What happened to "CCD is better than CMOS"?!

[bjanes]

Hi,

I'm saying that the dynamic range of the modern Sony Exmor CMOS sensors are great. These include the D810, the IQ250, the IQ3100 etc. It's like Intel's CPU architecture, unmatched by others. Thus I don't care about D200 etc.

You said, "if you shoot your CCDs with a Nikon D810". Since the D810 is CMOS, it would not be possible to shoot CCD with the 810. Yes, we all know that the dynamic range modern Sony Exmor CMOS sensors is great. The D200 is obsolete, but it is an example of a Nikon CCD.

Bill

[landscapephoto]

You said, "if you shoot your CCDs with a Nikon D810". Since the D810 is CMOS, it would not be possible to shoot CCD with the 810.

I think that it was meant to say "if you shoot with your CCDs and a Nikon D810 next to another".

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi Paul,

I don't think BSI matters for DR/shadow detail. The main benefit of BSI may be less crosstalk and somewhat better high ISO performance.

I include a figure as a according to a modern proverb a curve says more than a thousand web sized images. In the attached figure you can see the benefit of the IQ 250 over the IQ 260. Very obviously the IQ 250 is better in "Photographic DR" than the others. It doesn't show that much difference between the A7rII and the Nikon D810.

Now, keep in mind that the surface area of the IQ 260 is 69% (or so) larger than that of the IQ 250. So, the IQ-250 delivers a couple of EV-s more DR than the IQ-260 despite the size disadvantage. The IQ3-100MP is same size as the IQ-260.

DxO-mark shows a significant advantage in DR for the Nikon D810 compared to the A7rII. That may indicate that the "engineering DR" may be more significant than many of us believe. As the measurement seems to correlate with your observations.

Engineering DR uses SNR = 1, and I think that Photographic DR requires SNR = 8 over all pixels inside the normal CoC of the format. My guess is that if you want clean shadows with no "salt and pepper noise", DxO mark may be a better measure than "Photographic DR". If you actually want present texture in that shadow area, the "Photographic DR" may be a more relevant figure.

On the A7rII plot you see two "knicks" on the DR vs ISO curve. The first one, at 640 ISO, is the effect of the Aptina trick while the second one at 25600 ISO is simple noise reduction.

The Aptina trick is an interesting one. Modern sensors often connect a capacitor to the photodiode in order to increase full well capacity. High full well capacity mean low shot noise, so it is a good thing. But, having a large capacitor is not beneficial to read out as voltage is charge/capaticance. So, large well means low voltage.

The Aptina trick is that the capacitor is connected to the photodiode using a transistor. So the extra capacitor can be switched on or off. So, for low ISO the capacitor is switched on, giving large full well capacity. Rising ISO, exposure is reduced so that full well capacity is not utilised. So the A7rII sensor switches of that external capacitor at 640 ISO, thus raising readout voltage and thus reducing readout noise. That trick is described here: http://www.photonstophotos.net/Aptina/DR-Pix_WhitePaper.pdf

Best regards
Erik

Hi

I would think it came a lot sooner than BSI CMOS. The D810 has been out almost 2 years now and does not have BSI technology. At base ISO I find the D810 very clean. Overal much cleaner than any CCD. back I have used. Single exposure where you have exposed for highlights and are pulling up shadows. CCD files translate to very nice images but I don't feel they can be pushed as much.

Over the years I have found that CCD backs tend to handle highlights better and thus expose more to that direction whereas CMOS can blow highlights much eaiser and I tend to expose the opposite direction.

In fact I returned the A7RIi as I did not find as forgiving on shadow recovery as my D810. I also found it not as clean at base ISO as the D810.

Paul C

[Paul2660]

Hi Erik,

Good points, and I tend to agree with them. 

The A7RII, does seem to excel in the high iso range for sure.  With the IQ250, actually the IQ150 version, I did not see much benefit past ISO 1600 if you were wanting full res output.  However that was still a vast improvement over my 260. 

The crosstalk issues to me may be slightly over blown as the LCC correction from Phase does an excellent job on the movement and color cast removal/saturation recovery with the files to my eyes.  It's actually a bit shocking when you see just how much work Phase is doing on the LCC for either the 50MP or 100MP chips.  The flip is that these CMOS chips can take the loss of light due to being pushed to the edge of the IC much much better and can give an amazing recovery, pretty much noiseless, even at ISO 1600.  (there was a big improvement however with all my Phase files with C1 9.03 in regards to shadows and recovery which is also good.

I am actually more concerned on the blotchy banding from the CMOS chips, seen in both 50MP and 100MP, and the fact that in 3 years, Phase has not figured out a way to remove it, or cares to figure out a way.  It's there in the 100MP just as much and has the same issues on light solids. In fact maybe more so, as with 100MP, resolution, you really can't escape very much.  No one else seems to concerned about this so far, so I may a voice in the wilderness.  This issue can create the same issues as microlens ripple, but won't stand out as bad since the banding is less evenly spaced.

But back to CCD vs CMOS, for me the fact that there is a working live view is a huge benefit.  If Phase had managed to have Sony make the 50MP chip full frame, I would have easily been satisfied with that chip. 

Paul C

[razrblck]

For the people that might read this that are starting their career in the arts, don't listen to the negative, the wannabes, the end of the world wishers.

There is always going to be privilege button pushers and hordes of  self proclaimed critics/experts usually with negative opinions.

If your good, or aspire to be good, then your always pushing, always learning and always willing to do what others won't.

Learn the business inside and out, learn not to give it away and learn that the best camera you have is the camera you have.

One of the prettiest commercials I've seen was shot with a 5d2.   Some of the most beautiful still and motion photography I've ever seen was shot with cameras so old that you couldn't sell them for $400.

If you want to make it  . . . you'll make it, but you'll never make it by working for free.

Our careers are good, always have been with ups and downs but in the end we find a way to prevail.  It's not easy, but where is the accomplishment in easy?

We don't do easy work.

Thank you, James. You are one of the reasons I keep coming back here.

CMOS has quite a few benefits and it's the only one getting all the research, while CCD tech has been abandoned long ago.

Still, the sensor in my D200 seems fine to me. It doesn't have anywhere near the same quality at the same ISO compared to my also old D7000, but it's still better than another CMOS camera I have, the Olympus E-410. That camera loses quickly as soon as you go over 400 ISO, while the D200 correctly exposed can hold up to 1250 (1600 with some noise reduction and subjects that don't need too many details).

[eronald]

J,

 I am told that the going rate for an Instagram celebrity endorsement is now $250K. This does make sense, because essentially you need to pay no agency, no AD, no photo team, no model, no stylist, no lunches, no travel, no post and no media costs (print, TV). And your ad placement gets done with perfect timing at short notice, even 1 day if need be, which does count for a lot. Just imagine, the right endorsement at the right time can move existing unsold inventory before it stinks, save your quarterly figures and prevent your stock from tanking. if you happen to have made 500 000 phones this month for launch, black, white, pink and gold and the gold ones didn't sell,  ...that could still be mitigated *tomorrow* by the right endorsement, eg. a nice selfie from Rihanna with her gold-plated phone.
 
 The web didn't completely *kill* journalism, but it downsized it pretty hard. Before the web, becoming a journalist was a legitimate career choice for a young person,  now it isn't unless that person has exceptional motivation talents or connections. And I think the same will happen with digital and photography. First the film industry, then the 1-hour print shops basically went into the bucket. I don't think you can argue with me about that, we all know what happened to the small company that used to own Rochester. And now the layoffs are moving higher up the value chain. I saw it all happen in journalism too, as I saw people move to desktop publishing to cut costs, lay off all typographers, then the editors, and finally close a lot of the magazines. I have heard it said that not all daily papers are doing that well ...

 The Instagram gals and guys are to you as digital was to film: They get it all done much faster. They speak direct to the audience, they don't only craft an image but they *are¨the image. They really really have their finger on the pulse of fashion. Most pictures nowadays are selfies - did you notice? Posed third-party photography is becoming as relevant as oil painting - and yes, good painters do still earn a lot of money but it's not the trade it used to be in the eighteenth or nineteenth century ...and in fact one can argue that talent, hard work and impeccable technique are not the most important skills for a modern painter. Networking is ...

 These kids will eat your lunch. Don't write the future off as a fad.

 Photography is an art and a skill, I am not so sure it can still be considered a job for new entrants. And by the way, have you seen any car ad photographers lately?

Edmund
 

Don't get too hooked up by a 16 year old celeb shooting fashion.  The rich and famous have been shooting fashion forever, usually backed by good crews, or better post to handle the tech.

Does anyone think Karl Lagerfeld loads up his grey hummer at 5am drives over to George V and sets up his own lights for a Chanel shoot?

This is stuff that working photographers shouldn't think about because eventually for serious work it takes serious effort.

In regards to knowing social media, social media is just a form of inexpensive publishing. 

I know of one young photographer with a big social media presence that got a few decent gigs, because she had a following. (I'm sure there are more).

The problem with this is once you turn your social media pages into advertising forums, your following drops off.

Also social media has less attention span and not a great deal of substance, so though it grows exponentially, each personal site gets less attention.

Social media is good for social media and pretty much stops there.

I'm not saying things will go back to the way they were, but that doesn't mean that content that pays is shot with a cell phone by a 17 year old and giving your work away isn't a profession, it's a hobby. (Not my rules, just ask the taxman).

Anyway to me this is talk about stuff that doesn't really concern me, same with the chart and graph guys that have come back onto this thread once again talking about noise floors and sony sensors.

I suggest any image maker or artist is to immerse yourself into the art.

When working in post subscribe and listen (you don't really have to watch) the Hollywood Reporter series of DPs, Directors, Writers, Actors and producers.

Even though it's motion picture centric, it's a series that that will tell you more about the art, the struggle, the effort it takes to become exceptional and produce something that people are willing to pay serious money for.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/videos/roundtables-4462

There is a huge volume of this on you tube.

What you will learn from this series is 100% more useful than anything you'll read on this thread. 

This thread (like all threads here) is about equipment and sensors and stuff that no working artist really stops them from working.

It's a shame there isn't a series like this for photographers, but photographers seem to be more one person bands and keep information to themselves.

IMO

BC

P.S.

For the people that might read this that are starting their career in the arts, don't listen to the negative, the wannabes, the end of the world wishers.

There is always going to be privilege button pushers and hordes of  self proclaimed critics/experts usually with negative opinions.

If your good, or aspire to be good, then your always pushing, always learning and always willing to do what others won't.

Learn the business inside and out, learn not to give it away and learn that the best camera you have is the camera you have.

One of the prettiest commercials I've seen was shot with a 5d2.   Some of the most beautiful still and motion photography I've ever seen was shot with cameras so old that you couldn't sell them for $400.

If you want to make it  . . . you'll make it, but you'll never make it by working for free.

Our careers are good, always have been with ups and downs but in the end we find a way to prevail.  It's not easy, but where is the accomplishment in easy?

We don't do easy work.

[voidshatter]

You said, "if you shoot your CCDs with a Nikon D810". Since the D810 is CMOS, it would not be possible to shoot CCD with the 810. Yes, we all know that the dynamic range modern Sony Exmor CMOS sensors is great. The D200 is obsolete, but it is an example of a Nikon CCD.

Bill

I meant to say "if you compare your CCDs against a modern Sony Exmor e.g. D810, IQ250, IQ3100 etc".

By the way, the Nikon D200 uses a Sony CCD sensor (ICX-483-AQA).

I was told that the huge difference of dynamic range is due to architecture design. A similar dynamic range can be achieved by CCD if it were made using the architecture of the modern Sony Exmor (just at a significantly higher price).

[landscapephoto]

I am told that the going rate for an Instagram celebrity endorsement is now $250K. This does make sense, because essentially you need to pay no agency, no AD, no photo team, no model, no stylist, no lunches, no travel, no post and no media costs (print, TV).

I found that difficult to believe but then I went back to Brooklyn Beckham Instagram. 5.9 millions followers. It is a lot of fans watching these images.

(As to me, I did not even know Brooklyn Beckham existed before that discussion. I knew about the father, but not the son.)

[BJL]

I was told that the huge difference of dynamic range is due to architecture design. A similar dynamic range can be achieved by CCD if it were made using the architecture of the modern Sony Exmor (just at a significantly higher price).

As fas as I can tell, the main features of "the architecture of the modern Sony Exmor" that increase its DR over what CCD's offer inherently involve the active pixel approach, which is what distinguishes modern CMOS sensors from CCDs – by definition, a CCD passively transfers the electrons from photosites to off-sensor amplifiers and analog-to-digital convertors, whereas an active pixel CMOS sensor can actively process the signal with early amplification and with early on-chip analog-to-digital conversion.

The increased dynamic range comes mostly from reducing the noise in the signal, which is achieved with strategies like (a) direct signal transfer from each photosite to the edge of the sensor (rather than moving electrons in thousands of hops from one photosite to the next), (b) charge amplification during that transfer (not possible with the charge-hopping method of a CCD), and (c) analog to digital conversion done at the edge of the sensor (avoiding the transfer of the signal in thousands more hops along the edge of sensor to get it to an ADC unit, as is required with a CCD.)  Any sensor that uses any of those strategies is no longer a CCD, but an Active Pixel Sensor– what is commonly known as a "CMOS sensor".

[eronald]

I found that difficult to believe but then I went back to Brooklyn Beckham Instagram. 5.9 millions followers. It is a lot of fans watching these images.

(As to me, I did not even know Brooklyn Beckham existed before that discussion. I knew about the father, but not the son.)

The one who knows all about image and brand management is Victoria, singer turned "celebrity" (it's a career name now), turned fashion designer. She taught the father and presumably the son how to convert fame into money.

Edmund

[fredjeang2]

Karl simply rescued chanel at a time the brand was
Completly a wreck.

He pushed also to buy very little manufactures hyper specialized
In France and Scotland (and italy too if my memory's correct) that produce top quality matetials
By high qualified workers and many people could keep
Their jobs threatened by delocalization and lowest quality
Standarts.

Not only he rescued Chanel but all a "savoir faire" rescuying
Also those little studios and manufacturers that now not
Only work for Chanel but for other brands also.

The impact and influence that had Lagerfeld into fashion industry
Is not matched by anyone alive today.

He shoots for the fun, because he likes it.
And he is a very inteligent and cultivated person and nowhere near as pretencious
As his excentric image can make us think.

He shoots fashion and he knows fashion from inside being
A designer. How many fashion photographers understand really
Fashion? Very very veryyyy few. He does not shoot planes or arquitecture, but what
He knows.

In the same idea, do you think that this or that cine director
Is hanging the lights or color the footage? And that sounds natural
For everyone. Techs and dps are there for a reason.

Ps: there is a fantastic cine camera that uses a CCD. The digital bolex.

[fredjeang2]

OK, Fred . . . chill out man.

I dig you.  Your one of the few people on this messy forum that gives real world information.

Now in regards to Karl, that was just a quote to that moron Eronald.  I didn't mean anything against Mr. Lagerfeld.

But get real, he knows fashion he doesn't know photography and I don't care cause I'm not up for his gigs.

I love Chanel, how he saved their brand, but he's not a photographer he's a poser.   Ad yes Roger Deakins doesn't carry his own lights, but he sure knows where to put them.

There is a difference.

IMO

BC

My post wasn't aimed at you at all, because I understood in wich
Context you wrote it. (otherwise I would have quote). I know you from quite some time here
And I know you're not the kind of person to jalous other's success
Nor critize for the sport of it. You know how much I apreciate
You and your apportations.

No no...my post was aimed to avoid a possible further witch hunting
On Karl (ya know how fast those things start in thr forums...) if some could catch
Into that as we saw it happened sometimes. In the moment a person
Is a star it is suspicious to be crap...and who say often those things?
The very sames who'd actualy like to be a star...we know
The mantras in internet.

I can't count how many times I had imputs in the Red forum
Or the Avid's when a discussion on Lightworks araised
By dudes who were systematicaly bombing Telma and others
Hollywood editors saying that those aren't like them, "we
Are the workers, the labour party. Those have 20 assistants
Behind so this is why they use LW"...blabla...
When fame denigrations like those happen it makes me jump
On my chair cause they are the very same who complain
All the time, mock successful people and only
L'artiste maudit is the real worker...bs.

Of course K is a poser as a photographer. No doubt on that.
But it does not shock me he is playing like a child with new tools
Within his world. KL is a fashion designer, not a real photographer,
Totaly agree.

But hey, he's done his life, he brought great stuff onto fashion
And obviously uses his contacts and fame to "play the photographer".
With the top models or actresses he dressed.

Less shocking than, let's say...Hamilton (the F1 driver) who
Now wants to sing...and he is doing it apparently. Lol

[eronald]

I own one of Karl's early photo books, published in Germany.  He seems to be a visual polymath, with photo one of his minor skills; and he seems to have been making pictures for about as long as most of us here have been alive. He runs one show or so a year. Of late he has also been curating exhibitions. There is no phoniness as far as I can see.

Regarding what my friend the publisher said, that there is no reason to pay for content if the author is not famous - after looking around a bit, I think he may have concisely articulated the current trend. A father of another kid at school told me he made a career with TV screenplays, and suddenly they expected them for free. He took his kid in to see the buyer - who he knew well- to make his point that food is not yet free.

Edmund

My post wasn't aimed at you at all, because I understood in wich
Context you wrote it. (otherwise I would have quote). I know you from quite some time here
And I know you're not the kind of person to jalous other's success
Nor critize for the sport of it. You know how much I apreciate
You and your apportations.

No no...my post was aimed to avoid a possible further witch hunting
On Karl (ya know how fast those things start in thr forums...) if some could catch
Into that as we saw it happened sometimes. In the moment a person
Is a star it is suspicious to be crap...and who say often those things?
The very sames who'd actualy like to be a star...we know
The mantras in internet.

I can't count how many times I had imputs in the Red forum
Or the Avid's when a discussion on Lightworks araised
By dudes who were systematicaly bombing Telma and others
Hollywood editors saying that those aren't like them, "we
Are the workers, the labour party. Those have 20 assistants
Behind so this is why they use LW"...blabla...
When fame denigrations like those happen it makes me jump
On my chair cause they are the very same who complain
All the time, mock successful people and only
L'artiste maudit is the real worker...bs.

Of course K is a poser as a photographer. No doubt on that.
But it does not shock me he is playing like a child with new tools
Within his world. KL is a fashion designer, not a real photographer,
Totaly agree.

But hey, he's done his life, he brought great stuff onto fashion
And obviously uses his contacts and fame to "play the photographer".
With the top models or actresses he dressed.

Less shocking than, let's say...Hamilton (the F1 driver) who
Now wants to sing...and he is doing it apparently. Lol

[fredjeang2]

I own one of Karl's early photo books, published in Germany.  He seems to be a visual polymath, with photo one of his minor skills; and he seems to have been making pictures for about as long as most of us here have been alive. He runs one show or so a year. Of late he has also been curating exhibitions. There is no phoniness as far as I can see.

Regarding what my friend the publisher said, that there is no reason to pay for content if the author is not famous - after looking around a bit, I think he may have concisely articulated the current trend. A father of another kid at school told me he made a career with TV screenplays, and suddenly they expected them for free. He took his kid in to see the buyer - who he knew well- to make his point that food is not yet free.

Edmund

Agree. Personaly, I don't really like him as a photographer: too "robotic" (but he is very robotic). In fact I think that he is way better as a poser-model because the pics of him are inmediatly great whatever he does, he spent part of his life to build his own image. He would be one of those models every photographer like because whatever you put KL in a frame it looks good.
Anyway, he Works a lot but his real strengh is to design clothes.

[eronald]

Agree. Personaly, I don't really like him as a photographer: too "robotic" (but he is very robotic). In fact I think that he is way better as a poser-model because the pics of him are inmediatly great whatever he does, he spent part of his life to build his own image. He would be one of those models every photographer like because whatever you put KL in a frame it looks good.
Anyway, he Works a lot but his real strengh is to design clothes.

0
I think there is a similarity between Karl and Warhol: both are celebrity addicts, and yet both are caught in a genuine and relentless quest for expression by means of commercial tools and processes. I think our friend "Cooter" is less narcissistic, less desperate and less obsessed, which is why he writes this type of work off too quickly. Warhol also was technically not much of a photographer, but many of the images are really interesting, and the graphic style did last.

btw, I did ask him to pose once for a quick pic in a fashion environment, he did immediately, no problem,  but "maladroitement", where many of  the famous fashionistas do it very easily. The picture was really bad, and usually I get nice snap portraits. The strange thing is that in pictures he looks like a man, but in person I felt I was talking to a very very smart old lady. A very strange affect.

Edmund

[fredjeang2]

0
I think there is a similarity between Karl and Warhol...

Totally agree. But with the difference that KL is mentaly stable and completly aware of why he built his own image, The difference I see is that Warhol was unstable psychologicaly while K is not and paradoxaly does not take himself too seriously at all. But I join your view, those 2 have many common points.

[Chris Livsey]

"How social media is transforming the fashion industry"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35483480


"In some cases, not just the models but the entire backstage team - including the make-up artists, stylists and producers - are selected according to their influence on social media.
"We won't do a photoshoot that goes on a billboard somewhere unless everyone involved has some sort of [social media] following and some sort of leverage," says Mr Venneri."

"Behind-the-scenes pictures and videos shared on its Instagram and Snapchat feeds of the Brooklyn shoot had some 15 million impressions in the eight hours the shoot was live.
The fashion retailer has nearly 40 million followers across 20 different social media platforms and openly admits that it has become as much a media content producer as a design company."


Apparently whether its is shot on CCD or CMOS is not considered, step back in amazement!!

[eronald]

Yes.

 Classical fashion photography is about to become as relevant to mainstream culture as classical music.

Edmund

"How social media is transforming the fashion industry"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35483480


"In some cases, not just the models but the entire backstage team - including the make-up artists, stylists and producers - are selected according to their influence on social media.
"We won't do a photoshoot that goes on a billboard somewhere unless everyone involved has some sort of [social media] following and some sort of leverage," says Mr Venneri."

"Behind-the-scenes pictures and videos shared on its Instagram and Snapchat feeds of the Brooklyn shoot had some 15 million impressions in the eight hours the shoot was live.
The fashion retailer has nearly 40 million followers across 20 different social media platforms and openly admits that it has become as much a media content producer as a design company."


Apparently whether its is shot on CCD or CMOS is not considered, step back in amazement!!

[landscapephoto]

I started a thread on social media in the "But is it Art?" section, here:

http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=107964.0