D600 RAW is not much better than A900

Started Sep 27, 2012 | Discussions thread
Michel J
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,009Gear list
Like?
Re: D600 RAW is not much better than A900
In reply to Allan Olesen, Sep 29, 2012

Thanks for all your previous comments Allan.

Allan Olesen wrote:

Michel J wrote:

Allan Olesen wrote:

Btw, a new sensor dedicated to lowlights could have a bits count conducive for lowlights
(not for highlights)

From extreme highlights to deepest lowlights, like this:

EV N°1 : 1 bits (extreme highlights)
EV N°2 : 2 bits
EV N°3 : 4 bits
EV N°4 : 8 bits
EV N°5 : 16 bits
EV N°6 : 32 bits
EV N°7 : 64 bits
EV N°8 : 128 bits
EV N°9 : 256 bits
EV N°10 : 512 bits
EV N°11 : 1024 bits
EV N°12 : 2048 bits
EV N°13 : 4096 bits
EV N°14 : 8192 bits (deepest lowlights)

You are essentially asking for a non-linear A/D-conversion. But what do you achieve by having such fine-grained bit values at low light that one additional photon would increase the pixel value with several 1000? One photon is the lowest possible increase in light quantity. Trying to count photons in quantities of 0.001 is just a waste of bits.

(Modern cameras actually try to count fractions of photons already around ISO 1000. No need to make it even worse.).

No, I don't asking for a non-linear A/D-conversion. But if that can help to achieve better lowlights, why not. The actual design is not conducive for lowlights. Period. As a reprographer, I saw many time the lack of details in lowlights area (from DSLR), comparing to a Dainippon scan of MF slides (or very best 35mm). What tell to me we have a loss of some details here, maybe from this bits count, the linear A/D-conversion or watever: but we can expect more from a camera dedicated to lowlights imho, if so....

In the other hand, I can't imagine that only one innovation can provide more gain. Its a combined development to get that, I guess...

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

Hum....! If «less than 50%», that suggest a big margin to make some progress...

That is less than 1 stop. In your other thread, you were claiming much larger improvements.

I was absolutely wrong to this point. I've corrected my overly optimistic conclusions in the dedicated thread.

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).

Who talk about Bayer, me?

My point was that the most efficient color sensors we have today use Bayer.

It may very well be that other technologies have the potential to be more efficient because the don't need to throw away photons to discern between colors. That was actually covered in my second paragraph.

Why can't we change of paradigm here? The EVF embedded in the DSLR design tell to us that current design would be change to get better optimisation

Moreover, since we know that the EVF can show things indistinguishable in OVF (in lowlights) there will be more demand to justify R&D innovations in this direction..

Here, the sensor don't percieve colours (of course) but frequencies, and they can sort too according to the penetration in the substrate what balancing well the colours according to the size of sensors area dedicated to. A very clever design:

Gain expected: about a half stop and more(?)

But as long as these sensors have not yet proven that ability, I will assume that they have the same problem.

Have already patents for new design, without Bayer matrix.

But we have also Foveon and Sony version of the Foveon sensor.

I don't know enough about the Foveon sensor. I assume that it also has the same disadvantage of having to throw photons away to discern between colors, or some other similar disadvantage. Otherwise I would have expected it to prove better than a normal sensor with Bayer filter years ago.

Are you pessimist? I notice that you don't react about the idea of Iliah Borg?

Kind Regards,

-- hide signature --

Michel J

 Michel J's gear list:Michel J's gear list
Sony SLT-A77 Sony SLT-A37 Konica Minolta Maxxum 7D Sony DT 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 SAM +5 more
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