Jogger: Why is colour information so important in automotive applications? Wouldnt they just go monochrome and gain the efficiency of not having the colour filters.
color is a great discriminator in pattern recognition. Remember that some pattern matching algorithm must identify something for this to be useful, like road, obstacles on it, trees, signs etc. Much easier with color information available. Moreover, it almost never is as black as -9EV in a real night. Not even in a starry moonless night.
DPR could have done a much better job when reporting this.
Let me fill in the missing facts:
1. 0.005 lux is -9 EV (almost exactly). The scene is pitch black dark indeed.
2. However, to judge the sensor, an EV figure w/o aperture and exposure time is meaningless.
3. According to Sony, it is F1.4, 1/60s exposure. -9 EV then requires ISO 6,000,000 to expose correctly. I.e., the image shown is ISO 6m.
4. That's 3.9 stop beyond e.g., the A7s highest iso level of 410k. But the image quality shown by Sony for a tiny 400x300 pixel image is terrible. While the A7s is still ok at 410k.
Therefore, no conclusion that this chip would be more sensitive than other sensors can be drawn from matrerial provided. Just marketing non info.
And btw, at quantum efficiencies already as high as 65% and read noise as low as 0.4 e- (A7s) rest assured that no miracles are left in this field if you cannot break the laws of nature.
falconeyes: Still largely useless tool. Ok for noise and corner performance. Nothing else.E.g., uses F5.6 70mm eq. for RX100m3 and F4 50mm eq. fir LX100. Can't be compared. E.g., F5.6 is F15.4 eq. and deep into softness by diffraction territory.
As I said, it is ok for noise and corner performance comparisons. And you seem to agree. I further agree it is useful for comparing JPG engines. Although this again is much profile dependent, esp. when it comes to color rendition.
Problem is most people use your studio comparison tool for doing sharpness comparisons which you seem to agree, isn't its primary reason to exist.
Still largely useless tool. Ok for noise and corner performance. Nothing else.E.g., uses F5.6 70mm eq. for RX100m3 and F4 50mm eq. fir LX100. Can't be compared. E.g., F5.6 is F15.4 eq. and deep into softness by diffraction territory.
Joe Ogiba: "Director Featured in Canon Ad Says He Used Sony, Tells Canon to Get ‘Its Facts Right’"http://petapixel.com/2014/10/10/director-featured-canon-ad-says-used-sony-tells-canon-get-facts-right/
It looks like Canon opened a can of worms with this ad campaign.
@Joe, thanks for bringing this up again. I did twice further down, search for my comments. The real director is Fede Alvarez.
Canon can't get away with stealing Fede's life for following reasons:- Canon abused 3D model Fede offers for download.- The fictional movie does look like Fede's Panic Attack.- Canon hired an actor looking like Fede (look close to see isn't him)- Canon imprints "screen images simulated" which makes no sense with a fiction, pretenting its documentary- Canon does NOT show a disclaimer at movie end that story and persons depicted are purely fictional- Canon copies IPad style success story which are all real- Eventually, since when can ads about a company be purely fictional? That's against all an ad is about and against all common sense.
Btw, The Falk thanked by Petapixel is me;)
Catalin Stavaru: It seems that the Canon campaign had its desired effect. This article seems to have the largest number of comments in dpreview's history :)
That's true, it has really negatively impacted my sympathy for Canon. But so did Masaya Maeda when insisting Canon has or uses the best sensors available.OTOH, there are things like dual pixel AF which may eventually shape the future of high end photography, once developed to its full potential. Canon wouldn't have needed this stunt.
I am actually emberassed that nobody here jumps on the real cover story hidden behind everybodies disappointment:
That Canon *FAKED* the indie film maker success story in their campaign, stealing the story and work of Fede Alvarez. Who actually used a Sony and already complained with Canon.
Search for my comments further down here for details.
falconeyes: BREAKING NEWS:
I think this update got lost further down in the comment replies: One of the 4 success stories, that of short movie "Panic Attack" by Fede Alvarez, was not shot on Canon but Sony!!!!
Now, Fede Alvarez complains to Canon on http://youtu.be/5_LFmQ6eH1I in the comments section.
Can it get worse? Sure, because At Canon We See Impossible ...
Seriously.On youtube, it is easy enough to verify it is the same Fede Alvarez making the comment (youtube name fedalvar) who uploaded the multi million views movie Panic Attack. It's also the same robots Canon shows in the Ad which Fede shows and offers as 3D model for free download. So, Canon could obviously produce its ad video w/o ever contacting Fede. In other words, pure fiction.
SDPharm: In the back room of Canon headquarters...
Wow, in two days we generated more than 1400 comments on our new marketing campaign on DPR alone. Great job, guys.
Sounds like the back room of Exxon headquarters ...
after the Valdez affair. Great job, captain.
Average User: Maybe the question should be "What is the minimum sensor size you consider appropriate for the primary camera of an enthusiast? Followed by what is the minimum sensor size you consider useable as a secondary device or for special situations for an enthusiast? My answers are: APS-C for the first question, and "All of the above" for the second question.
Since you ask, no, there are no primary and secondary images.
But there are images I cannot take with my primary camera (because I didn't bring it) and images I cannot take with my secondary camera (missing bokeh, too dark, too much action, too far away). And then there are images I cannot yet take at all. And then there are images where it doesn't matter at all. Therefore, the answer always is about a compromise.
So, in a world most if not all enthusiasts own two or more cameras, the compromise is a different one and the question needed be asked more specifically.
Esp. if one option reads "FF *or nothing*".
biza43: I think that a message that aims to inspire and challenge people to boost their creativity in imaging, is lost amongst the techno nerds and equipment focused inhabitants of Dpreview...
Have people actually seen the work that is featured in the microsite? Quite inspiring, but that's me, I much prefer to see the work of other photographers and imagers, than discussing frustrations and blaming equipment for my failures...
I do not know what is going on at the executive level. Not with statements like the following (from the interview linked in the article):Q: "So in your opinion your sensors are currently the best on the market?" A: "Yes"
billorg: So what 3 NEW cameras are at the forefront of innovation right now - among all manufacturers?
NX1, LX100, A7s
Donnie G: Is it possible that more DPR people have expressed a strong opinion about Canon's new marketing campaign today than have expressed any interest at all in a weeks worth of non-Canon product related Photokina news? Yeah Baby! This is how the big boys, (Apple, Canon, Google, H-P), generate buzz in the marketplace that gets people to constantly say their name over and over again while lesser players quietly wither and die.
@Donnie G,like in "rather bad press than no press"?
Well, while true for a no name company, disaster press actually DAMAGES the value of a brand, even for Costco shoppers.
This is what has happened for Canon here: Damage. Average Joe may not have noticed the ad campaign, but the shop assistants consulting him probably did.
Like in "the last word of a sinking ship".
Canon tried a stunt imitating Apple Mac and iPad marketing.
They just forgot that Apple did indeed push new product categories to the mass market and can credibly share success stories from people using it. Canon did not, making the entire campaign laughed at.
falconeyes: 10 years using the same silicon
Canon using the same 500nm Fab from EOS 5D (2005) to EOS 5DmkIII and probably still today eventually shows its ugly head: if it cannot wow with products, than maybe they can divert attention.
I fear that this emerging campaign is just a sign that no new silicon tech is on the horizon.
Canon could go fabless. However, according to their business year 2013 report, their stragegy is to insource rather than outsource. Moreover, their 2013 spendings on "constructions in progress" incl. plant and equipment has been 700 million USD, not enough for a multi billion fab.Source: http://www.canon.com/ir/annual/2013/report2013.pdf
tkbslc: The vast majority of chromebooks are way underpowered for photoshop as well as having small and low resolution screens. So I'm not sure the user experience will be great.
However, if more high end apps come to chrome, I suspect more high end hardware will, too.
I don't ignore what can be done browser-side in Flash or Java.
Pixlr editor may look like PS, with masks, layers, brushes, levels etc. But you severely underestimate the complexity of PS when it comes to more demanding tasks like gigapixel images, hundreds of layers, history brushing, content aware fills, customized brushes, smart selection tools, video timeline editing, 3D rendering, stitching, scripting, plugins, smart objects, ... etc. Stuff which typically needs multithreading, assembly coding, custom memory management or GPU acceleration to perform. And still artists complain PS to not be responsive enough with large brushes etc.
BTW, Flash isn't a pure web app, like Java it's just another programming environment with hardware and OS abstraction.
And I accept a lesser PS-lookalike can be delivered in Java, C# or Flash. Just not a PS replacement. Not yet (C# excluded). And it will be expensive to make when it becomes feasible.
At Canon, we see impossible: a new fab!
10 years using the same silicon
This discussion seems to never stop ;)
Flash is no suitable environment for complex OO software like PS. It is written in C++ for a reason. Java would be powerful enough but early attempts to port complex software to the Java VM have failed too.
Flash is currently phased out from the web, replaced by HTML5. Porting PS to HTML5 would yield a true cloud solution but would be an even bigger task, one I consider unfeasible.
IMHO, any attempt to port PS to Flash or HTML5 could kill Adobe if they try hard enough. Fortunately, they have made it pretty clear that Streaming PS runs the same code as stock PS.