Bet you didn't see this...

Started Feb 14, 2006 | Discussions
Thom Hogan
Forum ProPosts: 13,659
Like?
Bet you didn't see this...
Feb 14, 2006

In a recently posted interview with Shibazaki-san, the following little gem was exposed:

"I guess that it's now safe to reveal that the D1 image sensor, with specifications noting a pixel count of 2.7-million pixels, actually had a pixel count of 10.8-million pixels. The technical reason for an actual pixel count four times greater than that indicated publicly lies in the need to achieve high sensitivity and a good signal-to-noise ratio. Unlike current cameras, for which final pixel counts account for individual pixels, we had to include multiple pixels in each pixel unit with the D1."

This finally gives credence to something that a number of us had speculated on very early on in the Nikon DSLR tenure, first with the D1 and then again with the D1x: that Nikon was using some sort of sub-pixel photosite technology. I'm sure that if you go back and look at some of the early D1 threads you'll see some of that speculation, as it was discovered that there were multiple microlenses over a single photosite.

Another gem that acknowledges what we've seen in results: "The new low pass filter [of the D200] retains image sharpness, which tends to be sacrificed with the D100."

Full interview at http://nikonimaging.com/global/technology/scene/12/index_02.htm

-- hide signature --

Thom Hogan
author, Nikon Field Guide & Nikon Flash Guide
editor, Nikon DSLR Report
author, Complete Guides: D50, D70, D100, D1 series, D2h, D2x, S2 Pro
http://www.bythom.com

Mel
Mel
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,716
Like?
Re: Bet you didn't see this...
In reply to Thom Hogan, Feb 14, 2006

Good share!
--
Mel

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
srogouski
Senior MemberPosts: 1,626
Like?
Searched some old threads.
In reply to Thom Hogan, Feb 14, 2006
-- hide signature --
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Jerome Muffat
Regular MemberPosts: 248
Like?
"Only the D2X could inspire me to attempt this photo."
In reply to Thom Hogan, Feb 14, 2006

This article is full of interesting words. Of course, the tech you point out is definitely interesting, but what I take out of this article is how much the people at Nikon care about the creative side of photography.

I feel understood
--
http://www.webphotomag.com

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Dave Chambers
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,700
Like?
Re: Bet you didn't see this...
In reply to Mel, Feb 14, 2006

Thanks Thom, what a fascinating read, particularly about the D1 pixel count. I wonder how many years it's going to take him to come clean and admit that my D2H really has 24 MP
--
Dave (Sgt. Pepper), Epsom, England.
http://www.pbase.com/davecq

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
jeminijoseph
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,948Gear list
Like?
Thanks Thom..
In reply to Thom Hogan, Feb 14, 2006

Great to know the technology. I've tried D200 in a local store and shot some pictures in all ISO. All I can say it's much better than my D2X in noise for indoor shots. I don't know how much it will be for out door shots.

Anyway I'm not going to give up on my D2X

Thom, do you have any clue that Nikon will release a 400/5.6 VR lens or AF-S version of 80-400 VR? I desperately need a 400/5.6 AF-S VR...

If you have any inside information

-- hide signature --
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
rgolub
Senior MemberPosts: 2,053Gear list
Like?
Fascinating Captain
In reply to Thom Hogan, Feb 14, 2006

Very interesting although the questions are so softball to be pretty amusing at times. "Digital Expression. That sounds exciting."

But this caught my eye:

Another gem that acknowledges what we've seen in results: "The new
low pass filter [of the D200] retains image sharpness, which tends
to be sacrificed with the D100."

Is this why certain converters (Raw Shooter in my experience) can get much more information / much sharper images out of the D100 than some other converters? Or is that some other magic?

-- hide signature --
 rgolub's gear list:rgolub's gear list
Nikon D800 Nikon D4 Nikon D700 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-70mm f/2.8 ED-IF Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D ED-IF +12 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
jeminijoseph
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,948Gear list
Like?
Did you guys read this??
In reply to Thom Hogan, Feb 14, 2006

"think that developments regarding pixel count have just about reached their limits"

This is what I was thinking about MP too. If a FF sensor has the same resolution as D2X, it's going to be a 28MP camera!!. I bet current lenses won't be able to handle that..

-- hide signature --
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Adam Kmiec
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,315
Like?
thom, maybe dumb question
In reply to Thom Hogan, Feb 14, 2006

but if that multi layer approach worked so well why did they abandon it?
--
Patiently awaiting the first Nikon FF DSLR, while enjoying my current gear.
http://www.kmiecphotography.com
http://kmiecmonster.blogspot.com

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
tbosley
Contributing MemberPosts: 834
Like?
Re: Two brief points:
In reply to Thom Hogan, Feb 14, 2006

I actually enjoyed the read.

Mr. Shibazaki

I think that developments regarding pixel count have just about
reached their limits, so new technology should focus on other aspects,
such as improvements in tone characteristics, speed, and tolerance for
higher sensitivities. At the same time, high pixel counts can be
maintained with current technology.

Can someone say - "About freaking time!!!"

and

So, I guess that I would like to apply the know-how I've acquired with
my years of experience with video and movies to still cameras so that
one day digital imaging will have reached the level where a still image is
able to express the same level of emotion that a movie can.

Its always been the other way around for me. I get too distracted while watching movies from all the technical limitations. Grain, bad lighting, fuzziness, flare, OOF, and bad bokeh just to name a few. Maybe I need one of those $100,000 high definition 50" units with theater surround sound to change my mind?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
tonywh
Contributing MemberPosts: 786
Like?
Re: excelent
In reply to tbosley, Feb 14, 2006

thanks for the spot,

tony

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Kenn Hwang
Senior MemberPosts: 1,231
Like?
So the D1x really had 10.8MP as well?
In reply to Thom Hogan, Feb 14, 2006

Wow, interesting find!

Too bad he doesn't go into any more detail about what kind of pixels these are! It must have all been combined in hardware prior to output, or else the D1 would have needed 1) a much larger buffer, and 2) would have been obvious in RAW output.

And as mentioned in the title, were these discrete pixels, it would have given the "10MP output mode" of the D1x some real bite

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Kevin P Kitching
Senior MemberPosts: 2,231Gear list
Like?
Re: Bet you didn't see this...
In reply to Thom Hogan, Feb 14, 2006

Hi Thom,

How bizarre - I was reading the article only yesterday after following a thread from this forum which was totally unrelated.

The stuff about the sensors in the D2h make interesting reading too and explain why the CCD wasn't likely in the D2. Wonder why Nikon then went back to a CCD from Sony in the D200?

The Nikon Imaging site has some wonderful reading!

-- hide signature --

Kevin P Kitching

 Kevin P Kitching's gear list:Kevin P Kitching's gear list
Nikon Coolpix P7100 Fujifilm FinePix S2500HD Fujifilm X20 Nikon D2Hs Nikon D2Xs +24 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Lance O
Contributing MemberPosts: 936
Like?
Re: thom, maybe dumb question
In reply to Adam Kmiec, Feb 14, 2006

I am no Thom But I would think if they had kept that design then in order to get a 6 MP sensor it would really have to be 24MP. A 10 MP would be 40 MP

Just guessing.

-- hide signature --

Lance O

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Adam Kmiec
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,315
Like?
sounds reasonable
In reply to Lance O, Feb 14, 2006

im surprised more folks havent adopted the fuji model for sensors to gain better DR.
--
Patiently awaiting the first Nikon FF DSLR, while enjoying my current gear.
http://www.kmiecphotography.com
http://kmiecmonster.blogspot.com

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
vbd70
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,783Gear list
Like?
Hey Jemini,
In reply to jeminijoseph, Feb 14, 2006

...that would be very nice to have - in the meantime, sacrificing VR, you can use a TC14 on a 300mm AF-s f4; IQ stays basically the same, though with no VR the result is a great 420mm lens! But, I guess you already knew that best regards,

Vieri
--
equipment in profile
check out my pbase gallery on:
http://www.pbase.com/vieripbase

 vbd70's gear list:vbd70's gear list
Nikon Coolpix P7700 Leica M-Monochrom Pentax 645D Pentax K-3 Pentax 645Z
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Pradipta Dutta
Veteran MemberPosts: 9,766Gear list
Like?
That is very interesting
In reply to Thom Hogan, Feb 14, 2006

Thanks for sharing.

-- hide signature --

Speed is significant and interesting but accuracy is downright fascinating
http://www.pbase.com/pradipta

 Pradipta Dutta's gear list:Pradipta Dutta's gear list
Nikon D800 Nikon D3 Nikon D2X Nikon D3200 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED +5 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Norwen
Senior MemberPosts: 2,648
Like?
And why not?
In reply to jeminijoseph, Feb 14, 2006

jeminijoseph wrote:

"think that developments regarding pixel count have just about
reached their limits"

This is what I was thinking about MP too. If a FF sensor has the
same resolution as D2X, it's going to be a 28MP camera!!. I bet
current lenses won't be able to handle that..

They will handle exactly as they handle the D2X. Why? Because think about it, it's all about pixel size and the pixels will stay the same size.

Basically, all you're doing is adding pixels around the D2X sensor in order to get a Full Frame and the resolution stays the same in the 1.5 crop area.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Mark den Hartog
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,607
Like?
wow that was funny (NT)
In reply to srogouski, Feb 14, 2006

no text

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Califlefty
Regular MemberPosts: 494
Like?
Re: Fascinating Captain
In reply to rgolub, Feb 14, 2006

I'm interested in your findings regarding RAW conversion and the D100. I've always felt my D100 images lacked a certain sharpness, I'm using CS. Would you mind posting some additional info regarding this issue and which converter has given the best result?

thanks.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads