, microlenses or not, CFA chracteristics, lower noise readout of CMOS and thus higher dynamic range and higher ISO capability, Raw conversion can make any look one wishes. It has virtually nothing to do with CCD versus CMOS. Sorry to blow the bubble that some people created for you to believe in.
I was particularly shocked by the files of the Pentax 645: while it shows more detail without doubt, I can't say that the files look better than the files of a 5D mark III - which I would truly expect from any medium format camera worth its salt.
Was the same lens used? The lens is the first mechanical step in shaping an image, a look.
Or is there really something in an image created on a CCD, that the CMOS cannot get?
A photon is a photon is a photon, so no.
What's your take? Do you agree or disagree that CCD has a very distinct look IF HANDLED RIGHT? (I have seen comparisons of poorly lit images, where CMOS and CCD had very comparable poor quality - looks like a CCD is more demanding on lighting to get to its maximum quality - let me know if you share my impression, or no. I have only shot medium format in film, but never digitally).
Which explains why you've been influenced by a certain group of stakeholders, who didn't tell the full story because it was not in their interest. When you use this equipment yourself, you'll learn how each component of a system can be used to create a certain look.
Please only argue about esthetics, and don't use test charts like dxoMark as an argument. All technical details are irrelevant for an esthetic discussion. All that counts is: how good an image quality can you get when using a camera with either a CCD or a CMOS sensor.
Use a good lens (what's good or not is open for debate), a good sensor (CCD or CMOS is mostly irrelevant, CFA characteristics aside), use a superior Raw converter, and get a grip on postprocessing, which can create just about any result you want.
Cheers,
Bart
-
So Bart, you don't see any difference between CCD and CMOS in general? We know Erik does not, which is fine, BTW. I just wanted to know if you personally feel that you don't see any difference. Thanks.
-
So Bart, you don't see any difference between CCD and CMOS in general? We know Erik does not, which is fine, BTW. I just wanted to know if you personally feel that you don't see any difference. Thanks.
Hi Peter,
In a fair comparison, everything the same (lens, same CFA characteristics, similar sensel aperture, same Raw conversion, etc.) except a CCD versus CMOS capture technology, there will be virtually no difference. Of course we do not have that choice, manufacturers already made choices of CFA and ISO and profiles, and not all lenses fit all bodies.
There are a few technical differences that may lead to some differences, such as higher dynamic range of recent CMOS technology, and a higher sensitivity for color cast at extreme angles of incidence on current CMOS implementations, but not something that would define a 'look', like the difference between Fujifilm Provia and Astia.
Cheers,
Bart
-
we're still doing this?
OK, then. Just passing by...
-
we're still doing this?
OK, then. Just passing by...
How nice of you to let us know. Do you have anything to contribute?
-h
-
Hi,
Thanks for mentioning this. I feel that small sensor technology awesome results.
Best regards
Erik
When comparing smaller sensor sizes of different manufacturers (I am not rich, nor a professional photographer, thus I don't have anything larger than a crop DSLR), I have been humbled by how much color and settings affect the result, compared to how little sensor size/tech affects the result.
-
Thanks Bart, it was just out of curiosity I asked and as a long time lurker here, I value your opinion. As for me, I'm starting to doubt more and more now that this question comes up more often with all the MF CMOS being released. Looking at the image samples, I see the MF CMOS as Sony NEX files on steroids. Side by side on a pixel peeping level there does not seem to be much difference, but looking at the complete images, I feel the CCD versions have more 'bite' and a certain 'freshness' that seems to be laking in CMOS. Maybe it's the smaller DR of the (older) CCD sensors.
Cheers,
Peter
-
How nice of you to let us know. Do you have anything to contribute?
-h
I contributed more than most here regarding this topic; you know, by shooting real pictures and all that.
What I learned was that most human beings are stuck in their own ways and no amount of evidence from the other camp will make them think differently.
-
There is an interesting online color test (http://www.xrite.com/online-color-test-challenge) which people could take before they explain how important precise color is to them ;)
I believe there are real skin and texture issues with CMOS implementations, maybe it is signal processing. Color seems ok; on color alone I would agree with the other techies here that color is mostly a CFA and Silicon process issue.
So I would expect landscapers and still-life studio shooters to be happy with the new CMOS, if they can get it in full frame, the fashion, beauty and portrait guys may want to stay with the older, smaller microlensed CCDs eg P30+, Leica S etc.
Edmund
PS an interesting test of texture would be to shoot a monochrome CCD against a monochrome CMOS :)
-
There are a few technical differences that may lead to some differences, such as higher dynamic range of recent CMOS technology, and a higher sensitivity for color cast at extreme angles of incidence on current CMOS implementations, but not something that would define a 'look', like the difference between Fujifilm Provia and Astia.
CMOS sensors allow on-chip pre-processing. Sony clearly states that they perform a first stage of Noise Reduction on chip (and of course this can't be undone in post production).
IMO this may of course influence the "look"... don't you think so?
-
CMOS sensors allow on-chip pre-processing. Sony clearly states that they perform a first stage of Noise Reduction on chip (and of course this can't be undone in post production).
IMO this may of course influence the "look"... don't you think so?
look and think in the same sentence? You do expect a lot of your fellow man :)
Edmund
-
There is an interesting online color test (http://www.xrite.com/online-color-test-challenge) which people could take before they explain how important precise color is to them ;)
Hi Edmund,
True, but there is a lot more to the issue than objectively ranking color with precision. FWIW, I had a zero error score when I did the test earlier (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=40113.msg337052#msg337052) ...
I believe there are real skin and texture issues with CMOS implementations, maybe it is signal processing. Color seems ok; on color alone I would agree with the other techies here that color is mostly a CFA and Silicon process issue.
Given the specific color reflection (specular, reflected ambient, and diffuse) of human skin, and its high degree of diffuse Infra-red reflection from the deeper skin layers, mixed with a more or less superficial (IR absorbing) vein structure that contracts and dilates with temperature and emotion, and adding a dose of variable pigmentation, there is not a single simple skin color, not even for an individual ... Yet, most skin reflection does fall in a relatively narrow range of Hue angles, which is not influenced by IR sensitivity of the sensor which mostly just produces a different saturation because of the transparency of the CFA filters for IR. All silicon based sensors are sensitive to Near-IR from 700-1000 nm, unless the camera filters that out before it hits the sensor.
So we are dealing with an IR-filtration, and CFA tuning issue that makes one design more suitable for skin rendition than another design. Add a Raw converter's profiling accuracy for a given illuminant, and we can say that these are the defining factors, not the photon to electron conversion technology, AKA CCD or CMOS device.
But the OP doesn't want to discuss technology, so I'll leave it at that.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Bart,
skin *texture* is more than color. texture is not yet well understood mathematically, which is why renderings are not specced.
i think one reason people liked film was that skin texture rendered well, and also film grain blended naturally into texture where it became apparent. Of course, film was tuned over a century to be pleasing - people who made ugly films went broke :)
Edmund
Hi Edmund,
True, but there is a lot more to the issue than objectively ranking color with precision. FWIW, I had a zero error score when I did the test earlier (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=40113.msg337052#msg337052) ...
Given the specific color reflection (specular, reflected ambient, and diffuse) of human skin, and its high degree of diffuse Infra-red reflection from the deeper skin layers, mixed with a more or less superficial (IR absorbing) vein structure that contracts and dilates with temperature and emotion, and adding a dose of variable pigmentation, there is not a single simple skin color, not even for an individual ... Yet, most skin reflection does fall in a relatively narrow range of Hue angles, which is not influenced by IR sensitivity of the sensor which mostly just produces a different saturation because of the transparency of the CFA filters for IR. All silicon based sensors are sensitive to Near-IR from 700-1000 nm, unless the camera filters that out before it hits the sensor.
So we are dealing with an IR-filtration, and CFA tuning issue that makes one design more suitable for skin rendition than another design. Add a Raw converter's profiling accuracy for a given illuminant, and we can say that these are the defining factors, not the photon to electron conversion technology, AKA CCD or CMOS device.
But the OP doesn't want to discuss technology, so I'll leave it at that.
Cheers,
Bart
-
CMOS sensors allow on-chip pre-processing. Sony clearly states that they perform a first stage of Noise Reduction on chip (and of course this can't be undone in post production).
IMO this may of course influence the "look"... don't you think so?
Hi Thomas,
Depends on the particular Noise reduction at hand, which is not the kind we do with tools like Topaz Denoise after demosaicing. The noise reduction is probably a reduction of per sensel read noise, dark current, and calibration for pattern noise suppression. Nothing to do with noise that propagates through demosaicing into low spatial frequency color blobs.
Besides, CMOS keeps a lot cooler than CCDs because they require less power to operate, which saves batteries and reduces temporal noise build up, making them usually more suitable for long exposure time scenarios. IOW, they can be used to shoot certain scenes that a CCD would have more difficulty with. Horses for courses.
Cheers,
Bart
-
skin *texture* is more than color. texture is not yet well understood mathematically, which is why renderings are not specced.
Sure, and the skin of a single person also exhibits multiple different textures across the face and body, which can be characterized by specular reflectivity (which is influenced by skin grease, pore structure, and elasticity/alignment of subcutaneous tissue). Skin is a very complex 'material' to photograph, so some gear may be tuned to do it better than other gear.
Many people say that they like the tuning for skin reproduction of Leaf backs (CCD), better than Phase One backs (CCD), which proves it has little to do with the CCD vs CMOS myth.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Hi,
Some reflections on skin:
- Skin is often masked by make up in most commercial shots, so I don't think we can talk about natural skin tones.
- It may be that aliasing can add some artificial structure to skin. Dan Browning had a good posting on that back in 2011, but those links are no longer valid.
I am more of a landscape shooter, so I cannot talk about skin.
I would also say that we have two many variables:
- CCD vendors are Kodak and Dalsa
- CMOS vendors are Sony and some else
Than we have raw processing, some use Capture One with Phase backs and some uses Canon's with Lightroom/ACR and some use something else. ACR rendition is much governed by Thomas Knoll, while C1 rendition depends on the "Image Professor".
To many variables. Now, we have the Phase One IQ series, IQ250 CMOS and IQ260 and IQ280 on CCD. Lets wait for a good comparison…
Best regards
Erik
Sure, and the skin of a single person also exhibits multiple different textures across the face and body, which can be characterized by specular reflectivity (which is influenced by skin grease, pore structure, and elasticity/alignment of subcutaneous tissue). Skin is a very complex 'material' to photograph, so some gear may be tuned to do it better than other gear.
Many people say that they like the tuning for skin reproduction of Leaf backs (CCD), better than Phase One backs (CCD), which proves it has little to do with the CCD vs CMOS myth.
Cheers,
Bart
-
skin *texture* is more than color. texture is not yet well understood mathematically, which is why renderings are not specced.
I'd suggest that what people is calling "texture" may not yet well understood _perceptually_. Once it has been unambigously described by those using the term, the mathematical part be trivial, and may or may not be a simple transformation of something like MTF measurements.
-h
-
I'd suggest that what people is calling "texture" may not yet well understood _perceptually_. Once it has been unambigously described by those using the term, the mathematical part be trivial, and may or may not be a simple transformation of something like MTF measurements.
With apologies to the OP for being off topic a bit (although very much related to 'the look'):
Phong lighting/shading (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phong_reflection_model).
Cheers,
Bart
-
With apologies to the OP for being off topic a bit (although very much related to 'the look'):
Phong lighting/shading (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phong_reflection_model).
Cheers,
Bart
Bart,
skin, cloth, plants, rocks are not surfaces. They are textures.
if you prefer, they have a complex, fractal related microstructure, which is not quite scale invariant.
some have embedded microspeculars.
I'm tired saying the same thing. If we knew how we perceive these things, we'd have rendering criteria, and we wouldn't have camera issues.
Edmund
-
The noise reduction is probably a reduction of per sensel read noise, dark current, and calibration for pattern noise suppression.
"probably" ... but maybe there is more than that. And maybe there is even more pre-processing going on than just some kind of Noise Reduction. I don't know. But on-chip processing might be a factor that CMOS captures in fact sometimes look somewhat flat and "digital".
Besides, CMOS keeps a lot cooler than CCDs because they require less power to operate, which saves batteries and reduces temporal noise build up, making them usually more suitable for long exposure time scenarios.
is there any CMOS based camera that shoots as long and as clean as a P45+?
-
Hi,
In Swedish we have a proverb, "sila mygg och svälja elefanter", according to Google translator it would be: "straining at gnats and swallowing elephants".
Anyway, a program like Capture One does pretty hefty noise reduction as default. If you process any image in C1 with default settings, pretty aggressive noise reduction will be applied and that also applies to sharpening, both are probably far more intensive than whatever Sony may do on chip. Yes, LR 5/ACR has also noise reduction as default, but probably less than C1.
Best regards
Erik
"probably" ... but maybe there is more than that. And maybe there is even more pre-processing going on than just some kind of Noise Reduction. I don't know. But on-chip processing might be a factor that CMOS captures in fact sometimes look somewhat flat and "digital".
is there any CMOS based camera that shoots as long and as clean as a P45+?
-
is there any CMOS based camera that shoots as long and as clean as a P45+?
Would be an interesting comparison, but one can downsample a CMOS image to one quarter of the number of sensels and reduce perhaps 50% of the noise of a 1 hour exposure, or use 4 exposures of 15 minutes, add them, and then downsample to 25% of the total number of sensels. The downsampling won't be as effective as direct binning before read-out, but the read noise would already be much lower to begin with. All CMOS devices should be able to do that, if the camera has a Bulb setting for exposure.
Cheers,
Bart
-
There was a different look between my Kodak sensor based digital backs and my dalsa sensor digital backs and both are CCD. There are a lot of people saying the CMOS and CCD chips have got to be the same from some theoretical point of view - maybe, but in practice I don't find that IMHO. I have two monitors on my setup a NEC and an Apple and no matter how hard I work with the spectra view calibration, I can't make them have the same look. I can match the colors mostly, but the look is still different.
Getting back to cameras and CCD vs CMOS - its a complete system - not just the sensor chip but all the on board processing plus the rest - and of course even the lenses can affect color and look.
I did lots of tests with the d800e vs my AFi-ii 12 and while the D800e detail in the luminous channel is very good, the color is flat as if it were averaged. The color tonality does impact the look and is still an area where I think CCD chips excel. Does it have to be that way? No, probably they could be made more similar but every designer using the CMOS seems to be looking for higher ISO performance instead of optimizing IQ at base. The CFA choices and other on board processing probably account for some of the differences in look (without talking about lenses). I suspect whatever profiles the manufacturer use also impact the look.
-
Hi,
P45+ does no binning on sensor. Some of the other PXX+ backs do.
I am not really in the long exposure business, but Ray "ondebanks" asked for a set of long exposures from my P45+, which I supplied to him. I am not really sure what he made of it.
Best regards
Erik
Would be an interesting comparison, but one can downsample a CMOS image to one quarter of the number of sensels and reduce perhaps 50% of the noise of a 1 hour exposure, or use 4 exposures of 15 minutes, add them, and then downsample to 25% of the total number of sensels. The downsampling won't be as effective as direct binning before read-out, but the read noise would already be much lower to begin with. All CMOS devices should be able to do that, if the camera has a Bulb setting for exposure.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Anyway, a program like Capture One does pretty hefty noise reduction as default. If you process any image in C1 with default settings, pretty aggressive noise reduction will be applied and that also applies to sharpening, both are probably far more intensive than whatever Sony may do on chip.
Software based post processing is a different story. My default for luminous NR in C1 is zero (for all my cameras) and pretty low values for color NR.
The point is: on-chip pre-processing can't be reversed.
-
Sure, and the skin of a single person also exhibits multiple different textures across the face and body, which can be characterized by specular reflectivity (which is influenced by skin grease, pore structure, and elasticity/alignment of subcutaneous tissue). Skin is a very complex 'material' to photograph, so some gear may be tuned to do it better than other gear.
Many people say that they like the tuning for skin reproduction of Leaf backs (CCD), better than Phase One backs (CCD), which proves it has little to do with the CCD vs CMOS myth.
Cheers,
Bart
IMO capturing skin well is more about fine contrast than color. A given small area, ignoring veins, probably has very similar color. The main difference is when light hits a small crease it looks flat. When it hits the high smooth sections it may look shiny. So the color fractaling is a byproduct of the angle relative to the incoming light. It's the same on the surface of a leather sofa. If you look straight at the reflection of a bulb the texture seems to have huge contrast. If you look where light is all bouncing away it looks like light brown lines around dark brown spots.
The issue for the camera is how close is this detail to the limits of the lens/ sensor? Most portraits put fine lines at a frequency close to being extinguished just based on the camera resolution vs the need for some room around the person's head. If someone does a 4 shot stitch of a face portrait we may find the skin 'issues' go away.
-
The P45+ does a very nice job on the longer shots. I took mine to 55 minutes working at night. Images had very low noise and no excessive noise reduction in C1. All at iso 50.
I have yet to shoot the 260 at the 140 iso setting but from what I seen from other photographers it does not seem at noise free as the P45+.
Paul
-
Hi,
Some reflections on skin:
- Skin is often masked by make up in most commercial shots, so I don't think we can talk about natural skin tones.
- It may be that aliasing can add some artificial structure to skin.
That is certainly my experience. I shoot with a Hasseblad H3D31ii (microlensed). Aliasing often shows up a "rainbow" speckling on skin micro-highlights where pores are hit by hard light, for example.
I absolutely LOVE the resulting shimmer- it is like applying a very, very fine subtle rainbow glitter makeup with an airbrush. (Which we've tried, and which is a damn sight harder to create and photograph for real).
Even when sent through a skin smoothing pass and downsampled in post, an impression of the shimmer remains - contributing to what others have called the skin texture.
This is an out-and-out technical ERROR. This colour detail is aliased, not real.
Allied with the extra apparent sharpness and micro-contrast that shooting without an anti-alising filter makes, plus the post-production diffusion techniques which artificially preserve the fine detail compared with the way you'd record it with an AA filter or on-lens diffusion, the net result is my preferred rendition of the skin of pretty girls. (Which is 98% of my professional photography).
The sum of errors and imperfections can often get you to a more interesting creative place than a technically accurate rendition.
More than anything it is the way the camera renders skin texture that makes me choose it over my Canon when I have enough light to work with. The Canon gives nice enough results, just not the "fairy dust turned up to 11" look that I particularly like.
By contrast, to get the look I like best from motion photography I tend to use diffusion and smoke and blurry old stills lenses when shoot motion- I think the Hasselblad "sparkle" would probably look ghastly with shifting aliasing in motion. It just looks stunning in a single frame :)
The only answer is, as always, use the tool that gets you the result you want. And hire before you buy!
Cheers, Hywel
-
Hi,
Interesting! This effect you noted, it is a the pixel level?
Would be nice if you post a sample.
Best regards
Erik
That is certainly my experience. I shoot with a Hasseblad H3D31ii (microlensed). Aliasing often shows up a "rainbow" speckling on skin micro-highlights where pores are hit by hard light, for example.
I absolutely LOVE the resulting shimmer- it is like applying a very, very fine subtle rainbow glitter makeup with an airbrush. (Which we've tried, and which is a damn sight harder to create and photograph for real).
Even when sent through a skin smoothing pass and downsampled in post, an impression of the shimmer remains - contributing to what others have called the skin texture.
This is an out-and-out technical ERROR. This colour detail is aliased, not real.
Allied with the extra apparent sharpness and micro-contrast that shooting without an anti-alising filter makes, plus the post-production diffusion techniques which artificially preserve the fine detail compared with the way you'd record it with an AA filter or on-lens diffusion, the net result is my preferred rendition of the skin of pretty girls. (Which is 98% of my professional photography).
The sum of errors and imperfections can often get you to a more interesting creative place than a technically accurate rendition.
More than anything it is the way the camera renders skin texture that makes me choose it over my Canon when I have enough light to work with. The Canon gives nice enough results, just not the "fairy dust turned up to 11" look that I particularly like.
By contrast, to get the look I like best from motion photography I tend to use diffusion and smoke and blurry old stills lenses when shoot motion- I think the Hasselblad "sparkle" would probably look ghastly with shifting aliasing in motion. It just looks stunning in a single frame :)
The only answer is, as always, use the tool that gets you the result you want. And hire before you buy!
Cheers, Hywel
-
Here we go. Not safe for work, contains nudity:
http://www.restrainedelegance.com/preview/reh_20140424_1293222.jpg
It's fighting with over-sharpening and JPEG compression (I quickly did the export to full-sized JPEG, normal deliverable is a smaller JPEG for me) but you can see the rainbow shimmer effect on her face.
Cheers, Hywel.
-
Here we go. Not safe for work, contains nudity:
http://www.restrainedelegance.com/preview/reh_20140424_1293222.jpg
It's fighting with over-sharpening and JPEG compression (I quickly did the export to full-sized JPEG, normal deliverable is a smaller JPEG for me) but you can see the rainbow shimmer effect on her face.
Cheers, Hywel.
I like the picture. Nothing wrong with it as an image. Technically speaking you need to underexpose by a couple of stops and play with the tone curve, but probably you'll lose exactly the effect which makes the image interesting. And I think there are bunch of non linear effects to consider here, micro speculars, anti-blooming cicruitry, flare on the sensor protection glass, clipping and oversharpening in post etc. But who cares as long as you manage to make the result look alive?
Let me use a cooking analogy although I'm not much of a cook. We are all aware that sometimes one takes good steak and chars the edges, drowns it in sauce or turns it into minced meat. But to make a decent meal one still wants the original steak to be decent. The question on the table here is whether Cmos is as good a point of departure for "cooking" as CCD. I say CMOS is ok for most imagery, eg landscape, architecture and interiors, but if one wants to do images such as yours CCD is actually a better place to start from.
Edmund
-
Hi,
Thanks a lot. I guess I see what you mean.
Best regards
Erik
Here we go. Not safe for work, contains nudity:
http://www.restrainedelegance.com/preview/reh_20140424_1293222.jpg
It's fighting with over-sharpening and JPEG compression (I quickly did the export to full-sized JPEG, normal deliverable is a smaller JPEG for me) but you can see the rainbow shimmer effect on her face.
Cheers, Hywel.
-
Yeh, I know it isn't a great shot, it has clipped (my inexperience with African skin tones is to blame there, I was concerned about losing detail in the shadows and over-compensated). And I just exported it quickly at full-size so it's over-sharpened, the JPEG compression is too heavy. I just had it to hand on a card as an example of the rainbow shimmer effect I was talking about.
Cheers, Hywel.
-
My feeling is we're chasing our tail.
Yes high iso is great for photojournalists some wedding photographers and sports guys, but overall, it's just a lot of smoothing and detail killing to the point I don't think any camera does more than 1000 iso and holds everything and if it does it becomes rather generic and digital looking.
These are three images. Two from the past (one just retouched).
the first is from an Aptus 22 and a Contax, window light no retouching, small jpeg out of camera raw just color corrected in photoshop, no layers, no masking.
(http://www.russellrutherford.com/aptus22.jpg)
The second from a 12mpx Canon 1ds, cropped to about 2/3's of the frame. We just retouched it for a reference video and decided to work in high resolution.
This was shot flash and obviously has intense retouching, but very little added to the look other than the beauty look of face and hair and wardrobe.
(http://www.russellrutherford.com/face_milan.jpg)
The third recently shot with the Leica S2 see see d version, using hmi's I think at 320 iso, but maybe 640 I don't remember.
It has layers of working shadows, some clean up and obviously masking the background to black.
Other than that very little skin or face retouching.
(http://www.russellrutherford.com/s2_bike_girl.jpg)
Now to me, as I went down the line in cameras, from 1ds, 2, 3 and x, Nikon D3, Leica's S2 and M8, and my 30+ and 21+ phase backs, I've noticed how the cmos cameras get newer, the less film like look, the more digtial or plastic look of the image and honestly I think rather generic.
But that's just one person's opinion but these samples represent cameras from 10, 7, and 3 years old and they all work close to the same.
I don't think it's always cmos vs. ccd, I just think the makers get caught up in megapixels and ultra high iso and something changes in the look and the makers are no longer trying to emulate film, they're trying to make smooth, broad lattitude images.
I personally think a ccd file works deeper, more film like, more texture, but I also use ccd cameras at higher isos, never under 200 iso, usually at 320 to 640/800.
IMO
BC
-
Funny enough, the only digital cameras I've held onto over the years is the original (12MP) Canon 1Ds and the P25, exactly because of the look I get from them. I could care less if it's pixel size, CCD or magic dust that creates it, all I care about are the results I see.
-
I like CCD better and I assume it is due to CMOS sensors having pixels that reduce noise early. Older CMOS didn't do that and it had a better look. The 1Ds was like a kind of film. (I sold my 1Ds for newer Canons.)
With audio, aggressive efforts to reduce noise takes feeling out of the sound. So I assume with images the early noise reduction squishes a thin layer of information off the image making it less alive.
Bill
-
I like CCD better and I assume it is due to CMOS sensors having pixels that reduce noise early. Older CMOS didn't do that and it had a better look. The 1Ds was like a kind of film. (I sold my 1Ds for newer Canons.)
With audio, aggressive efforts to reduce noise takes feeling out of the sound. So I assume with images the early noise reduction squishes a thin layer of information off the image making it less alive.
Bill
I am fairly sure that Canon has been using "early noise reduction", include correlated double sampling, from its first DSLR, and so in the 1DS; see this quote from http://www.canon.com/technology/approach/history/digital_tech.html, with my underlining, which indicates that CDS was used already in the D30, before the 1Ds.
Subsequently, Canon decided to use the CMOS sensor the company developed in-house as the image sensor in the digital SLR camera planned for release in 2000. At the time, imaging elements in Digital SLR Cameras requiring high image quality and high sensitivity were primarily CCDs, and the incorporation of a CMOS sensor was revolutionary.
Compared with CCD image sensors, although CMOS sensors generally offered the advantages of low power consumption, fast reading speeds, and low cost, their high levels of noise and poor sensitivity were pointed out as disadvantages at the time. To overcome these shortcomings, the company thoroughly reviewed all processes required for manufacture and developed a 4-transistor pixel structure and a correlated double sampling noise-cancellation system, thereby successfully reducing noise.
Meanwhile, it also became necessary to produce clean transistors with a leak current approximately 1/1,000th of that of transistors used in standard PCs and memory elements. Leaking of current is caused by heavy-metal contamination during the manufacturing process and irregularities in the structure of silicon crystals; however, the establishment of thorough cleaning and processing technologies for the removal of metal contamination paved the way for the launch of the EOS D30.
The other early noise reaction method is the very early amplification (as part of the signal transfer from photosite to sensor's edge) which is a defining feature of active pixel CMOS sensors, which is the only type of CMOS sensor ever used in DSLRs as opposed to the older "cheap and noisy" type that Canon refers to in the quite above.
I suspect that what you and many others see and prefer is not due to "CCD vs CMOS" or "CMOS with early NR vs CMOS without", but instead due to effects of difference like larger photosites: the CCD vs active pixel CMOS comparisons also have the CCDs with large pixels and in larger formats and/or with more expensive prime lenses, and of course those older CMOS sensors had smaller photosites than the new ones. This of course produces a bias if images are compared at "100%" so that the images from newer CMS sensors are being viewed at a greater degree of enlargement, but it might also be the case that smaller photosites have inherently more problems of inter-site light leakage and related color errors, perceptible even in fair comparisons at equal degree of enlargement.
-
they all look the same on an iPad or a phone.
-
AFAIK the 1Ds was both the first Canon fullframe and also last EOS 1 chip of its technology; afterwards a major transition took place. I remember this from my interviews with the Canon people in charge of the EOS1 series development. Then came the 1DII, the 1Ds2 etc, which had completely different looks and were subject to "plastic skin", the 5D which was nice, the 1Ds3 which I own which is ok, and the 5DII which is very uneven.
Edmund
I am fairly sure that Canon has been using "early noise reduction", include correlated double sampling, from its first DSLR, and so in the 1DS; see this quote from http://www.canon.com/technology/approach/history/digital_tech.html, with my underlining, which indicates that CDS was used already in the D30, before the 1Ds.The other early noise reaction method is the very early amplification (as part of the signal transfer from photosite to sensor's edge) which is a defining feature of active pixel CMOS sensors, which is the only type of CMOS sensor ever used in DSLRs as opposed to the older "cheap and noisy" type that Canon refers to in the quite above.
I suspect that what you and many others see and prefer is not due to "CCD vs CMOS" or "CMOS with early NR vs CMOS without", but instead due to effects of difference like larger photosites: the CCD vs active pixel CMOS comparisons also have the CCDs with large pixels and in larger formats and/or with more expensive prime lenses, and of course those older CMOS sensors had smaller photosites than the new ones. This of course produces a bias if images are compared at "100%" so that the images from newer CMS sensors are being viewed at a greater degree of enlargement, but it might also be the case that smaller photosites have inherently more problems of inter-site light leakage and related color errors, perceptible even in fair comparisons at equal degree of enlargement.
-
AFAIK the 1Ds was both the first Canon fullframe and also last EOS 1 chip of its technology; afterwards a major transition took place. I remember this from my interviews with the Canon people in charge of the EOS1 series development. Then came the 1DII, the 1Ds2 etc, which had completely different looks and were subject to "plastic skin", the 5D which was nice, the 1Ds3 which I own which is ok, and the 5DII which is very uneven.
I have never read anywhere about such a major transition, so if you have any published sources I would be interested; otherwise, I remain skeptical: didn't you previously claim that the earlier CMOS sensors did not use CDS, and blame the "plasticky look" in part on CDS?
The confirmed facts including yours above fit better with my hypotheses about photosite size and related differences in the degree of enlargement(*) at which evaluations are done: you seem to put the original 5D in the "nice" category and the 1DsII in the "plastic skin" category, but the 5D came with a new 12.8MP sensor almost a year after the 1DsII with its 22MP sensor [August 22 2005 vs September 21 2004], so what ties the claimed 5D look to the look of the earlier 11MP 1Ds and distinguishes it from the 1DsII with its "completely different look" is larger photosites, not the different eras of the sensor technologies.
(*) I use "degree of enlargement" in its standard optical sense of the ratio between final displayed image size and the size of the image formed on the sensor, not some goofy "pixel percentage".
-
they all look the same on an iPad or a phone.
Subjective, I guess. Some people can, some people can't; even on a 40" print.
I have a whole bunch of images in the opening slideshow on my site: http://www.sandeepmurali.com/
Taken with everything from MFD to a 1" sensor with everything in between (Some CCD, some CMOS). Some people could tell the MF (CCD) images apart at the first glance.
-
On the other hand, anyone having slightest amount of residual vision can tell a bad picture from a good picture even on an iPhone.
Best regards
Erik
Subjective, I guess. Some people can, some people can't; even on a 40" print.
I have a whole bunch of images in the opening slideshow on my site: http://www.sandeepmurali.com/
Taken with everything from MFD to a 1" sensor with everything in between (Some CCD, some CMOS). Some people could tell the MF (CCD) images apart at the first glance.
-
On the other hand, anyone having slightest amount of residual vision can tell a bad picture from a good picture even on an iPhone.
Best regards
Erik
Indeed.
Especially, test charts and aperture series.
-
I have my doubts.
Me too, on the whole most people are visually unaware, including some photographers.
-
I dug up an old CCD shot to remind me of why I liked it.
-
There was a different look between my Kodak sensor based digital backs and my dalsa sensor digital backs and both are CCD. There are a lot of people saying the CMOS and CCD chips have got to be the same from some theoretical point of view - maybe, but in practice I don't find that IMHO. I have two monitors on my setup a NEC and an Apple and no matter how hard I work with the spectra view calibration, I can't make them have the same look. I can match the colors mostly, but the look is still different.
Getting back to cameras and CCD vs CMOS - its a complete system - not just the sensor chip but all the on board processing plus the rest - and of course even the lenses can affect color and look.
I did lots of tests with the d800e vs my AFi-ii 12 and while the D800e detail in the luminous channel is very good, the color is flat as if it were averaged. The color tonality does impact the look and is still an area where I think CCD chips excel. Does it have to be that way? No, probably they could be made more similar but every designer using the CMOS seems to be looking for higher ISO performance instead of optimizing IQ at base. The CFA choices and other on board processing probably account for some of the differences in look (without talking about lenses). I suspect whatever profiles the manufacturer use also impact the look.
I have the same impression that choosing a certain camera alone will give you a certain look just like choosing a certain film would.
And I can totally understand that you can't even match the looks of two systems if you tried hard. (There's a reason why some people love Leaf backs, and others prefer Hasselblad or Phase One - and I don't think it just boils down to how much they like the camera, the lenses, the company. I think many photographers choose a system by choosing a look).
Even with the same type of sensor.
And even when you process an image with Lightroom and Capture One, there is a certain difference of look.
And I also feel the CCD feels it's capable to a clearer and cripser and more natural looking image that a CMOS sensor.
-
That is certainly my experience. I shoot with a Hasseblad H3D31ii (microlensed). Aliasing often shows up a "rainbow" speckling on skin micro-highlights where pores are hit by hard light, for example.
I absolutely LOVE the resulting shimmer- it is like applying a very, very fine subtle rainbow glitter makeup with an airbrush. (Which we've tried, and which is a damn sight harder to create and photograph for real).
Even when sent through a skin smoothing pass and downsampled in post, an impression of the shimmer remains - contributing to what others have called the skin texture.
This is an out-and-out technical ERROR. This colour detail is aliased, not real.
Allied with the extra apparent sharpness and micro-contrast that shooting without an anti-alising filter makes, plus the post-production diffusion techniques which artificially preserve the fine detail compared with the way you'd record it with an AA filter or on-lens diffusion, the net result is my preferred rendition of the skin of pretty girls. (Which is 98% of my professional photography).
The sum of errors and imperfections can often get you to a more interesting creative place than a technically accurate rendition.
More than anything it is the way the camera renders skin texture that makes me choose it over my Canon when I have enough light to work with. The Canon gives nice enough results, just not the "fairy dust turned up to 11" look that I particularly like.
By contrast, to get the look I like best from motion photography I tend to use diffusion and smoke and blurry old stills lenses when shoot motion- I think the Hasselblad "sparkle" would probably look ghastly with shifting aliasing in motion. It just looks stunning in a single frame :)
The only answer is, as always, use the tool that gets you the result you want. And hire before you buy!
Cheers, Hywel
This is what I mean: there are intricate differences of how an image comes out, sometimes intended, sometimes a side effect.
It is only reasonable that any chain of processing elements not only create different looking results - it is also very hard to actually match the results coming from different camera systems (as mentioned by the poster whom I quoted just above this post).
So, difference of looks from different sensors (and the systems they are a part of) are a given.
In regards to CCD vs CMOS, one probably cannot have all the advantages without any downsides: the high ISO capability of the CMOS seems to come at the cost of crispness and texture and quality of light.
-
I don't think it's always cmos vs. ccd, I just think the makers get caught up in megapixels and ultra high iso and something changes in the look and the makers are no longer trying to emulate film, they're trying to make smooth, broad lattitude images.
I personally think a ccd file works deeper, more film like, more texture, but I also use ccd cameras at higher isos, never under 200 iso, usually at 320 to 640/800.
IMO
BC
I'm surprised that the Leica S2 with its CCD sensor is also considered plasticky (I have never used one, but I noticed that I was disappointed when I clicked from the Leica page to "images shot with the S2" - none of them had a look that couldn't be achieved with a 5D III).
In regards to older with newer cameras: I consider the 5D III files far superior to the 5D II files.
The fact that camera manufacturers try hard to develop cameras that sport great megapixels or high iso values and test well in pixelpeepr labs as dxomark is defenitely a horrible childhood desease of digital photography.
I hope that the industry soon goes beyond the teenage bragging and develops cameras in cooperation with artists or have people who don't design by technical charts only. We're living in a time where marketing people have much power due to oversupply of most goods - so the marketing people seems to have an unhealthy influence on camera development.
-
I dug up an old CCD shot to remind me of why I liked it.
Nice - is that Zion?
-
The fact that camera manufacturers try hard to develop cameras that sport great megapixels or high iso values and test well in pixelpeepr labs as dxomark is defenitely a horrible childhood desease of digital photography.
I hope that the industry soon goes beyond the teenage bragging and develops cameras in cooperation with artists or have people who don't design by technical charts only. We're living in a time where marketing people have much power due to oversupply of most goods - so the marketing people seems to have an unhealthy influence on camera development.
+1
-
Nice - is that Zion?
Yes. Magical place, the air is so fresh.
-
Hi,
DxO mark ignores megapixels and high ISO capability. What they measure is signal/noise, colour and tonal reproduction. So you cannot blame neither megapixel race nor high ISO race on DxO-mark.
On the other hand DxO mark includes the ISO at which SNR (Signal Noise Ratio) is acceptable. The three measurements that base DxO-mark are Colour Depth, Dynamic Range and Low Light ISO.
The 8 cameras on top of the DxO mark are not high ISO oriented cameras but cameras with good noise characteristics (7 having Sony Exmoor sensors) and one having CCD (that is the Phase One IQ180). The Phase One IQ obviously leads the megapixel race at 80 MP.
The best Canon comes in at 27-th place. Phase One cameras are placed 7, 12, 16 and 59. Most of the ISO rating in DxO mark is coming from reduction of readout noise.
In colour depth Phase One is ranked 1, 2 and 3, probably more related to sensor size than CFA design.
So DxO mark is more oriented towards low ISO than high ISO as two of the evaluations favour base ISO and ignores megapixels fully.
Best regards
Erik
The fact that camera manufacturers try hard to develop cameras that sport great megapixels or high iso values and test well in pixelpeepr labs as dxomark is defenitely a horrible childhood desease of digital photography.