Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
PhotoKB Home
Discussion Groups
Digital Photography
Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot Cameras
Film Photography
35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther Equipment
Photo Technique
Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique General
General Photo Topics
General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK Photography
DirectoryPhoto Clubs

Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / December 2007

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

And yet Kodak's sensor (M8's) looks really good on paper...

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
RichA - 22 Nov 2006 05:01 GMT
Kodak, Kodak, Kodak...What IS going on?  This thing looked really good.
The filter to fix the IR problem (if that will be their fix) is going
to cost at least as much as a high quality IR filter, around $200-$300.
Sensor replacement will likely wipe out any profit Kodak saw from this
endevour.

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/dpq/site/SENSORS/name/KAF-10500_product/show/KAF-1050
0_productSpecifications

Randall Ainsworth - 22 Nov 2006 13:14 GMT
> Kodak, Kodak, Kodak...What IS going on?  This thing looked really good.
>  The filter to fix the IR problem (if that will be their fix) is going
> to cost at least as much as a high quality IR filter, around $200-$300.
> Sensor replacement will likely wipe out any profit Kodak saw from this
> endevour.

Is it made of plastic?
RichA - 22 Nov 2006 17:58 GMT
> > Kodak, Kodak, Kodak...What IS going on?  This thing looked really good.
> >  The filter to fix the IR problem (if that will be their fix) is going
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> Is it made of plastic?

No, Sony tried using plastic (epoxy)as a base for CCDs and it failed,
miserably. Hence last year's huge recall.  The Kodak is ceramic.
Charles Schuler - 23 Nov 2006 01:23 GMT
> No, Sony tried using plastic (epoxy)as a base for CCDs and it failed,
> miserably. Hence last year's huge recall.  The Kodak is ceramic.

Not to mention those plastic Sony batteries that burst into flames!
Leica - 10 Dec 2007 23:27 GMT
So are the new (current) M8's free from the IR problem?

Has Kodak in fact begun supplying different/non-problematic sensors to
Leica?

In essence then, are current M8's being shipped from Leica free of all known
problems now?

> Kodak, Kodak, Kodak...What IS going on?  This thing looked really good.
> The filter to fix the IR problem (if that will be their fix) is going
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> http://www.kodak.com/US/en/dpq/site/SENSORS/name/KAF-10500_product/show/KAF-1050
0_productSpecifications
Rich - 11 Dec 2007 05:08 GMT
> So are the new (current) M8's free from the IR problem?
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> In essence then, are current M8's being shipped from Leica free of all known
> problems now?

No idea, but apparently, they are selling.  Kodak's sensors are
probably better from a technical standpoint than any of the sensors in
cameras from Canon, Nikon, etc, but better in spec from Kodak might
please a scientific or industrial customer, but maybe not a camera
consumer.
John Smith - 11 Dec 2007 05:50 GMT
Huh?????????  What in heaven's name do you mean by "better in spec from
Kodak might please a scientific or industrial customer, but maybe not a
camera consumer."?????

Wouldn't Leica just perhaps qualify as an industrial customer?

>> So are the new (current) M8's free from the IR problem?
>>
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> please a scientific or industrial customer, but maybe not a camera
> consumer.
Doug McDonald - 11 Dec 2007 15:31 GMT
> Huh?????????  What in heaven's name do you mean by "better in spec from
> Kodak might please a scientific or industrial customer, but maybe not a
> camera consumer."?????
>
> Wouldn't Leica just perhaps qualify as an industrial customer?

No. He means actual "industrial" use ... not taking photos.

Some uses want no anti-aliasing at all, indeed, they want
complete independence of pixels. I have had some such uses.

Doug MCDonald
John Smith - 11 Dec 2007 15:44 GMT
What other "industrial use" for a photo sensor made by Kodak would there be
other that for taking photos?

>> Huh?????????  What in heaven's name do you mean by "better in spec from
>> Kodak might please a scientific or industrial customer, but maybe not a
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> Doug MCDonald
Doug McDonald - 11 Dec 2007 21:14 GMT
> What other "industrial use" for a photo sensor made by Kodak would there be
> other that for taking photos?

"Industrial" or "scientific" use usually implies that
no person would look at the result. Only a computer.
It could be, for example, a photo-like use, like
computerized face recognition. Or it could be
quite unlike a plain photo use, such as using it to
measure dimensions and color of rocks passing down
a conveyor at a mine.

Or it could be character recognition.

None of these need antialiasing.

Doug McDonald
acl - 11 Dec 2007 23:24 GMT
On Dec 12, 12:14 am, Doug McDonald <mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu>
wrote:
> > What other "industrial use" for a photo sensor made by Kodak would there be
> > other that for taking photos?
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
> None of these need antialiasing.

You mentioned that there are applications that need complete
independence of pixels; what would those be? Measuring the intensity
of light emission from small areas, or what? I'm curious.
Doug McDonald - 12 Dec 2007 16:08 GMT
> You mentioned that there are applications that need complete
> independence of pixels; what would those be? Measuring the intensity
> of light emission from small areas, or what? I'm curious.

That's right. Many of these uses don't use color, but some do.

For example, cell counting. You have a microscope slide
with randomly placed cells on it, dyed to fluoresce.
Each cell fluoresces the same amount. Hence by looking at the
image on a computer you count cells in each pixel. If
a cell overlaps two or four pixels, you can usually assign
the center of it to one of the pixels. Having no
anti-aliasing helps this. You could use color if you
had two or three cell types, dyed to fluroresce red, green,
or blue. There are very common dyes that actually do this.

Doug McDonald
acl - 12 Dec 2007 16:23 GMT
On Dec 12, 7:08 pm, Doug McDonald <mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu>
wrote:

> > You mentioned that there are applications that need complete
> > independence of pixels; what would those be? Measuring the intensity
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> had two or three cell types, dyed to fluroresce red, green,
> or blue. There are very common dyes that actually do this.

Thanks. I suspected it was something like that (or dna microarrays,
you also have to measure intensity but the areas aren't that small).
Frank ess - 12 Dec 2007 20:53 GMT
I may have missed the discussion of Noiseware by Imagenomic Software.
The "Community" (free) version has been recommended, and I wonder if
it - or the pay-for versions - are worth the trouble of learning to
use.

http://www.imagenomic.com/download.aspx

Not that I don't like (most) noise ...   Just in case.

Signature

Frank ess

Ockham's Razor - 13 Dec 2007 15:37 GMT
> I may have missed the discussion of Noiseware by Imagenomic Software.
> The "Community" (free) version has been recommended, and I wonder if
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> Not that I don't like (most) noise ...   Just in case.

I have been using the commercial version of Noiseware and am completely
satisfied.  Using it as a plug-in with PSE 4.

As far as the learning curve, there is a simple method available that
requires no "learning".

That said, there are several other applications that do the same thing
which may be better or easier to use (though I doubt it).

Signature

Es ist nichts schrecklicher als eine tätige Unwissenheit.

                                     Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

nobody@nobody.com - 18 Dec 2007 20:26 GMT
>I may have missed the discussion of Noiseware by Imagenomic Software.
>The "Community" (free) version has been recommended, and I wonder if
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
>Not that I don't like (most) noise ...   Just in case.

I switched to Noise Ninja... Noiseware seemed to emphasise jpeg
artifacts a bit more when I was using it with scanned 35mm film.  NN
as a Photoshop plugin is quite easy to use, especially if you simply
profile each shot individually.  Not much of a learning curve to be
honest.

Jim

http://www.jamesphotography.ca
RichA - 12 Dec 2007 00:19 GMT
> Huh?????????  What in heaven's name do you mean by "better in spec from
> Kodak might please a scientific or industrial customer, but maybe not a
> camera consumer."?????

More uniform pixel efficiency, fewer dead pixels, etc.  Consumer
cameras get whatever comes out of the fabs, one Canon won't likely
match another, etc.
Don Stauffer in Minnesota - 11 Dec 2007 14:52 GMT
> > So are the new (current) M8's free from the IR problem?
>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> please a scientific or industrial customer, but maybe not a camera
> consumer.

Are these sensors the ones with Kodak's new filter array instead of a
Bayer array?
RichA - 12 Dec 2007 00:18 GMT
On Dec 11, 9:52 am, Don Stauffer in Minnesota <stauf...@usfamily.net>
wrote:

> > > So are the new (current) M8's free from the IR problem?
>
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> Are these sensors the ones with Kodak's new filter array instead of a
> Bayer array?

No, most scientific work is done with monochrome sensors, filtered and
used in tri-colour mode, three images are taken and combined.
There are some Kodaks that have Bayer filters.
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.