D600 RAW is not much better than A900

Started Sep 27, 2012 | Discussions thread
Allan Olesen
Senior MemberPosts: 2,256
Like?
Re: D600 RAW is not much better than A900
In reply to Michel J, Sep 29, 2012

Michel J wrote:

In the other hand, do nocturnal animals, see random noise at night? I guess: no.

I know that the human brain does a lot of tricks to compensate for the flaws in our vision. I would assume the same happens for those nocturnal animals.

  • Backlit sensor to loose a minimum of photons;

Modern sensors lose less than half of the photons. So not much more to gain there.

  • innovative design of optics that would multiplying the ambient light optically (such as a converging system what can align multiple circles of images through a prism)

Sounds like a complicated way of achieving the same as you would achieve with a larger aperture.

  • no more infrared filter to capture more (surnumerary) photons;

  • an in-camera algorithm/processing that would restore infrared images, and interpret their colours to render them such as human eyes perceive it normally;

With the current technology, the camera can only know that those photons were infrared if it blocks them for some pixels and allows them for other pixels - just like the bayer filter we have today to make color photos. This blocking results in a loss of photons, so you may not gain a net benefit.

On the other hand, if someone invents a sensor which can count all photons and at the same time discern between their wavelengths without blocking some of them in a bayer filter, we would take a step forward in sensitivity. I don't even know if that is theoretically possible (there are some laws of physics which say that you cannot theoretically measure all properties for some systems precisely at the same time).

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow