 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / December 2006Fuji F5 has a 14 bit A to D
So now Pentax, Leica and Fuji have gone beyond 12 bit. Can Nikon and Canon be far behind. Body material Magnesium alloy Sensor · Fujifilm SuperCCD SR II · 23.0 x 15.5 mm · 2 photodiodes per photosite (one S and one R) · RGB color filter array · 14 bit A/D converter > So now Pentax, Leica and Fuji have gone beyond 12 bit. Can Nikon and > Canon be far behind. don't forget Minolta in the consumer level A1 5 megapixel camera - 14 bit. And Kodak of course in the DCS Pro final models. David > > So now Pentax, Leica and Fuji have gone beyond 12 bit. Can Nikon and > > Canon be far behind. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > David Some people have stated that going beyond 12-bit in a consumer camera (DSLR or P&S) doesn't make any visible difference, but it must have some value because I assume it does cost a bit more to go with the higher quality ADCs. >> > So now Pentax, Leica and Fuji have gone beyond 12 bit. Can Nikon >> > and [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > some value because I assume it does cost a bit more to go with the > higher quality ADCs. Yes, likely marketing value = ours is bigger than yours. > Yes, likely marketing value = ours is bigger than yours. There is some pretty good evidence that in many DSLRs the 12 bit converters are the limiting factor in the dynamic range of the camera. Whereas 12 bit of range is not a limit that is hard to live with it does seem to make sense to add a couple of bits and get the full range that the sensor is capable of. Scott >> Yes, likely marketing value = ours is bigger than yours. >There is some pretty good evidence that in many DSLRs the 12 bit >converters are the limiting factor in the dynamic range of the camera. > Whereas 12 bit of range is not a limit that is hard to live with it >does seem to make sense to add a couple of bits and get the full range >that the sensor is capable of. That would take a few more than just "a couple of bits". With, say, a typical storage capacity of 500,000 electrons and a read noise of less than 5, we need at least 17-bits to "get the full range that the sensor is capable of" - and some cameras have more capacity and lower read noise. 14-bits is certainly better than 12, but it will still be "the limiting factor in the dynamic range of the camera".  SignatureKennedy Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed; A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed. Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying) >>> Yes, likely marketing value = ours is bigger than yours. >> There is some pretty good evidence that in many DSLRs the 12 bit [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > 14-bits is certainly better than 12, but it will still be "the > limiting factor in the dynamic range of the camera". I thought the typical DSLR was in the region of 50,000 - 100,000 electrons well capacity? David > >>> Yes, likely marketing value = ours is bigger than yours. > >> There is some pretty good evidence that in many DSLRs the 12 bit [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > David They are much closer in that range, 50,000 to 100,000. And easy test to see how many more bits are useful is to set the camera in manual mode and shot a scene at increasing ISO setting. You need to have the exposure set so that at the highest ISO you are not over exposing. Asjust all the photos to look the same and look at the detail captured in the shadows. For my 20D I get pretty big improvments going from ISO 100 to 200 and more yet going from 200 to 400 but the gain is pretty small going from 400 to 800. Note when doing this test you need to shoot raw and output as 16 bit /color tiff files, otherwise you aren't getting the full use of the 12 bits Scott >>>>>Yes, likely marketing value = ours is bigger than yours. >>>>There is some pretty good evidence that in many DSLRs the 12 bit [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > They are much closer in that range, 50,000 to 100,000. Looking at the datasheet for the FTF-3020 that KM mentioned, if you take the full-well capacity for linear operation (2100 mV) and 8.5 microvolts/electron (this is what they quote) you get 250,000 electrons. The pixel size of this thing is 12x12 microns, so for a camera with a pixel size of eg 8x8 microns and everything else equivalent, we'd get around 100,000, which is what everybody would expect. > And easy test to see how many more bits are useful is to set the camera > in manual mode and shot a scene at increasing ISO setting. You need to [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Scott >>>> Yes, likely marketing value = ours is bigger than yours. >>> There is some pretty good evidence that in many DSLRs the 12 bit [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >I thought the typical DSLR was in the region of 50,000 - 100,000 electrons >well capacity? I got that number from a couple of DALSA CCD data sheets, some are certainly lower than that. SignatureKennedy Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed; A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed. Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying) >>> Yes, likely marketing value = ours is bigger than yours. >> There is some pretty good evidence that in many DSLRs the 12 bit [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > 14-bits is certainly better than 12, but it will still be "the limiting > factor in the dynamic range of the camera". But which sensor doesn't overflow with 500,000 electrons? >>>> Yes, likely marketing value = ours is bigger than yours. >>> There is some pretty good evidence that in many DSLRs the 12 bit [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >But which sensor doesn't overflow with 500,000 electrons? For one, the DALSA FTF-3020, which happened to be the first I looked at since I was considering it myself some time back, but take a look at others in the range, they aren't that much different. Then again there are the Fuji devices that are designed specifically so that some sensels don't saturate as low as others. All of which just makes the problem even more difficult for the ADC which rarely have noise floors down at the quantisation limit of themselves. SignatureKennedy Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed; A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed. Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying) >>>>> Yes, likely marketing value = ours is bigger than yours. >>>> There is some pretty good evidence that in many DSLRs the 12 bit [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > since I was considering it myself some time back, but take a look at > others in the range, they aren't that much different. But how did you get 500,000 electrons for that? As in, how do you calculate it with their numbers? Also, they only claim a linear dynamic range of around 14000 (which is much less than 500,000/5). Or did you mean something else? > Then again there are the Fuji devices that are designed specifically so > that some sensels don't saturate as low as others. All of which just > makes the problem even more difficult for the ADC which rarely have > noise floors down at the quantisation limit of themselves. Never mind, I missed the page where they give the electron/voltage conversion factor. You're right, it's around 400-500,000. >> For one, the DALSA FTF-3020, which happened to be the first I >>looked at since I was considering it myself some time back, but take >>a look at others in the range, they aren't that much different. > >But how did you get 500,000 electrons for that? As in, how do you >calculate it with their numbers? I didn't calculate it - I read it right off the data sheet. ;-) However, following your query I looked at the data sheet on their web site (Issue July 2006) and note it doesn't have the raw information that was included in the previous issues. The earlier versions I have here state exactly the same data as the recent version, but in addition have the storage capacity and readout noise directly in ke. eg. Full well capacity 250ke (min), 500 ke (typ), 600ke (max). I guess these numbers are less useful to potential users than the output referenced figures which contain essentially the same information so they removed the versions in ke to avoid data sheet conflicts in the event of updates. SignatureKennedy Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed; A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed. Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying) >>>>> Yes, likely marketing value = ours is bigger than yours. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > since I was considering it myself some time back, but take a look at > others in the range, they aren't that much different. Ha, that's not a standard sort of camera, b&w at 18fps. http://www.dalsa.com/pi/products/productdetails.asp?ProductID=FTF3020M DALSA's FTF3020 was the first 6 megapixel 35 mm sensor, and its remarkable image quality made it the de facto standard for digital still photography. It still provides the highest possible image quality for its resolution, with lower dark current, lower noise, and higher dynamic range than any competitor... Pixel Size: 12µm x 12µm Active Area: 36.9mm x 24.6mm Dynamic Range: >72 dB linear http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/does.pixel.size.matter/ full well Gain Read Pixel Camera (electrons) Electrons/ Noise Spacing Sensor size ISO 100 DN ISO100 electrons (microns) pixels mm Canon 1DMII 52,300* 13.02 16.6 8.2 3504 x 2336 28.7 x 19.1 Canon 10D 44,200 11.4 16 7.4 3072 x 2048 22.7 x 15.1 Canon S60 11,000* 2.7 14 2.8 2592 x 1944 7.18 x 5.32 Canon S70 4,300* 1.03 4.1 2.3 3072 x 2304 7.18 x 5.32 *The Canon 1D Mark II has a true full well of 79,900 electrons at ISO 50. *The Canon S60 has a true full well of ~22,000 electrons at ISO 50. *The Canon S70 has a true full well of 8,200 electrons at ISO 50. > Then again there are the Fuji devices that are designed specifically so > that some sensels don't saturate as low as others. All of which just > makes the problem even more difficult for the ADC which rarely have > noise floors down at the quantisation limit of themselves. >> For one, the DALSA FTF-3020, which happened to be the first I looked >>at since I was considering it myself some time back, but take a look >>at others in the range, they aren't that much different. > >Ha, that's not a standard sort of camera, It says in the data sheet that it is "a full frame CCD colour image sensor designed for professional digital photography applications". Sounds pretty standard to me. ;-) I considered using this sensor to build a digital back for my old film cameras some time ago, so I am quite familiar with it. > b&w It is available in colour (FTF-3020C) and mono (FTF-3020M) versions. >at 18fps. *Up* to 18fps - if all four outputs are used at full speed. If one output is used then the maximum rate is 5fps. If operated slower then the read noise reduces significantly. 4 outputs and 1Hz operation you can get below 5e read noise after CDS (measured), which is exactly where my numbers came from. >DALSA's FTF3020 was the first 6 megapixel 35 mm sensor, and its >remarkable image quality made it the de facto standard for digital >still photography. It still provides the highest possible image quality >for its resolution, with lower dark current, lower noise, and higher >dynamic range than any competitor... The OP suggested that we should add "a couple of bits" to get the "full range the sensor is capable of". He didn't say "the full range that today's lower dynamic range sensors are capable of". ;-) SignatureKennedy Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed; A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed. Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying) > Paul Furman writes > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > range the sensor is capable of". He didn't say "the full range that > today's lower dynamic range sensors are capable of". ;-) Um, roughly what's the price on this sensor? I saw it in big wall socket black box cameras for industrial uses presumably with an f-mount, also without price. >> Paul Furman writes >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >socket black box cameras for industrial uses presumably with an >f-mount, also without price. Like most semiconductors, it depends heavily on quantity and spec. I had a price around $500 for one-off when I was evaluating it, but I expect they are a lot less than that in volume. SignatureKennedy Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed; A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed. Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying) > >> Paul Furman writes > >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > had a price around $500 for one-off when I was evaluating it, but I > expect they are a lot less than that in volume. No doubt their development board was about $4000 though. > I considered using this sensor to build a digital back for my old film > cameras some time ago, so I am quite familiar with it. I take it you didn't do it? If you did, please let me know your address, I have a Minolta XD7 I'd like to show you! > The OP suggested that we should add "a couple of bits" to get the "full > range the sensor is capable of". He didn't say "the full range that > today's lower dynamic range sensors are capable of". ;-) But if you take their (Dalsa's) values for the well capacity for linear operation (which I suppose is what we are actually interested in), it's almost half the value that you quote. Again, though, 14 bits aren't enough. >> I considered using this sensor to build a digital back for my old film >> cameras some time ago, so I am quite familiar with it. > >I take it you didn't do it? If you did, please let me know your >address, I have a Minolta XD7 I'd like to show you! No, I didn't. The insurmountable problem turned out to be positioning the sensor exactly at the focal plane of the camera. The sensor sits 2.4mm behind the surface of the 1mm coverglass. So with that mounted flush to the film guides the maximum focus distance of a 50mm lens would be around 1.3m. Even machining out the film gate in the camera wouldn't have provided enough space to permit the shutter to clear the cover glass when fired as well as making the back less interchangeable. There was no practical solution. I was looking specifically at the Olympus OM range of bodies, since Olympus had abandoned their high performance users and headed down dead end 4/3 alley. I gather some other bodies have a bit more space between shutter and film plane, but if I was going to have to change bodies to make something then I might as well get a new dSLR, which I did - Canon. SignatureKennedy Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed; A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed. Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying) >>> I considered using this sensor to build a digital back for my old film >>> cameras some time ago, so I am quite familiar with it. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > shutter and film plane, but if I was going to have to change bodies to > make something then I might as well get a new dSLR, which I did - Canon. I have a solution for you - the Exa 1, 1a or Exa 500 - baby sister of the Exakta, this camera used a drum shutter mounted on a rotating mechanism which also carried the mirror. The mirror flips up, bringing the drum behind it, and a slit in the drum (variable width) then provides the shutter opening, midway between the lens and the film plane. The Exa models have no focal plane in front of their film gate, and could be fitted with your Dalsa DIY CCD. The groundglass screen is a little dim but they accept a nice range of old Zeiss, Meyer, Schacht, Steinheil, Isco and similar German lenses from 20mm to 500mm. The big thing for me would how on earth you would make your own A to D converter, CF card memory and LCD review screen :-) David >I have a solution for you - the Exa 1, 1a or Exa 500 - baby sister of >the Exakta, this camera used a drum shutter mounted on a rotating >mechanism which also carried the mirror. It accepts all of my OM optics and has the same control layout of the OM cameras? As I said, when it came to changing body to get it to work then the objective was lost. >The big thing for me would how on earth you would make your own A to D >converter, CF card memory and LCD review screen :-) You don't make those yourself, you use standard components. My initial selection of ADC, and what I used in the CCD evaluation, was a 16-bit chip from Analog Devices. I didn't intend to put an LCD screen on the device in the first instance, merely dump the data to the CF card for subsequent reading. No doubt, had the development proceeded then I would have wanted to add such bells and whistles in due course, but maybe not - I survived for 30 years without a review display on an SLR, and what you don't miss what you never had. SignatureKennedy Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed; A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed. Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying) >Some people have stated that going beyond 12-bit in a consumer camera >(DSLR or P&S) doesn't make any visible difference, but it must have >some value because I assume it does cost a bit more to go with the >higher quality ADCs. Some people said the same with slide scanners, but every 12-bit slide scanner I have used has been inadequate for almost every job. Can you still buy 12-bit slide scanners? SignatureKennedy Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed; A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed. Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying) >> So now Pentax, Leica and Fuji have gone beyond 12 bit. Can Nikon and >> Canon be far behind. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > David Don't reply to this a.shole. >>> So now Pentax, Leica and Fuji have gone beyond 12 bit. Can Nikon >>> and Canon be far behind. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Don't reply to this a.shole. Your opinion of David is not shared by this poster - I value his contributions and find a lot of interest in what he has to say. >>>> So now Pentax, Leica and Fuji have gone beyond 12 bit. Can Nikon >>>> and Canon be far behind. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Your opinion of David is not shared by this poster - I value his > contributions and find a lot of interest in what he has to say. As do I. I wasn't going to respond at all until the other David did. The big question is: Who the hell is Harris? Signaturejohn mcwilliams > >>>> So now Pentax, Leica and Fuji have gone beyond 12 bit. Can Nikon > >>>> and Canon be far behind. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > -- > john mcwilliams I believe Harris was refering to Rich and not David, telling David not to respond to Rich, not for the rest of us not to respond to David. I don't mind Rich as long as it is not another post about plastic. Scott > So now Pentax, Leica and Fuji have gone beyond 12 bit. Can Nikon and > Canon be far behind. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > · RGB color filter array > · 14 bit A/D converter Pentax has gone well beyond 12 bit, their K10D has a 22 bit A/D converter. > > So now Pentax, Leica and Fuji have gone beyond 12 bit. Can Nikon and > > Canon be far behind. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > > Pentax has gone well beyond 12 bit, their K10D has a 22 bit A/D converter. Yes it does, and if we assue a full well of say 80,000 electrons it would be able to resolve down to 0.02 electrons, I just can't see the need for that. Scott |
Reply to this Message |
 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.