Photato

Photato

Lives in United States United States
Joined on Jul 22, 2008

Comments

Total: 320, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Photato: About Sensor Size.
Strictly speaking Sensor Size should not be a factor in Noise, because lenses can concentrate the same light (photons) in a large or small area.
So much so that you can start a fire concentrating Photons with a magnifying glass in a small area.

What happens is that normally smaller sensors have a higher Density of pixels making it less efficient in photon collection.

For instance. A Small Sensor filled with 8 Micron Pixels should be able to collect the same amount of Photons than a Bigger Sensor filled with 8 Micron pixels. The difference is that the Bigger Sensor would have higher resolution.

An 8 micron pixel on a Small Sensor would have the same Well Capacity than an 8 micron pixel on a Big Sensor.
Don't you think?

Direct link | Posted on Apr 28, 2015 at 01:53 UTC
In reply to:

Photato: It is hard not to question DxOMark objectivity when they release these results Half a Year after their iPhone6+ analysis even though both Phones debuted almost at the same time last year.

@Peiasdf
By "Both Phones" I was referring to iPhone6+ and Note4.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 28, 2015 at 01:50 UTC
In reply to:

Photato: It is hard not to question DxOMark objectivity when they release these results Half a Year after their iPhone6+ analysis even though both Phones debuted almost at the same time last year.

Release dates:
iPhone6 September 2014
Note4 October 2014

DxO Mark Tests:
iPhone6 September 2014
Note4 April 2015

(7 Months Late !)
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/3108261481/dxomark-mobile-tests-iphone-6-plus

Direct link | Posted on Apr 27, 2015 at 20:29 UTC

It is hard not to question DxOMark objectivity when they release these results Half a Year after their iPhone6+ analysis even though both Phones debuted almost at the same time last year.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 27, 2015 at 20:16 UTC as 7th comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

Photato: About Sensor Size.
Strictly speaking Sensor Size should not be a factor in Noise, because lenses can concentrate the same light (photons) in a large or small area.
So much so that you can start a fire concentrating Photons with a magnifying glass in a small area.

What happens is that normally smaller sensors have a higher Density of pixels making it less efficient in photon collection.

For instance. A Small Sensor filled with 8 Micron Pixels should be able to collect the same amount of Photons than a Bigger Sensor filled with 8 Micron pixels. The difference is that the Bigger Sensor would have higher resolution.

@Richard. Yes this subject is really complicated given the multiple factors at play.
Make sure you mention in Part 2 the effect of Read-Out Speed because it is rarely mentioned.
Oh and Pixell Well Vignetting but that is Part1 :)

Direct link | Posted on Apr 27, 2015 at 19:32 UTC
In reply to:

Photato: About Sensor Size.
Strictly speaking Sensor Size should not be a factor in Noise, because lenses can concentrate the same light (photons) in a large or small area.
So much so that you can start a fire concentrating Photons with a magnifying glass in a small area.

What happens is that normally smaller sensors have a higher Density of pixels making it less efficient in photon collection.

For instance. A Small Sensor filled with 8 Micron Pixels should be able to collect the same amount of Photons than a Bigger Sensor filled with 8 Micron pixels. The difference is that the Bigger Sensor would have higher resolution.

@Richard, Agree but I was not talking about matching resolutions with Smaller Pixels.
The Smaller Sensor with Same Pixel Size would have same Sensitivity as the Larger Sensor so no need to reduce exposure.
The only difference would be the Final Image RESOLUTION.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 27, 2015 at 19:08 UTC

About Sensor Size.
Strictly speaking Sensor Size should not be a factor in Noise, because lenses can concentrate the same light (photons) in a large or small area.
So much so that you can start a fire concentrating Photons with a magnifying glass in a small area.

What happens is that normally smaller sensors have a higher Density of pixels making it less efficient in photon collection.

For instance. A Small Sensor filled with 8 Micron Pixels should be able to collect the same amount of Photons than a Bigger Sensor filled with 8 Micron pixels. The difference is that the Bigger Sensor would have higher resolution.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 27, 2015 at 18:45 UTC as 70th comment | 12 replies
On Interview: Canon's Chuck Westfall on the new XC10 article (327 comments in total)
In reply to:

Mike FL: So this $2500 camera is mainly targeting for 4K users, and:

1. it doesn't record DCI 4K (4,096x2,160), just UHD (3,840x2,160).

2. UHD is recoded @27.3mm while the lens zooms out to 24mm.

3. F 5.6 while zooming in.

4. Still-photography up to 2.8 fps performance

5. What else?

"UHD is recoded @27.3mm while the lens zooms out to 24mm"
Probably because the sensor is 4:3 so after the 16:9 crop for video that is what you are left with.
Most Cameras for Drones have very wide angle lenses, even fish eye to capture a large area without flying too high.
This XC10 4:3 sensor makes no sense in this camera as it also waste 25% of precious sensor area when shooting video.
Sony sells a full frame camera that does 4K, capture Still in Raw, you can change lenses is above and beyond in DR and low light performance and cost the same $2,500. It is called the A7S
Sony has excellent video samples of this including Drone mounted videos.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 25, 2015 at 16:55 UTC
On Interview: Canon's Chuck Westfall on the new XC10 article (327 comments in total)
In reply to:

RRJackson: Lousy 8-bit codec. Might as well buy a 4K cell phone.

haha, no joke
Actually, it would be interesting to compare a 1080P Down-sampled video from the XC10 and a cell phone. I wouldn't be surprised if the quality gap is not much.
My LG G2 4Kvideo blows my EOS M out of the water in resolution and DR.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 24, 2015 at 18:30 UTC
On Interview: Canon's Chuck Westfall on the new XC10 article (327 comments in total)
In reply to:

Photato: Wow, 4:3 Aspect Ratio Sensor ?!
Where is the logic on that?

AFAIK, Canon made this Sensor in-house specifically for this camera.
I would understand a 4:3 sensor if it was off the shelf from somebody else to save on cost but is not.
I guess you are being sarcastic. :)

Direct link | Posted on Apr 24, 2015 at 18:12 UTC
On Interview: Canon's Chuck Westfall on the new XC10 article (327 comments in total)
In reply to:

Photato: Wow, 4:3 Aspect Ratio Sensor ?!
Where is the logic on that?

Because of this, there is a waste of 25% sensor surface when shooting video.
The high-end Canon EOS Cinema cameras such as C100 C500 all have 16:9 Sensors.
Given that the XC10 is a Hybrid a 3:2 Sensor would have been the logical thing to do.
It blows....

Direct link | Posted on Apr 24, 2015 at 17:08 UTC
On Interview: Canon's Chuck Westfall on the new XC10 article (327 comments in total)

Wow, 4:3 Aspect Ratio Sensor ?!
Where is the logic on that?

Direct link | Posted on Apr 24, 2015 at 15:09 UTC as 48th comment | 4 replies
On Interview: Canon's Chuck Westfall on the new XC10 article (327 comments in total)
In reply to:

Photato: Excellent Questions made here.
About the answer for the lack of Raw for Still is just utter complete BS and outright lie.
The Raw function is one of the most technacally easier to implement since all cameras capture in Raw before saving to JPEG.
Even my cellphone can do Raw and the cheapest of powershots with a firmware hack.
He could have answered that honestly and say it was Canon's Business decision not to give this $2500 camera Raw.

DIGIC DV can record Raw video. so...
Also is not the first time Canon PR give silly excuses for a deliberately missing feature.
C'mon rrccad, you should know better how Corporate PR works.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 23, 2015 at 23:11 UTC
On Interview: Canon's Chuck Westfall on the new XC10 article (327 comments in total)
In reply to:

nunatak: "It’s easy enough to create a jpeg, but creating raw files would have required some different programming on the processor, which we decided was not a cost effective option. "

too bad. how long before the XC10 Mark II will address this deal breaker?

rrccad, are you really Mr Westfall ? lol
If so, you should know that DIGIC DV is capable to record Raw.
So Canon is selling this Professional grade XC10 Camera that is supposedly to be equally capable of Stills and Video and charge $2,500 for it. At least it should be able to capture Stills in Raw format. otherwise it is basically a Camcorder with a fixed lens. Hybrid......lol

Direct link | Posted on Apr 23, 2015 at 23:03 UTC
On Sony Alpha 7S Review preview (478 comments in total)
In reply to:

alpha604: Regarding the DR & RAW comparison at the end of the review... whille the compressed raw files warrant review, the DPReview test is also flawed by not using the base ISO values for each CMOS sensor.

The higher exposure latitude or dynamic range possible will be available while utilizing the image sensors at their native base setting. For the A7R it is somewhere between 100-160, while the A7S is 3200. If you aren't flexing the A7S at 3200 you are crippling the range it will be able to reproduce. In the interest of squeezing the most in terms of DR from these cameras proper respect is also needed for how the components are designed.

We often assume that the lowest ISO (native) is best, and it generally is. However the test images were shot at ISO100. You wouldn't seriously test cameras for comparison via extended ISO settings would you? Use the accurate native ISO of the image sensors or else you are comparing apples to oranges.

Richard, Rishi, as I understand Baseline ISO or Native ISO is the Sensitivity (according to the Standards) that passively collect Photons.No gain, No Amplification.
Given the larger than average size of 7S pixels and its relatively new technology, it is logical to assume that the 7S Baseline ISO has to be higher than the average ISO100 sensor which features smaller pixels.
I don't pretend to have the correct answer but my post needs to be understood as a loose idea, hence I said "believe".
The issue of ISO is not a trivial one and it seems that when it comes to the 7S there are some questions lingering. Would be nice to have access to Sony technical data on this sensor.
I don't know the exact methods delineated by the ISO Standard to determined ISO properly but one that reflects efficient photon collection is a good start although not strictly scientific.
Apparently the 7S sensor is using unique sensor technology that makes the 7S behave in a not so conventional fashion. A mystery.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 23, 2015 at 22:10 UTC
On Interview: Canon's Chuck Westfall on the new XC10 article (327 comments in total)
In reply to:

nunatak: "It’s easy enough to create a jpeg, but creating raw files would have required some different programming on the processor, which we decided was not a cost effective option. "

too bad. how long before the XC10 Mark II will address this deal breaker?

The raw data is held in the RAM buffer and processed by ASIC chips to produce the JPEG file and other metadata.
All it takes is really minimal processing like lossless compression, etc. and then dump the data onto the memory card.
My point is...
Canon choose to deliberately exclude Raw Stills from the set of features of this camera.
Is not a technical limitation as Mr Westfall seems to imply.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 23, 2015 at 21:09 UTC
On Yongnuo creates near-clone of Canon EF 35mm f/2 article (165 comments in total)
In reply to:

Photato: Isn't this lens design protected by patents and such?
If the IQ is the same, it would be a great buy.

Right, but then Amazon and eBay would be ordered to cease the sell of the product.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 23, 2015 at 21:00 UTC
On Yongnuo creates near-clone of Canon EF 35mm f/2 article (165 comments in total)

Isn't this lens design protected by patents and such?
If the IQ is the same, it would be a great buy.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 23, 2015 at 20:50 UTC as 43rd comment | 8 replies
On Interview: Canon's Chuck Westfall on the new XC10 article (327 comments in total)
In reply to:

EOSHD: By "Cost reasons" he actually means maintaining enormous margins. There's absolutely no reason Canon can't do a F2.8 constant zoom of at least RX10 quality along with 4K with a built in EVF like the FZ1000 for $1500 more than either of them.

Or not reinvent the wheel and make a 12MP APS-C sensor for their mirrorless format.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 23, 2015 at 20:45 UTC
On Interview: Canon's Chuck Westfall on the new XC10 article (327 comments in total)
In reply to:

ZeneticX: " It’s important to remember that part of the story of this camera is to reduce the size, weight, and cost. With those goals in mind, the idea of having a fixed lens is really quite complimentary to the goals of the camera, while at the same time providing the most versatile focal length range possible. A fixed lens solution really makes that possible. Also, other factors such as keeping the sensor clean in the field were important as well. "

canon once again denying the importance of mirrorless cameras. Tell me again how much is the size and weight difference between this and the a7S (FF), NX1 (APS-C) or GH4 (m4/3)? let's not forget the price as well.

since this is not an ILC the argument that canon have a strong lens line up is nullified. What's the point and target market of this camera really?

...or Canon's very own mirrorless, M series.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 23, 2015 at 20:30 UTC
Total: 320, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »