Pages: 1 ... 10 11 [12] 13   Go Down

Author Topic: What happened to "CCD is better than CMOS"?!  (Read 61542 times)

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11288
    • Echophoto
Re: What happened to "CCD is better than CMOS"?!
« Reply #220 on: January 30, 2016, 04:54:38 pm »

Hi,

My image was a bit about dynamic range, as i wanted to keep both highlights and shadow details. Normally, I have very little problems with the P45+, but I really find that that shadows are much cleaner on modern CMOS than on CCD backs.

In my examples, exposure was made for the highlights (windows).

Another point is that Capture One applies a lot of noise reduction at default. Move the noise reduction slider to zero, and you will se a lot of noise.

In this case it was not a big deal, as I have shot quite a lot of alternative exposures and could resort to HDR for a good image, but with the Sony I could do with a single exposure. That advantage comes from a cleaner read out from the sensor.

I was shooting for two years with the P45+ and the Sony A99 in parallel. What I have seen was that the P45+ had an advantage in resolution but a deficit regarding details in the darks. Also, aliasing was also a problem with the P45+. Although I had the same amount of exposures with the P45+ and the A99, none of the P45+ shots made it to the wall. I would guess that really depends on content being more important than resolution. Shooting with zoom lenses much more flexibility than with primes.

Another factor in my case was that with the P45+ I was always striving for the "perfect image". With the A99 I have shot a lot of images that I did not feel were "worthy of the P45+". It was quite interesting for me, essentially, none of my P45+ images made it to the wall, but plenty of the A99 images did. They were good enough in technical quality, but less static and more interesting. Some of the greatest images I have were shot on APS-C.

Would I print large, that would benefit MF, but I normally print A2 (16" x 23") and at that the 39 MP of the P45+ bring little benefits.

Best regards
Erik




There's something that's has stuck with me about this thread. I don't understand the noisy examples that people are posting. There were a few in the above post (cropped in on a dark 4x5 camera in a shop window), and Erik Kaffehr's post with the dark piano cover showed the same thing. Is this really what people are getting from MFDBs at base ISO, with shadows pushed? These examples are far noisier than what I get on my H5D50, and what I got on my H3DII-39 (both CCDs).

Take a look at the attached:
1) The full frame, shot yesterday, straight from the H5D50, base ISO, tripod.
2) 100% crop on the rear tire. The top of the tire, just behind the orange reflectors, is black with faint detail.
3) Same crop, with the Shadow Fill slider dragged all the way to the right (to 100). Shadows still nice and clean.
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

voidshatter

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 400
    • www.500px.com/voidshatter
Re: What happened to "CCD is better than CMOS"?!
« Reply #221 on: January 30, 2016, 05:50:30 pm »

There's something that's has stuck with me about this thread. I don't understand the noisy examples that people are posting. There were a few in the above post (cropped in on a dark 4x5 camera in a shop window), and Erik Kaffehr's post with the dark piano cover showed the same thing. Is this really what people are getting from MFDBs at base ISO, with shadows pushed? These examples are far noisier than what I get on my H5D50, and what I got on my H3DII-39 (both CCDs).

Take a look at the attached:
1) The full frame, shot yesterday, straight from the H5D50, base ISO, tripod.
2) 100% crop on the rear tire. The top of the tire, just behind the orange reflectors, is black with faint detail.
3) Same crop, with the Shadow Fill slider dragged all the way to the right (to 100). Shadows still nice and clean.

Hi, if you shoot your CCDs with a Nikon D810 or a CMOS digital back side by side then you would be able to see how noisy the CCDs are when you push the shadow. Without a fair comparison you would not realize how much advantage you can gain by using a Sony CMOS sensor in terms of dynamic range.
Logged

bjanes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3366
Re: What happened to "CCD is better than CMOS"?!
« Reply #222 on: January 30, 2016, 09:21:22 pm »

Hi, if you shoot your CCDs with a Nikon D810 or a CMOS digital back side by side then you would be able to see how noisy the CCDs are when you push the shadow. Without a fair comparison you would not realize how much advantage you can gain by using a Sony CMOS sensor in terms of dynamic range.

The Nikon D810 is CMOS by Sony as are all the Nikon full frame dSLRs. One of the last Nikon dSLRs was the D200 (crop frame), and it did have a lot of shadow noise. For a fair comparison of CCD vs CMOS you should minimize the variables.

Bill
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11288
    • Echophoto
Re: What happened to "CCD is better than CMOS"?!
« Reply #223 on: January 30, 2016, 09:37:56 pm »

Hi,

Somewhat simplified, modern CMOS sensors use analogue digital converters connected directly on each column of the sensor. So there are as many converters as columns.

This has two advantages:
  • The signal path is shorter
  • Each converter handles thousands of pixels instead of millions of pixels, so they can be clocked much slowly

Cameras with off chip AD-converters have noisier readout. This readout noise affects the shadows. Think high ISO. When ISO setting is increased exposure will be reduced. So increasing ISO is essentially the same as underexposure. So if you have low readout noise you can increase ISO quiet a lot without having noisy shadows. Or you can expose for the highlights so they are not clipped.

A good place demonstrating the need for DR is almost any church in Europe. Exposing for the mosaic windows will give very darks shadow detail.

Regarding noise reduction, it is easily found. Just shoot a dark image and do an FFT on it. The Sony A7rII uses noise reduction at 25000 ISO and upwards.

Best regards
Erik


Of course, with cmos sensors, the manufacturer has the capability to implement noise reduction directly on the sensor and some people suspect that the "raw" data coming out of these sensor is already cooked.
« Last Edit: January 30, 2016, 09:45:12 pm by ErikKaffehr »
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

Ken R

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 849
Re: What happened to "CCD is better than CMOS"?!
« Reply #224 on: January 30, 2016, 09:38:51 pm »

Hi, if you shoot your CCDs with a Nikon D810 or a CMOS digital back side by side then you would be able to see how noisy the CCDs are when you push the shadow. Without a fair comparison you would not realize how much advantage you can gain by using a Sony CMOS sensor in terms of dynamic range.

Yeah, MF CCDs are useless. In fact photography was made possible thanks to the SONY EXMOR CMOS technology, before that all images made were crap. Scribbles so to speak...

If anyone has MF CCD backs send them to me before throwing them out. I will dispose of them properly in an environmentally safe manner.
Logged

iaeaix

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2
Re: What happened to "CCD is better than CMOS"?!
« Reply #225 on: January 30, 2016, 10:07:34 pm »

CCD has 100% fill factor, and CMOS used to have much less (less than 50%), therefore CCD captures far more photons than the CMOS sensor when compares the same size sensors - therefore CCD was much more sensitive - therefore more clean image.
BUT, recent CMOS technology with BSI technology, make the CMOS has 100% fill factor, plua the vast manufacturing cost advantage that CMOS has over CCD when the volume goes higher (which is why SONY keeps increasing the fab capability and refreshing the cemera bodies like crazy - higher volume cost drops significantly), CCD has no edge anymore in consumer electronics(including high end photography like medium format).
So, CCD was much better than CMOS when it came to IQ in lower ISO, but it is not now.

Sent from my DMC-CM1 using Tapatalk

Logged

eronald

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6642
    • My gallery on Instagram
Re: What happened to "CCD is better than CMOS"?!
« Reply #226 on: January 30, 2016, 11:01:06 pm »

Because you are using your camera as the manufacturer intended and dematricing the images with Phocus, while the noisy examples are posted by people who insist that only raw images dematriced with home-brewed software without any noise reduction is the real deal.

Of course, with cmos sensors, the manufacturer has the capability to implement noise reduction directly on the sensor and some people suspect that the "raw" data coming out of these sensor is already cooked.

It is. There is a huge amount of fixed pattern noise removal.

Edmund
Logged
If you appreciate my blog posts help me by following on https://instagram.com/edmundronald

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11288
    • Echophoto
Re: What happened to "CCD is better than CMOS"?!
« Reply #227 on: January 30, 2016, 11:15:57 pm »

Well,

Not exactly. Great images have been made by both CCD and CMOS devices. Early Nikons were using CCDs, and MFD was all CCD until 2015.

CCD-s are perfectly good at taking images. On the other hand CCDs also have disadvantages.
  • It has noisier readout than modern CMOS
  • It has slower readout
  • It needs complex analogue electronics for readout, while modern CMOS delivers digital data.
  • It uses more power than CMOS so heat up is a problem
  • Limited long exposure capability, with the P45+ and the IQ-260 being exceptions
  • CMOS allows for live view.
  • CMOS also can deliver higher ISO, due to the lower readout noise.

So, it makes a lot of sense to switch to CMOS.

I am aware of at least two architecture photographers who switched from MFD to Sony A7r, Chris Barret and Rainer Viertlböck. I got the impression that Chris Barret enjoys live view and the ability to work without LLC shots as he uses Hassellblad lenses on a miniature view camera. Rainer Viertlböck uses the A7rII for 95% of his work.

We have to wait and see what happens to CCD in the MFD market, but is quite natural that team Phase One jumps on the CMOS trains now that CMOS technology is available for them.

CCD based camera can still make excellent images, they have been good enough for many years. But CMOS offers some advantages.

It also seems that present day CMOS is not very compatible with large shifts on technical cameras.

Best regards
Erik



Yeah, MF CCDs are useless. In fact photography was made possible thanks to the SONY EXMOR CMOS technology, before that all images made were crap. Scribbles so to speak...

If anyone has MF CCD backs send them to me before throwing them out. I will dispose of them properly in an environmentally safe manner.
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11288
    • Echophoto
Re: What happened to "CCD is better than CMOS"?!
« Reply #228 on: January 30, 2016, 11:26:35 pm »

Hi,

OK, you mean correlated double sampling? That technique is CMOS specific as it needs multiple readouts.

As far as I know, there is a lot of correction needed on CCDs, too. My understanding is that CCD raw files need much more calibration data than CMOS files. I have this from Anders Torger who is doing raw conversion stuff on Hasselblad, Leaf and Phase One backs.

Best regards
Erik

It is. There is a huge amount of fixed pattern noise removal.

Edmund
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

eronald

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6642
    • My gallery on Instagram
Re: What happened to "CCD is better than CMOS"?!
« Reply #229 on: January 31, 2016, 12:16:29 am »

Hi,

OK, you mean correlated double sampling? That technique is CMOS specific as it needs multiple readouts.

As far as I know, there is a lot of correction needed on CCDs, too. My understanding is that CCD raw files need much more calibration data than CMOS files. I have this from Anders Torger who is doing raw conversion stuff on Hasselblad, Leaf and Phase One backs.

Best regards
Erik

Nah. I saw the first raw raws out of that Austrian super 35 open source cine camera and they were straight from the sensor ughhh. The sensor was the CMOSIS family which Leica use.

Edmund
Logged
If you appreciate my blog posts help me by following on https://instagram.com/edmundronald

eronald

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6642
    • My gallery on Instagram
Re: What happened to "CCD is better than CMOS"?!
« Reply #230 on: January 31, 2016, 12:17:52 am »

Concerning why pay for content if it is not by somebody famous ...


Leading photographers have expressed frustration at Burberry’s decision to invite Brooklyn Beckham to shoot its latest fragrance campaign, saying it devalues the skills and training of professionals.


http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/brooklyn-beckham

Maybe even the sharper "pros" around here will start to feel obsolescence breathing down their necks ... there sure are a lot of genius 16 year old kids with well connected parents ready to get into the business, especially if all it takes is an iPhone and an Instagram account :)

The kids have some advantages, among which that of having a captive audience, knowing about reputation management and really really understanding the branding business in ways a photographer usually does not.

Edmund
« Last Edit: January 31, 2016, 12:27:18 am by eronald »
Logged
If you appreciate my blog posts help me by following on https://instagram.com/edmundronald

voidshatter

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 400
    • www.500px.com/voidshatter
Re: What happened to "CCD is better than CMOS"?!
« Reply #231 on: January 31, 2016, 01:09:22 am »

The Nikon D810 is CMOS by Sony as are all the Nikon full frame dSLRs. One of the last Nikon dSLRs was the D200 (crop frame), and it did have a lot of shadow noise. For a fair comparison of CCD vs CMOS you should minimize the variables.

Bill

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.
Logged

voidshatter

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 400
    • www.500px.com/voidshatter
Re: What happened to "CCD is better than CMOS"?!
« Reply #232 on: January 31, 2016, 01:25:36 am »

Yeah, MF CCDs are useless. In fact photography was made possible thanks to the SONY EXMOR CMOS technology, before that all images made were crap. Scribbles so to speak...

If anyone has MF CCD backs send them to me before throwing them out. I will dispose of them properly in an environmentally safe manner.

I'm not saying that MF CCDs are useless. I have a 19-year old laptop which is still functional. It is obviously no longer capable of adequately surfing the internet as it can only run Windows 2000 whose support had been discontinued for long. The CPU's computing power isn't even sufficient for decoding 720p videos @ 24fps.

Can the AMD CPUs still be used? Yes. Are they the most powerful? No. The Intel CPUs are the most powerful. Likewise, can the Canon CMOS / Dalsa CCD still be used? Yes. Are they the most powerful? No. The Sony Exmor CMOS is the most powerful.

The advancement of technology is inevitable. That's why we always observe a huge depreciation of the digital backs. To a certain point, when a digital back (regardless of CCD or CMOS) becomes old enough, there will be so little residual value and it will be close to disposal for environmental protection. For example, if you now try to sell a very old iPhone back to Apple, they would advise that there is no trade-in value and they are happy to arrange a recycle. Can you still use that iPhone? Yes. However for some applications it will be too slow and for some software updates it will be no longer supported.
« Last Edit: January 31, 2016, 01:33:07 am by Yunli Song »
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11288
    • Echophoto
Re: What happened to "CCD is better than CMOS"?!
« Reply #233 on: January 31, 2016, 01:34:55 am »

Hi,

Yunly Song had some information on that sensor, pretty much along the that line.

Best regards
Erik

Nah. I saw the first raw raws out of that Austrian super 35 open source cine camera and they were straight from the sensor ughhh. The sensor was the CMOSIS family which Leica use.

Edmund
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

landscapephoto

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 622
Re: What happened to "CCD is better than CMOS"?!
« Reply #234 on: January 31, 2016, 03:14:09 am »

Concerning why pay for content if it is not by somebody famous ...


Leading photographers have expressed frustration at Burberry’s decision to invite Brooklyn Beckham to shoot its latest fragrance campaign, saying it devalues the skills and training of professionals.


http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/brooklyn-beckham

Maybe even the sharper "pros" around here will start to feel obsolescence breathing down their necks ... there sure are a lot of genius 16 year old kids with well connected parents ready to get into the business, especially if all it takes is an iPhone and an Instagram account :)

The kids have some advantages, among which that of having a captive audience, knowing about reputation management and really really understanding the branding business in ways a photographer usually does not.

Edmund

On can view Brooklyn Beckham instagram account here: https://www.instagram.com/brooklynbeckham/

Now, all we need is Richard Prince to put the images in a gallery.
Logged

torger

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3265
Re: What happened to "CCD is better than CMOS"?!
« Reply #235 on: January 31, 2016, 04:57:45 am »

CCD has 100% fill factor, and CMOS used to have much less (less than 50%)

What produces the high fill factor are microlenses which CMOS sensors have had for a long time. They work as funnels to direct light from the edges of the pixel into the center so it hits the photodiode, but it doesn't increase capacity of the pixel of course. If you pick a microlens-free CCD, like my Kodak in my Hasselblad H4D-50, the fill factor is much lower. I did not find a number but I think it's around 50% or so. The drawback compared to not having microlenses is not that you can capture less photons, but that more photons don't get registered so you need more time to fill the pixel so you get a lower ISO. Another drawback is slightly increased aliasing. The advantage of not having microlenses is that coupled with light shields you get a sensor that can handle symmetrical tech wide lenses. This design has not been repeated since the Kodaks.

To truly increase photon capture you need to increase well depth and/or sensor size. BSI does in theory allow for a larger photo diode, but I don't know how it has translated into practice. I think there's some issues with electrical crosstalk if you make photodiodes so large that they come very close to their neighbors.
Logged

torger

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3265
Re: What happened to "CCD is better than CMOS"?!
« Reply #236 on: January 31, 2016, 05:18:48 am »

I am aware of at least two architecture photographers who switched from MFD to Sony A7r, Chris Barret and Rainer Viertlböck.

Our "own" Swedish architecture photographer Åke E:son Lindman (http://www.lindmanphotography.com) was early in using a Nikon D800 on assignments while still shooting in traditional architecture style (ie not "reportage" style like Iwan Baan). The speedy workflow was the reason and the resolution was adequate for the clients. For personal/artistic work he uses large format film. That was a few years a ago though, I don't know what he's using now.

With CMOS in MFD there's live view, but the solutions available for architecture photographers are still far from ideal. If you could use a D800 for speed, I think however that a Hasselblad H5D-50c with it's T/S adapter would be a great alternative (no LCC, automatic lens corrections), even better when they come out with the full-frame 100MP back.

The best combination for speed and flexibility today seems to be the type of solution Chris Barrett is using, a view camera with retrofocus lenses and a mirrorless like the A7r-II. No LCC, plenty of movements (in all directions, a T/S adapter or T/S lens is generally a bit more limited), and video which is becoming more and more important. I also think Canon's TS-E 17 and TS-E 24 II lenses are key in increasing popularity of smaller format popularity in professional architecture photography.

The MFD tech cam with CCD still has its niche and it can be very effective indeed, but it's a little bit messier and you're not doing video with it. Tech cam with MFD CMOS and tech lenses I think is a mess due to the wide angle compatibility issues.
« Last Edit: January 31, 2016, 05:25:25 am by torger »
Logged

Paul2660

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3978
    • Photos of Arkansas
Re: What happened to "CCD is better than CMOS"?!
« Reply #237 on: January 31, 2016, 08:43:45 am »

CCD has 100% fill factor, and CMOS used to have much less (less than 50%), therefore CCD captures far more photons than the CMOS sensor when compares the same size sensors - therefore CCD was much more sensitive - therefore more clean image.
BUT, recent CMOS technology with BSI technology, make the CMOS has 100% fill factor, plua the vast manufacturing cost advantage that CMOS has over CCD when the volume goes higher (which is why SONY keeps increasing the fab capability and refreshing the cemera bodies like crazy - higher volume cost drops significantly), CCD has no edge anymore in consumer electronics(including high end photography like medium format).
So, CCD was much better than CMOS when it came to IQ in lower ISO, but it is not now.

Sent from my DMC-CM1 using Tapatalk

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



Logged
Paul Caldwell
Little Rock, Arkansas U.S.
www.photosofarkansas.com

Chris Livsey

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 807
Re: What happened to "CCD is better than CMOS"?!
« Reply #238 on: January 31, 2016, 09:40:51 am »

On can view Brooklyn Beckham instagram account here: https://www.instagram.com/brooklynbeckham/

Is he going to shoot on film?
In that Instagram page, third down LHS, shooting with a Leica R9  ;)
Logged

iaeaix

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2
Re: What happened to "CCD is better than CMOS"?!
« Reply #239 on: January 31, 2016, 10:02:12 am »

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
Never used D810, interesting. It is a 2014 model, right? Probably due to lower base ISO and lower pixels than A7RII, it has cleaner image?
BSI has been there for quite some years, it is only in FF sensor with A7RII. It has been in sensors for years. I guess it is only when Sony think the mirorrless camera market can consume enough volume (and with the help of massive consumption of cellphone camera module with BSI sensor of course) they therefore started upgrade/migrate their camera CMOS line.

Sent from my DMC-CM1 using Tapatalk

Logged
Pages: 1 ... 10 11 [12] 13   Go Up