Pages: [1] 2   Go Down

Author Topic: Any hope of faster sensors?  (Read 6724 times)

eronald

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6642
    • My gallery on Instagram
Any hope of faster sensors?
« on: October 14, 2009, 04:34:33 am »

I don't really understand much about technology, especially about electronics, but fortunately there are those on this forum that do.

So please, enlighten me - why can Nikon specify sensors which apparently work well at ISO 12800 and do liveview/video when Dalsa/Kodak sensors streak at 400?

Surely, there is something to be said for Hi-ISO for location, and  live-view and on-sensor autofocus for studio work, or is MF dragging itself into the same technological irrelevance as the Leica M system? Are we going to be told that 100 ISO is the "advantage" of MF?

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

Daniel Browning

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 142
Any hope of faster sensors?
« Reply #1 on: October 14, 2009, 04:41:12 am »

I think the main reason is economies of scale. The total combined sales of all MFDB is less than 6,000 per year, which is not nearly enough to support the R&D needed to compete with Canikon in low light. I think something will change, though, and some day MFDB will not be just for low ISO.
« Last Edit: October 14, 2009, 04:42:25 am by Daniel Browning »
Logged
--Daniel

DanielStone

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 664
Any hope of faster sensors?
« Reply #2 on: October 14, 2009, 10:02:12 am »

boy,

that D3s sure slipped in under the radar! when was that launched? I'm guessing the D3 is going to be phased out?

but I agree, why can't digi backs ever give a nice, clean file at iso 800? i mean, 33mp would be nice and 800iso to boot would be the cherry on top.

I'm just surprised that Leaf and Phase haven't been selling this current pixelated look as the "film look".


-Dan
Logged

Graham Mitchell

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2281
Any hope of faster sensors?
« Reply #3 on: October 14, 2009, 10:20:57 am »

The MFDB makers are and have been at the mercy of the chip makers for many years. It seems that Dalsa and Kodak don't take this niche market very seriously. If they did release some truly revolutionary sensors, it could only help this niche market to grow. It's rather frustrating...
« Last Edit: October 14, 2009, 10:21:49 am by foto-z »
Logged

bjanes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3387
Any hope of faster sensors?
« Reply #4 on: October 14, 2009, 10:51:04 am »

Quote from: eronald
I don't really understand much about technology, especially about electronics, but fortunately there are those on this forum that do.

So please, enlighten me - why can Nikon specify sensors which apparently work well at ISO 12800 and do liveview/video when Dalsa/Kodak sensors streak at 400?

Surely, there is something to be said for Hi-ISO for location, and  live-view and on-sensor autofocus for studio work, or is MF dragging itself into the same technological irrelevance as the Leica M system? Are we going to be told that 100 ISO is the "advantage" of MF?

Edmund

Those high ISOs are not real, but are useful for shooting in JPEG. When shooting in raw, one has the choice to increase the ISO either via a camera setting or by increasing exposure in the raw converter. Obviously, increasing the ISO while keeping exposure constant does not affect how many photons are recorded by the sensor but merely changes how those photo-electrons are processed. When light is limited, it makes sense to increase the ISO because read noise is higher at low ISO than higher ISOs. However, as the ISO is raised, there are diminishing returns and at some point, read noise does not change that much but headroom for highlights is diminished. Emil Martinec explains the science. With the Canon 1D3 that point is reached at about ISO 1600. Roger Clark reaches a similar conclusion.

With the Nikon D3, amplifier gain is increased up to an ISO of 6400. Higher ISOs are obtained by multiplying the ISO 6400 values post read. Read noise would asymptotically approach a minimum at a lower ISO, but I don't have date on what that ISO is.

Some MFDBs do not vary amplifier gain when ISO is increased, but merely tag the file with the rated ISO so that exposure compensation can be carried out by the raw converter.
Logged

Jack Flesher

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2592
    • www.getdpi.com
Any hope of faster sensors?
« Reply #5 on: October 14, 2009, 10:54:46 am »

Simple answer is CCD vs CMOS...

Simple explanation is that in digital imaging, heat=noise and increasing gain on the sensor increases heat, and CCD's generate more heat than CMOS, hence generate more noise sooner...
« Last Edit: October 14, 2009, 11:08:08 am by Jack Flesher »
Logged
Jack
[url=http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/

bjanes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3387
Any hope of faster sensors?
« Reply #6 on: October 14, 2009, 11:20:59 am »

Quote from: Jack Flesher
Simple answer is CCD vs CMOS...

Simple explanation is that in digital imaging, heat=noise and increasing gain on the sensor increases heat, and CCD's generate more heat than CMOS, hence generate more noise sooner...


I doubt that explanation. The main components of noise in a digital sensor are photon noise (shot noise), read noise, and thermal noise (dark current). Only the last is significantly affected by heat (see here). Thermal noise is important in astronomy and scientific imaging, but is negligible for exposures of one second or less (see Roger Clark).
Logged

Jack Flesher

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2592
    • www.getdpi.com
Any hope of faster sensors?
« Reply #7 on: October 14, 2009, 12:42:49 pm »

Quote from: bjanes
I doubt that explanation.

I am so surprised...  .  Note that ISO noise was the OP's topic here and is a different discussion than CMOS site-amplifier induced pattern noise which gets subtracted in real-time at the pixel site (at least in most contemporary CMOS cameras).

From http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/D30/D30A4.HTM, "The Active Pixel CMOS image sensors used in digital imaging are very similar to a CCD sensor, but with one major difference — supporting circuitry is actually located alongside each light receptor, allowing noise at each pixel to be canceled out at the site."

And from http://broadcastengineering.com/hdtv/ccd-cmos/, "CCDs typically obtain super high sensitivity by engaging hyper gain. The result is a significant increase in image noise. "

So if you would be so kind as to enlighten me, please direct me to any current non-supercooled consumer CCD-sensored camera that has outstanding ISO performance comparable to Canon or Nikon CMOS.

Cheers,
« Last Edit: October 14, 2009, 12:45:31 pm by Jack Flesher »
Logged
Jack
[url=http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/

cyberean

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 161
Any hope of faster sensors?
« Reply #8 on: October 14, 2009, 12:56:17 pm »

Quote from: eronald
So please, enlighten me - why can Nikon specify sensors which apparently work well at ISO 12800 and do liveview/video when Dalsa/Kodak sensors streak at 400?
come back and ask that question when Nikon specifies a sensor larger than 36x24


Quote from: eronald
Surely, there is something to be said for Hi-ISO for location, and  live-view and on-sensor autofocus for studio work, or is MF dragging itself into the same technological irrelevance as the Leica M system? Are we going to be told that 100 ISO is the "advantage" of MF?
there's always something to be said just about "anything".
especially when one is a cheerleader of that anything ...
Logged

georgl

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 140
Any hope of faster sensors?
« Reply #9 on: October 14, 2009, 01:20:35 pm »

CMOS is the future because full-frame CCDs aren't capable of good live-view which is crucial for coming EVIL-systems. But full-frame CCDs are an excellent choice regarding highest IQ because they don't waste as much space on their surface to circuitry. MFDBs may not have any decent in-camera-processing algorithms but properly processed/converted images are still excellent. Custom CMOS-sensors are already used for some apllications without sufficient "economies of scale".

The current Kodak/Dalsa-offerings aren't inferior, it's a different technology with different strengths and weaknesses.

There are very few people willing to do any simple comparisons on a tripod comparing cameras like the D700 (which is considered to be the best high-ISO-camera - the early samples of the D3s show only minimal improvement) and a CCD-based camera with a similar sensor size (the M9). One guy on the Leica-forum did it - I hope he doesn't mind that I put the two 2500ASA-samples beneath each other - even this comparison is far from being perfect (the light slightly changed between the two shots) - but where's the 2-4stops difference often claimed? Which one is which (to be clear, I wouldn't use any of them for prints)?
[attachment=17196:m9vsd700.JPG]
Logged

BJL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6600
Any hope of faster sensors?
« Reply #10 on: October 14, 2009, 02:48:57 pm »

Quote from: Jack Flesher
From http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/D30/D30A4.HTM, "The Active Pixel CMOS image sensors used in digital imaging are very similar to a CCD sensor, but with one major difference — supporting circuitry is actually located alongside each light receptor, allowing noise at each pixel to be canceled out at the site."
Somewhat true, but I do see the connection with the on-sensor heat production mentioned in your previous post. And that IR quote is wrong in one major way: the noise cancellation done at the pixel level in CMOS sensors is eliminating a type of noise that CCD's do not have in the first place, so this is a matter of overcoming a weakness of earlier, rather noisy, CMOS sensors, not an advantage over CCDs. The CMOS high ISO speed noise advantage has a different basis.

At normal exposure times (under 1s, say), the main noise source that sensor and amplifier design can do much about is amplifier noise, not heat or any other source of noise within the photosites themselves. CMOS sensors do the initial amplification very early, and massively in parallel, as amplification is done in each column of pixels: thousands of amplifiers in total. With CCD sensors, the amplification happens off the sensor chip itself, using just a few amplifiers which therefore have to operate at a far higher rate. The far lower operating frequency of the on-chip amplifiers of CMOS sensors help to lower amp. noise. (However, the tiny on-chip amplifiers of CMOS sensors might have a lower maximum DR than the far bigger off-chip ones that can be used with good CCD's, and this might relate to why at minimum ISO speed, high end CCD's have higher measured DR.)

On the subject of amplifier operating frequency and noise, Dalsa spec. sheets describe how noise level can be decreased and DR increased by lowering the read-out rate. Also, one often stated reason for increasing the amplifier count with CCD's, is to lower the operating frequency needed by each amplifier, and so reduce its noise.

(Aside: Dalsa builds amplifiers in at each corner of its FF CCD sensor units, and maybe Kodak does too. The dark noise level and DR figures in their spec. sheets are for the signal coming out of the amplifiers, so includes amp. noise.)
« Last Edit: October 14, 2009, 02:52:16 pm by BJL »
Logged

bjanes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3387
Any hope of faster sensors?
« Reply #11 on: October 14, 2009, 03:00:47 pm »

Quote from: Jack Flesher
I am so surprised...  .  Note that ISO noise was the OP's topic here and is a different discussion than CMOS site-amplifier induced pattern noise which gets subtracted in real-time at the pixel site (at least in most contemporary CMOS cameras).

From http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/D30/D30A4.HTM, "The Active Pixel CMOS image sensors used in digital imaging are very similar to a CCD sensor, but with one major difference — supporting circuitry is actually located alongside each light receptor, allowing noise at each pixel to be canceled out at the site."

And from http://broadcastengineering.com/hdtv/ccd-cmos/, "CCDs typically obtain super high sensitivity by engaging hyper gain. The result is a significant increase in image noise. "

So if you would be so kind as to enlighten me, please direct me to any current non-supercooled consumer CCD-sensored camera that has outstanding ISO performance comparable to Canon or Nikon CMOS.

Cheers,

You seem to be confusing total noise with thermal noise. Pixel response non-uniformity (PRNU) is less a problem with CCD than CMOS, and is not thermal noise. As you may know, noise adds in quadrature and the total variance is the sum of the individual variances (shot noise, read noise, thermal noise). Current CMOS designs have lower read noise than CCDs because the developers have invested in research to lower this type of noise. However, this has nothing to do with thermal noise as per your suggestion. In routine photography, thermal noise is not a problem with either CMOS or CCD. If you want to learn a bit of basic physics, I would suggest you read the paper by Emil Martinec. He addresses thermal noise.

 Your first reference is nearly 10 years old; why do you quote it? It does not address thermal noise, which is not a problem anyway. Your second reference concerns motion picture sensors, although the principles are the same for still cameras, different considerations apply. CMOS can have a much higher readout rate, which is important for  movies with a high frame rate. Hyper-gain need not be used, and I image that it would affect read noise, not thermal noise. Shot noise is lilmited by the full well capacity. Please supply a reference to substantiate your theory about heat. I do not expect a reply.  
Logged

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13983
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Any hope of faster sensors?
« Reply #12 on: October 14, 2009, 04:36:26 pm »

Quote from: foto-z
The MFDB makers are and have been at the mercy of the chip makers for many years. It seems that Dalsa and Kodak don't take this niche market very seriously. If they did release some truly revolutionary sensors, it could only help this niche market to grow. It's rather frustrating...

They don't because of the small volume being sold. Volume are small because of the pricing.

It has been obvious for years that high performance and small volume in high tech are incompatible requirements in the mid/long run.

The way nuforce is totally trouncing high end hifi equipment costing 5 or 10 times more is yet another example in the supposedely different high end hifi world too.

Cheers,
Bernard

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13983
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Any hope of faster sensors?
« Reply #13 on: October 14, 2009, 05:13:11 pm »

Quote from: georgl
There are very few people willing to do any simple comparisons on a tripod comparing cameras like the D700 (which is considered to be the best high-ISO-camera - the early samples of the D3s show only minimal improvement) and a CCD-based camera with a similar sensor size (the M9). One guy on the Leica-forum did it - I hope he doesn't mind that I put the two 2500ASA-samples beneath each other - even this comparison is far from being perfect (the light slightly changed between the two shots) - but where's the 2-4stops difference often claimed? Which one is which (to be clear, I wouldn't use any of them for prints)?
[attachment=17196:m9vsd700.JPG]

Although I agree with you that the M9 might not be as bad a high ISO camera as some people have claimed, let'd compare the latest achievements on both sides.

The sensor of the D700 is 2 years older, first D3s assessment show a one stop improvement in noise although some people claim that ISO12800 on the D3s is closer to ISO 3200 on the D700/D3 than ISO6400, which would mean a 2 stops improvement.

Current rumors claim that the Canon 1DIV to be accounced any day might be even better than the D3s, we'll know for sure in a few days.

Cheers,
Bernard

georgl

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 140
Any hope of faster sensors?
« Reply #14 on: October 14, 2009, 05:34:30 pm »

I think the noise-performance of current DSLRs is impressive. The M9 works well up to about 1250ASA, beyond that more serious artifacts occur which are propably more difficult to hide with NR. But I wouldn't use any 20+MP-DSLR beyond 1600ASA for serious printing, either. It even seems that Leica decided to add NR in RAWs just like with CMOS-based cameras, besides the fact that most CCD-sensors are implemented into entirely different systems (no AA-filter, different lenses...) this makes the actual noise comparison even more difficult.
Besides the well-documented differences between CMOS and CCD-cameras we actually know very little about the internal design decisions/tricks of this industry - it's a bit risky to focus that much on CCD vs. CMOS or the noise-characteristics of a few samples in the web (including mine).

It will be interesting to see how the future cameras work (the D3s as well as the MkIV and the S2, the first next-gen CCD with microlenses and ASIC) but I fear that the major breakthroughs have already happened and after the hype with every new model (M9: 2500ASA like 800ASA with M8; D3s: 25600ASA like 6400ASA...) we usually see only incremental improvements When there are not enough electrons hiting the photosite, there's very little we can do...

P.S. the 6400ASA-sample of the D3s looks worse than processed 2500ASA with the M9 and 3200ASA from the D700/D3 as well - at least to my eyes. And I wouldn't print anything beyond 6400ASA (except for stamps...).
« Last Edit: October 14, 2009, 05:36:47 pm by georgl »
Logged

Daniel Browning

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 142
Any hope of faster sensors?
« Reply #15 on: October 14, 2009, 05:43:12 pm »

Quote from: georgl
It even seems that Leica decided to add NR in RAWs just like with CMOS-based cameras,

This is a common misconception. The "NR" everyone talks about in CMOS cameras is just correlated double sampling (CDS), mostly for reduction in kTC noise, which as BJL pointed out above, is stronger in CMOS than CCD (or it would be, if it weren't for CDS). The far majority of CMOS cameras have no NR applied to the raw file, but there are a few exceptions such as the Pentax K20D (30% reduction in mean at ISO 1600 only), and a few Sony models. Sometimes you hear people bring up the long exposure noise reduction or black clipping in Nikon models.
Logged
--Daniel

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
Any hope of faster sensors?
« Reply #16 on: October 14, 2009, 09:25:59 pm »

Quote from: BernardLanguillier
The sensor of the D700 is 2 years older, first D3s assessment show a one stop improvement in noise although some people claim that ISO12800 on the D3s is closer to ISO 3200 on the D700/D3 than ISO6400, which would mean a 2 stops improvement.

In fact, in the preview of the D3s by Marcus Bell, linked on 'What's New', Marcus claims that ISO 12,800 seems equal to the old D3 at ISO 3200.

I'm very skeptical. I'm reminded of the hype that surrounded the introduction of the D3. It was claimed to have (up to) 2 stops better high-ISO performance than any other DSLR on the market. In fact, my own tests indicated fairly conclusively the D3 had at most 1/2 a stop lower noise than the old 5D.

What was happening is that D3 jpegs were subject to greater in-camera chroma noise reduction than 5D jpegs and therefore looked much cleaner but were also softer than the 5D images. After applying a suitable amount of chroma noise reduction to the 5D image with Noise Ninja, there was very little image quality advantage to the D3 at ISO 3200 and above, on average about 1/3rd of a stop. D3 RAW images after processing and equal amounts of noise reduction also showed no more than 1/2 a stop improvement over the 5D.

The more significant advantage of the D3 compared with the 5D was not at high ISO but at low ISOs which I didn't have the time and opportunity to test. According to DXOMark, the D3 has more than a whole stop higher DR than the 5D at base ISO.

I would be very surprised if the D3s has as much as one stop image quality improvement over the D3 at ISO 12,800, taking image resolution into consideration also. If it does, then a whole stop improvement is truly remarkable. Two stops improvement is just not credible, but I stand to be corrected.  
Logged

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13983
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Any hope of faster sensors?
« Reply #17 on: October 15, 2009, 02:39:59 am »

Quote from: Ray
I would be very surprised if the D3s has as much as one stop image quality improvement over the D3 at ISO 12,800, taking image resolution into consideration also. If it does, then a whole stop improvement is truly remarkable. Two stops improvement is just not credible, but I stand to be corrected.  

Yes, we'll need to wait for more test reports. I have just sold my D3, so I won't be able to do any test for sure... especially taking into account the fact that I don't intend to buy a D3s.

Cheers,
Bernard

georgl

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 140
Any hope of faster sensors?
« Reply #18 on: October 15, 2009, 05:48:04 am »

@Daniel Browning
You mean the reduction of pattern noise produced by the production tolerances of the amps (within every "pixel")? I'm not sure if this really explains the "look" of high-iso-CMOS-cams and the sometimes bizarre non-linear measurement-results. This look (even with NR turned off in camera) is not too different than CCD-images with noise-reduction, while professional CMOS-(video)-cameras often show noise closer to our known CCD-results - some things go on underneath we don't know about.
Logged

Ben Rubinstein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1822
Any hope of faster sensors?
« Reply #19 on: October 15, 2009, 05:52:33 am »

Are you replacing it Bernard or is the D3X all the camera you need these days?
Logged
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up