What, 2 stop dynamic range?
Rich
Dpreview.com:
Sony has announced the development of the finest-yet pixel-pitch
1/2.5" sensor. The 12.2MP CMOS sensor has been developed for mobile
phone cameras, but is of a size commonly used in compact and super
zoom cameras. The IMX060PQ sensor, which Sony brands 'Exmor' in common
with its DSLR CMOS sensors, will also be available incorporated into
an F2.8 28mm-equiv lens unit with piezoelectric driven autofocus -
relatively advanced for a camera phone module.
Calvin Dobbs
And yet, I've seen some award-winning photographs presented in a 2-bit depth
image. (Posterized pure blacks and whites.) Some of those images are still being
printed that way as examples in photography reference books to show you what can
be done within such limitations -- IF you are a REAL pro.
That's the part that hurts all of you, doesn't it. Something that you wish you
could be by just purchasing the right camera. And yet, we all know that that's
never going to happen, don't we.
You people look more and more silly every day, to anyone who is a real pro.
Rich
> On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 08:12:39 -0800 (PST), Rich <rander3...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Lord forgive them.
>
> >Dpreview.com:
> >Sony has announced the development of the finest-yet pixel-pitch
> >1/2.5" sensor. The 12.2MP CMOS sensor has been developed for mobile
> >phone cameras, but is of a size commonly used in compact and super
> >zoom cameras. The IMX060PQ sensor, which Sony brands 'Exmor' in common
> >with its DSLR CMOS sensors, will also be available incorporated into
> >an F2.8 28mm-equiv lens unit with piezoelectric driven autofocus -
> >relatively advanced for a camera phone module.
>
> And yet, I've seen some award-winning photographs presented in a 2-bit depth
> image. (Posterized pure blacks and whites.) Some of those images are still being
> printed that way as examples in photography reference books to show you what can
> be done within such limitations -- IF you are a REAL pro.
>
The picture would still be a technical piece of s---.
Don Stauffer
How do we get two-stop dynamic range from the paragraph?
MarlinAdams
From someone that's too big of an idiot to realize that sensor size and
pixel-density does not automatically equate to dynamic range. That's one of the
huge myths that's been perpetuated by a self-proclaimed "doctor" in this
newsgroup that spams this group regularly with his deceptive math bullshit
because he can't dazzle anyone with his brilliance. Here's an example of a
1/2.5" sensor that has a 10.3EV dynamic range that totally blows that myth away.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3142/2861257547_9a7ceaf3a1_o.jpg
Paul Furman
Here's an interesting web site to help get some perspective on those
kinds of numbers:
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Image-Quality-Database/Compare-cameras/(appareil1)/197|0/(appareil2)/247|0/(appareil3)/240|0/(onglet)/0/(brand)/Nikon/(brand2)/Canon/(brand3)/Panasonic
They only have a few P&S... I included a D70 in that link but check it
out with a D700, whoah!
--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com
all google groups messages filtered due to spam
nospam
<marli...@idontwantspam.net> wrote:
> From someone that's too big of an idiot to realize that sensor size and
> pixel-density does not automatically equate to dynamic range.
actually it does. all things being equal, a larger sensor will have a
greater dynamic range than a smaller sensor.
CarlThomas
>MarlinAdams wrote:
>> On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 08:45:52 -0600, Don Stauffer <stau...@usfamily.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Rich wrote:
>>>> Lord forgive them.
>>>>
>>>> Dpreview.com:
>>>> Sony has announced the development of the finest-yet pixel-pitch
>>>> 1/2.5" sensor. The 12.2MP CMOS sensor has been developed for mobile
>>>> phone cameras, but is of a size commonly used in compact and super
>>>> zoom cameras. The IMX060PQ sensor, which Sony brands 'Exmor' in common
>>>> with its DSLR CMOS sensors, will also be available incorporated into
>>>> an F2.8 28mm-equiv lens unit with piezoelectric driven autofocus -
>>>> relatively advanced for a camera phone module.
>>> How do we get two-stop dynamic range from the paragraph?
>>
>> From someone that's too big of an idiot to realize that sensor size and
>> pixel-density does not automatically equate to dynamic range. That's one of the
>> huge myths that's been perpetuated by a self-proclaimed "doctor" in this
>> newsgroup that spams this group regularly with his deceptive math bullshit
>> because he can't dazzle anyone with his brilliance. Here's an example of a
>> 1/2.5" sensor that has a 10.3EV dynamic range that totally blows that myth away.
>>
>> http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3142/2861257547_9a7ceaf3a1_o.jpg
>
>Here's an interesting web site to help get some perspective on those
>kinds of numbers:
>http://www.spamlink.com/index.php/eng/Image-Quality-Database/Compare-cameras/
>They only have a few P&S... I included a D70 in that link but check it
>out with a D700, whoah!
Oh look. Yet another website that is selling an outrageously over-priced product
(with little to no use for a real pro) to pander to those with more money than
brains. They have certainly set their target-market and deceptive spam
accordingly, to be able to set the price-point of their product to be the most
lucrative to themselves.
"A fool and his money are soon parted."
An even bigger fool will lead other fools to their spam trough.
I've tested DxO's software extensively. I keep hoping they get it right, make it
useful. Each time that I have I hit uninstall after just a few moments of
playing with their useless crap. If their software is that lame, and that
high-priced, one can only imagine how they come up with the numbers they do to
sell to fools who are willing to throw away their own money on DxO's shit.
They certainly have you pegged right!
Either that or you work for them.
PeterHanson
And, as they say, "therein lies the rub." All things are *NEVER* equal between
sensors of different sizes. Newer technology, newer materials, new manufacturing
processes, new interpolation algorithms, newer circuitry. This is why many of
the newer smaller sensors easily outdo all the ancient larger sensors of the
past. Upon which all of you amazingly lame DSLR-trolls base your profound
ignorance.
nospam
<pha...@removetoreply.com> wrote:
> >> From someone that's too big of an idiot to realize that sensor size and
> >> pixel-density does not automatically equate to dynamic range.
> >
> >actually it does. all things being equal, a larger sensor will have a
> >greater dynamic range than a smaller sensor.
>
> And, as they say, "therein lies the rub." All things are *NEVER* equal between
> sensors of different sizes. Newer technology, newer materials, new
> manufacturing
> processes, new interpolation algorithms, newer circuitry. This is why many of
> the newer smaller sensors easily outdo all the ancient larger sensors of the
> past.
and that same technology can be put into a larger sensor which will
then have greater dynamic range than the smaller sensor.
the fact remains that for a given sensor technology, larger sensors
*will* have a greater dynamic range.
SMS
> Here's an interesting web site to help get some perspective on those
> kinds of numbers:
> http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Image-Quality-Database/Compare-cameras/(appareil1)/197|0/(appareil2)/247|0/(appareil3)/240|0/(onglet)/0/(brand)/Nikon/(brand2)/Canon/(brand3)/Panasonic
>
> They only have a few P&S... I included a D70 in that link but check it
> out with a D700, whoah!
That's a useful site, but they don't have any smaller P&S models. Not a
lot of surprises there; the D-SLRs all have far lower noise, and much
better dynamic range than the high-end P&S models.
joel-mcbaine
Dear Resident-Troll,
Your post is completely off-topic. Here are some topics that befit this
newsgroup. Please consider them for future discussions and posts:
1. P&S cameras can have more seamless zoom range than any DSLR glass in
existence. (E.g. 9mm f2.7 - 1248mm f/3.5.) There are now some excellent
wide-angle and telephoto (tel-extender) add-on lenses for many makes and models
of P&S cameras. Add either or both of these small additions to your photography
gear and, with some of the new super-zoom P&S cameras, you can far surpass any
range of focal-lengths and apertures that are available or will ever be made for
larger format cameras.
2. P&S cameras can have much wider apertures at longer focal lengths than any
DSLR glass in existence. (E.g. 549mm f/2.4 and 1248mm f/3.5) when used with
high-quality tel-extenders, which by the way, do not reduce the lens' original
aperture one bit. Only DSLRs suffer from that problem due to the manner in which
their tele-converters work. They can also have higher quality full-frame
180-degree circular fisheye and intermediate super-wide-angle views than any
DSLR and its glass in existence. Some excellent fish-eye adapters can be added
to your P&S camera which do not impart any chromatic-aberration nor
edge-softness. When used with a super-zoom P&S camera this allows you to
seamlessly go from as wide as a 9mm (or even wider) 35mm equivalent focal-length
up to the wide-angle setting of the camera's own lens.
3. P&S smaller sensor cameras can and do have wider dynamic range than larger
sensor cameras E.g. a 1/2.5" sized sensor can have a 10.3EV Dynamic Range vs. an
APS-C's typical 7.0-8.0EV Dynamic Range. One quick example:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3142/2861257547_9a7ceaf3a1_o.jpg
4. P&S cameras are cost efficient. Due to the smaller (but excellent) sensors
used in many of them today, the lenses for these cameras are much smaller.
Smaller lenses are easier to manufacture to exacting curvatures and are more
easily corrected for aberrations than larger glass used for DSLRs. This also
allows them to perform better at all apertures rather than DSLR glass which is
only good for one aperture setting per lens. Side by side tests prove that P&S
glass can out-resolve even the best DSLR glass ever made. After all is said and
done, you will spend 1/4th to 1/50th the price that you would have to in order
to get comparable performance in a DSLR camera. When you buy a DSLR you are
investing in a body that will require expensive lenses, hand-grips, external
flash units, heavy tripods, more expensive larger filters, etc. etc. The
outrageous costs of owning a DSLR add up fast after that initial DSLR body
purchase. Camera companies count on this, all the way to their banks.
5. P&S cameras are lightweight and convenient. With just one P&S camera plus one
small wide-angle adapter and one small telephoto adapter weighing just a couple
pounds, you have the same amount of zoom range as would require over 10 to 20
pounds of DSLR body and lenses. You can carry the whole P&S kit in one roomy
pocket of a wind-breaker or jacket. The DSLR kit would require a sturdy
backpack. You also don't require a massive tripod. Large tripods are required to
stabilize the heavy and unbalanced mass of the larger DSLR and its massive
lenses. A P&S camera, being so light, can be used on some of the most
inexpensive, compact, and lightweight tripods with excellent results.
6. P&S cameras are silent. For the more common snap-shooter/photographer, you
will not be barred from using your camera at public events, stage-performances,
and ceremonies. Or when trying to capture candid shots, you won't so easily
alert all those within a block around, from the obnoxious noise that your DSLR
is making, that you are capturing anyone's images. For the more dedicated
wildlife photographer a P&S camera will not endanger your life when
photographing potentially dangerous animals by alerting them to your presence.
7. Some P&S cameras can run the revolutionary CHDK software on them, which
allows for lightning-fast motion detection (literally, lightning fast 45ms
response time, able to capture lightning strikes automatically) so that you may
capture more elusive and shy animals (in still-frame and video) where any
evidence of your presence at all might prevent their appearance. Without the
need of carrying a tethered laptop along or any other hardware into remote
areas--which only limits your range, distance, and time allotted for bringing
back that one-of-a-kind image. It also allows for unattended time-lapse
photography for days and weeks at a time, so that you may capture those unusual
or intriguing subject-studies in nature. E.g. a rare slime-mold's propagation,
that you happened to find in a mountain-ravine, 10-days hike from the nearest
laptop or other time-lapse hardware. (The wealth of astounding new features that
CHDK brings to the creative-table of photography are too extensive to begin to
list them all here. See http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK )
8. P&S cameras can have shutter speeds up to 1/40,000th of a second. See:
http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CameraFeatures Allowing you to capture fast subject
motion in nature (e.g. insect and hummingbird wings) WITHOUT the need of
artificial and image destroying flash, using available light alone. Nor will
their wing shapes be unnaturally distorted from the focal-plane shutter
distortions imparted in any fast moving objects, as when photographed with all
DSLRs. (See focal-plane-shutter-distortions example-image link in #10.)
9. P&S cameras can have full-frame flash-sync up to and including shutter-speeds
of 1/40,000th of a second. E.g.
http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/Samples:_High-Speed_Shutter_%26_Flash-Sync without
the use of any expensive and specialized focal-plane shutter flash-units that
must strobe for the full duration of the shutter's curtain to pass over the
frame. The other downside to those kinds of flash units, is that the
light-output is greatly reduced the faster the shutter speed. Any shutter speed
used that is faster than your camera's X-Sync speed is cutting off some of the
flash output. Not so when using a leaf-shutter. The full intensity of the flash
is recorded no matter the shutter speed used. Unless, as in the case of CHDK
capable cameras where the camera's shutter speed can even be faster than the
lightning-fast single burst from a flash unit. E.g. If the flash's duration is
1/10,000 of a second, and your CHDK camera's shutter is set to 1/20,000 of a
second, then it will only record half of that flash output. P&S cameras also
don't require any expensive and dedicated external flash unit. Any of them may
be used with any flash unit made by using an inexpensive slave-trigger that can
compensate for any automated pre-flash conditions. Example:
http://www.adorama.com/SZ23504.html
10. P&S cameras do not suffer from focal-plane shutter drawbacks and
limitations. Causing camera shake, moving-subject image distortions
(focal-plane-shutter distortions, e.g.
http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/chdk/images//4/46/Focalplane_shutter_distortions.jpg
do note the distorted tail-rotor too and its shadow on the ground, 90-degrees
from one another), last-century-slow flash-sync, obnoxiously loud slapping
mirrors and shutter curtains, shorter mechanical life, easily damaged, expensive
repair costs, etc.
11. When doing wildlife photography in remote and rugged areas and harsh
environments, or even when the amateur snap-shooter is trying to take their
vacation photos on a beach or dusty intersection on some city street, you're not
worrying about trying to change lenses in time to get that shot (fewer missed
shots), dropping one in the mud, lake, surf, or on concrete while you do, and
not worrying about ruining all the rest of your photos that day from having
gotten dust & crud on the sensor. For the adventurous photographer you're no
longer weighed down by many many extra pounds of unneeded glass, allowing you to
carry more of the important supplies, like food and water, allowing you to trek
much further than you've ever been able to travel before with your old D/SLR
bricks.
12. Smaller sensors and the larger apertures available allow for the deep DOF
required for excellent macro-photography, WITHOUT the need of any image
destroying, subject irritating, natural-look destroying flash. No DSLR on the
planet can compare in the quality of available-light macro photography that can
be accomplished with nearly any smaller-sensor P&S camera.
13. P&S cameras include video, and some even provide for CD-quality stereo audio
recordings, so that you might capture those rare events in nature where a
still-frame alone could never prove all those "scientists" wrong. E.g. recording
the paw-drumming communication patterns of eusocial-living field-mice. With your
P&S video-capable camera in your pocket you won't miss that once-in-a-lifetime
chance to record some unexpected event, like the passage of a bright meteor in
the sky in daytime, a mid-air explosion, or any other newsworthy event. Imagine
the gaping hole in our history of the Hindenberg if there were no film cameras
there at the time. The mystery of how it exploded would have never been solved.
Or the amateur 8mm film of the shooting of President Kennedy. Your video-ready
P&S camera being with you all the time might capture something that will be a
valuable part of human history one day.
14. P&S cameras have 100% viewfinder coverage that exactly matches your final
image. No important bits lost, and no chance of ruining your composition by
trying to "guess" what will show up in the final image. With the ability to
overlay live RGB-histograms, and under/over-exposure area alerts (and dozens of
other important shooting data) directly on your electronic viewfinder display
you are also not going to guess if your exposure might be right this time. Nor
do you have to remove your eye from the view of your subject to check some
external LCD histogram display, ruining your chances of getting that perfect
shot when it happens.
15. P&S cameras can and do focus in lower-light (which is common in natural
settings) than any DSLRs in existence, due to electronic viewfinders and sensors
that can be increased in gain for framing and focusing purposes as light-levels
drop. Some P&S cameras can even take images (AND videos) in total darkness by
using IR illumination alone. (See: Sony) No other multi-purpose cameras are
capable of taking still-frame and videos of nocturnal wildlife as easily nor as
well. Shooting videos and still-frames of nocturnal animals in the total-dark,
without disturbing their natural behavior by the use of flash, from 90 ft. away
with a 549mm f/2.4 lens is not only possible, it's been done, many times, by
myself. (An interesting and true story: one wildlife photographer was nearly
stomped to death by an irate moose that attacked where it saw his camera's flash
come from.)
16. Without the need to use flash in all situations, and a P&S's nearly 100%
silent operation, you are not disturbing your wildlife, neither scaring it away
nor changing their natural behavior with your existence. Nor, as previously
mentioned, drawing its defensive behavior in your direction. You are recording
nature as it is, and should be, not some artificial human-changed distortion of
reality and nature.
17. Nature photography requires that the image be captured with the greatest
degree of accuracy possible. NO focal-plane shutter in existence, with its
inherent focal-plane-shutter distortions imparted on any moving subject will
EVER capture any moving subject in nature 100% accurately. A leaf-shutter or
electronic shutter, as is found in ALL P&S cameras, will capture your moving
subject in nature with 100% accuracy. Your P&S photography will no longer lead a
biologist nor other scientist down another DSLR-distorted path of non-reality.
18. Some P&S cameras have shutter-lag times that are even shorter than all the
popular DSLRs, due to the fact that they don't have to move those agonizingly
slow and loud mirrors and shutter curtains in time before the shot is recorded.
In the hands of an experienced photographer that will always rely on prefocusing
their camera, there is no hit & miss auto-focusing that happens on all
auto-focus systems, DSLRs included. This allows you to take advantage of the
faster shutter response times of P&S cameras. Any pro worth his salt knows that
if you really want to get every shot, you don't depend on automatic anything in
any camera.
19. An electronic viewfinder, as exists in all P&S cameras, can accurately relay
the camera's shutter-speed in real-time. Giving you a 100% accurate preview of
what your final subject is going to look like when shot at 3 seconds or
1/20,000th of a second. Your soft waterfall effects, or the crisp sharp outlines
of your stopped-motion hummingbird wings will be 100% accurately depicted in
your viewfinder before you even record the shot. What you see in a P&S camera is
truly what you get. You won't have to guess in advance at what shutter speed to
use to obtain those artistic effects or those scientifically accurate nature
studies that you require or that your client requires. When testing CHDK P&S
cameras that could have shutter speeds as fast as 1/40,000th of a second, I was
amazed that I could half-depress the shutter and watch in the viewfinder as a
Dremel-Drill's 30,000 rpm rotating disk was stopped in crisp detail in real
time, without ever having taken an example shot yet. Similarly true when
lowering shutter speeds for milky-water effects when shooting rapids and falls,
instantly seeing the effect in your viewfinder. Poor DSLR-trolls will never
realize what they are missing with their anciently slow focal-plane shutters and
wholly inaccurate optical viewfinders.
20. P&S cameras can obtain the very same bokeh (out of focus foreground and
background) as any DSLR by just increasing your focal length, through use of its
own built-in super-zoom lens or attaching a high-quality telextender on the
front. Just back up from your subject more than you usually would with a DSLR.
Framing and the included background is relative to the subject at the time and
has nothing at all to do with the kind of camera and lens in use. Your f/ratio
(which determines your depth-of-field), is a computation of focal-length divided
by aperture diameter. Increase the focal-length and you make your DOF shallower.
No different than opening up the aperture to accomplish the same. The two
methods are identically related where DOF is concerned.
21. P&S cameras will have perfectly fine noise-free images at lower ISOs with
just as much resolution as any DSLR camera. Experienced Pros grew up on ISO25
and ISO64 film all their lives. They won't even care if their P&S camera can't
go above ISO400 without noise. An added bonus is that the P&S camera can have
larger apertures at longer focal-lengths than any DSLR in existence. The time
when you really need a fast lens to prevent camera-shake that gets amplified at
those focal-lengths. Even at low ISOs you can take perfectly fine hand-held
images at super-zoom settings. Whereas the DSLR, with its very small apertures
at long focal lengths require ISOs above 3200 to obtain the same results. They
need high ISOs, you don't. If you really require low-noise high ISOs, there are
some excellent models of Fuji P&S cameras that do have noise-free images up to
ISO1600 and more.
22. Don't for one minute think that the price of your camera will in any way
determine the quality of your photography. Any of the newer cameras of around
$100 or more are plenty good for nearly any talented photographer today. IF they
have talent to begin with. A REAL pro can take an award winning photograph with
a cardboard Brownie Box camera made a century ago. If you can't take excellent
photos on a P&S camera then you won't be able to get good photos on a DSLR
either. Never blame your inability to obtain a good photograph on the kind of
camera that you own. Those who claim they NEED a DSLR are only fooling
themselves and all others. These are the same people that buy a new camera every
year, each time thinking, "Oh, if I only had the right camera, a better camera,
better lenses, faster lenses, then I will be a great photographer!" Camera
company's love these people. They'll never be able to get a camera that will
make their photography better, because they never were a good photographer to
begin with. The irony is that, by them thinking that they only need to throw
money at the problem, they'll never look in the mirror to see what the real
problem is. They'll NEVER become good photographers. Perhaps this is why these
self-proclaimed "pros" hate P&S cameras so much. P&S cameras instantly reveal to
them their piss-poor photography skills.
23. Have you ever had the fun of showing some of your exceptional P&S
photography to some self-proclaimed "Pro" who uses $30,000 worth of camera gear.
They are so impressed that they must know how you did it. You smile and tell
them, "Oh, I just use a $150 P&S camera." Don't you just love the look on their
face? A half-life of self-doubt, the realization of all that lost money, and a
sadness just courses through every fiber of their being. Wondering why they
can't get photographs as good after they spent all that time and money. Get good
on your P&S camera and you too can enjoy this fun experience.
24. Did we mention portability yet? I think we did, but it is worth mentioning
the importance of this a few times. A camera in your pocket that is instantly
ready to get any shot during any part of the day will get more award-winning
photographs than that DSLR gear that's sitting back at home, collecting dust,
and waiting to be loaded up into that expensive back-pack or camera bag, hoping
that you'll lug it around again some day.
25. A good P&S camera is a good theft deterrent. When traveling you are not
advertising to the world that you are carrying $20,000 around with you. That's
like having a sign on your back saying, "PLEASE MUG ME! I'M THIS STUPID AND I
DESERVE IT!" Keep a small P&S camera in your pocket and only take it out when
needed. You'll have a better chance of returning home with all your photos. And
should you accidentally lose your P&S camera you're not out $20,000. They are
inexpensive to replace.
There are many more reasons to add to this list but this should be more than
enough for even the most unaware person to realize that P&S cameras are just
better, all around. No doubt about it.
The phenomenon of everyone yelling "You NEED a DSLR!" can be summed up in just
one short phrase:
"If even 5 billion people are saying and doing a foolish thing, it remains a
foolish thing."
joel-mcbaine
>Paul Furman wrote:
>
>> Here's an interesting web site to help get some perspective on those
>> kinds of numbers:
>>
>> They only have a few P&S... I included a D70 in that link but check it
>> out with a D700, whoah!
>
>That's a useful site, but they don't have any smaller P&S models. Not a
>lot of surprises there; the D-SLRs all have far lower noise, and much
>better dynamic range than the high-end P&S models.
BobZ
>
>and that same technology can be put into a larger sensor which will
>then have greater dynamic range than the smaller sensor.
>
>the fact remains that for a given sensor technology, larger sensors
>*will* have a greater dynamic range.
Translation: Smaller sensor cameras will always be ahead of the game.
nospam
<bo...@noaddress.com> wrote:
> >and that same technology can be put into a larger sensor which will
> >then have greater dynamic range than the smaller sensor.
> >
> >the fact remains that for a given sensor technology, larger sensors
> >*will* have a greater dynamic range.
>
> Translation: Smaller sensor cameras will always be ahead of the game.
wrong.
Adam P Gaines
Any developer of any product or new technology is always going to take the
"least cost" route. Would you rather test a newer technology on a smaller
product, more inexpensive to make, and faster turn-around to new designs, than
an expensive one where people only invest in a new camera once every 3-5 years?
The smaller sensor camera will always be ahead of the game by at least 2 years.
But then you're just a low-life virtual-photographer DSLR-troll of usenet. What
would you know.
Deep Reset
"Calvin Dobbs" <cdo...@dobbsinc.com> wrote in message
news:ef63i41te3prmbu57...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 08:12:39 -0800 (PST), Rich <rande...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Lord forgive them.
>>
>>Dpreview.com:
>>Sony has announced the development of the finest-yet pixel-pitch
>>1/2.5" sensor. The 12.2MP CMOS sensor has been developed for mobile
>>phone cameras, but is of a size commonly used in compact and super
>>zoom cameras. The IMX060PQ sensor, which Sony brands 'Exmor' in common
>>with its DSLR CMOS sensors, will also be available incorporated into
>>an F2.8 28mm-equiv lens unit with piezoelectric driven autofocus -
>>relatively advanced for a camera phone module.
>
> And yet, I've seen some award-winning photographs presented in a 2-bit
> depth
> image. (Posterized pure blacks and whites.)
That would be "1-bit depth", surely?
Deep
CoreyManchester
For all intents and purposes, the best you can do is 2-*color* depth, that which
is allowed by one of more common of file formats (GIF). As far as actual
bit-depth goes you need at least one other for parity (that makes 2-bits), or
8-bits more for an alpha channel, or in the instance of GIF files which only
allow 2 colors (4-bit, 16-colors, RGB) for its bit-depth. Which then again can
only be represented in a bit-depth equal to or greater than that.
Not counting all the extraneous image and digital bits required, then yes, of
course it would be 1-bit depth, if nothing else was required to digitally store
and retrieve that image.
nospam
<aga...@removedduetospam.com> wrote:
> Any developer of any product or new technology is always going to take the
> "least cost" route. Would you rather test a newer technology on a smaller
> product, more inexpensive to make, and faster turn-around to new designs, than
> an expensive one where people only invest in a new camera once every 3-5
> years?
no, they put it in expensive high margin products to recover r&d
expenses, then it trickles down to the mass market consumer products.
> The smaller sensor camera will always be ahead of the game by at least 2
> years.
wrong.
Justin C
> Any developer of any product or new technology is always going to take the
> "least cost" route. Would you rather test a newer technology on a smaller
> product, more inexpensive to make, and faster turn-around to new designs, than
> an expensive one where people only invest in a new camera once every 3-5 years?
> The smaller sensor camera will always be ahead of the game by at least 2 years.
>
> But then you're just a low-life virtual-photographer DSLR-troll of usenet. What
> would you know.
Yup, Formula 1 motor racing they get all their technology filtered down
from Kia, Proton, and Daewoo.
Those huge early computers got all their tech second hand from the
people who made pocket calculators.
Plate cameras were derivative and so far behind the curve, playing
catchup to those wonderful P&S models of the time.
Yup, you sure know your stuff, the budget end of the market is always at
the cutting edge.
Let me re-phrase that: You know nothing.
Oh, and before you lambast me with as some DSLR something or other, I
don't own a DSLR.
Justin.
--
Justin C, by the sea.
LibbyLarson
>In article <d006i4516da6nv9fb...@4ax.com>, Adam P Gaines wrote:
>> Any developer of any product or new technology is always going to take the
>> "least cost" route. Would you rather test a newer technology on a smaller
>> product, more inexpensive to make, and faster turn-around to new designs, than
>> an expensive one where people only invest in a new camera once every 3-5 years?
>> The smaller sensor camera will always be ahead of the game by at least 2 years.
>>
>> But then you're just a low-life virtual-photographer DSLR-troll of usenet. What
>> would you know.
>
>Yup, Formula 1 motor racing they get all their technology filtered down
>from Kia, Proton, and Daewoo.
Red-herring non-sequitur. Those are custom-built cars, not production consumer
cars. Prototypes that you will never buy on your own nor will they ever be in a
car dealer's show-room. I.e. You can't buy them, they won't be available to the
consumer. Your DSLR is cheap off-the-rack 2nd-hand crap made 2 years or later
after the innovations were already in P&S cameras as tried and tested
technology.
Example: P&Ss have had "live-view" and video modes since their inception over a
decade ago. Now you can't wait to buy a DSLR with those features. Next you'll be
clamoring for audio recording too. You are SO far behind the curve that it's
more than funny.
You people that try to relate cars to cameras are also hilarious. I doubt that
someone like you even knows what a clutch is.
>
>Those huge early computers got all their tech second hand from the
>people who made pocket calculators.
You really are this daft, aren't you.
All the advances in software were made on home-PC platforms. Mind you, the
greatest advances were also made on open-platform PCs, not secretive OSs and
proprietary Macs. (This is why people are clamoring for an open platform camera
firmware. The closest we'll find to this is the CHDK revolution--for now.)
Mind you too, the "mainframes" didn't get their technology until it was
perfected in the pocket-calculator. I was still using numeric neon-tube decade
displays on mainframes in the early 1970's while pocket calculators were first
being sold with a pi-constant button included on an LED display (cost $180 with
pi, $140 without the pi button). The mainframe was too much of an investment to
replace it as quickly as you can a new pocket-calculator from month to month.
The same is true of the DSLR. Same thing all over again. DSLR = outdated,
invested too much (must also conserve historical lens investment), mainframe
with neon-tube display and no pi button. VS. P&S = innovative, inexpensive,
newest technology (innovative optics designs with every model), pocket
calculator with the pi button.
>
>Plate cameras were derivative and so far behind the curve, playing
>catchup to those wonderful P&S models of the time.
Since when did plate cameras take advantage of 35mm film? The advances were
always made in the smaller and more inexpensive to produce item.
>
You're not only an idiot, you invent outlandish red-herrings to try to support
your psychotic beliefs.
Can you BE any more transparent in your virtual-photographer troll-dumb?
>
>Oh, and before you lambast me with as some DSLR something or other, I
>don't own a DSLR.
That's quite obvious. You don't own ANY cameras.
Maybe if you actually bought and used some cameras in your life, you wouldn't be
this amazingly ignorant.
Don Stauffer
I can buy the general trend, but not the quantification originally
listed. One could make such a quantification only if the camera were
photon noise limited, and I don't believe most are.
David J. Littleboy
The usual suspect*, in particular, figure 5, indicates that except for the
larger-pixel dSLRs at ISO 100 and 200, most digital cameras are, in fact,
photon noise limited. The 6.1 micron and smaller pitch cameras are linear
throughout their range, whereas the larger pixel cameras have a region where
DR is limited by other factors.
*:
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/digital.sensor.performance.summary/index.html
--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Martin Hills
wrote:
>
>"Don Stauffer" <stau...@usfamily.net> wrote:
>> nospam wrote:
>>> In article <hhm5i4pa8kfqt8a0t...@4ax.com>, MarlinAdams
>>> <marli...@idontwantspam.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> From someone that's too big of an idiot to realize that sensor size and
>>>> pixel-density does not automatically equate to dynamic range.
>>>
>>> actually it does. all things being equal, a larger sensor will have a
>>> greater dynamic range than a smaller sensor.
>>
>> I can buy the general trend, but not the quantification originally listed.
>> One could make such a quantification only if the camera were photon noise
>> limited, and I don't believe most are.
>
>The usual suspect*, in particular, figure 5, indicates that except for the
>larger-pixel dSLRs at ISO 100 and 200, most digital cameras are, in fact,
>photon noise limited. The 6.1 micron and smaller pitch cameras are linear
>throughout their range, whereas the larger pixel cameras have a region where
>DR is limited by other factors.
>
>*:
>http://www.spamlink.com/imagedetail/digital.sensor.performance.summary/index.html
And yet, this simple graph proves wrong everything that that spamming Clark
troll has spewed all these years.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3142/2861257547_9a7ceaf3a1_o.jpg
If you're going to cite online troll info as reputable data, at least find one
that can't be disproved so easily. He only posts that nonsense to get
controversy going, his only goal is trying to sell his bad photography that
nobody wants. Nobody would ever go to his website and view any of his "for sale"
images otherwise.
nospam
<mhil...@spammersgohome.com> wrote:
> And yet, this simple graph proves wrong everything that that spamming Clark
> troll has spewed all these years.
actually, your 'simple graph' confirms it.
Keith Thompson
Everything you have ever posted in this newsgroup has been proved completely
wrong. This comment of yours easily goes into the same column.
John Sheehy
$815e...@news.qwest.net:
> I can buy the general trend, but not the quantification originally
> listed. One could make such a quantification only if the camera were
> photon noise limited, and I don't believe most are.
None are even close. Most sensors have several less stops less difference
between saturation and where 1:1 SNR falls because of the total system read
noise, at base ISO.
... and that's just statistically. Statistics lie, and shot noise is
actually much less annoying, disturbing, and obscuring than a statistically
equivalent amount of mean read noise. A camera with only shot noise would
be the stuff dreams are made of. ISO would only affect metering, and the
brightness of the review image and default conversion, and have no effect
on absolute SNR.
Paul Furman
John, What do you think of the charts on these new comparisons:
http://www.dxomark.com
The summary numbers are kind of meaningless but the 'compare cameras'
format is fascinating:
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Image-Quality-Database/Compare-cameras/(appareil1)/205|0/(appareil2)/265|0/(onglet)/0/(brand)/Nikon/(brand2)/Sony
also:
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Insights/More-pixels-offsets-noise!
I suppose read noise isn't counted in any of this.
Hmmm...
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=30060231
AlbertW
Too bad you've been citing them as a source. There's a lengthy discussion at
dpreview where they found all kinds of huge errors in DxO's tests and proved it.
You'll learn. (no, that's impossible, someone like you is incapable of learning)