fireplace33

fireplace33

Lives in Austria Upper Austria, Austria
Joined on Nov 28, 2007

Comments

Total: 172, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

breivogel: It appears that the active area, number, and pitch of the pixels remains the same as before. The peripheral circuitry that previously sat around the pixel array is moved underneath it on a separate layer. The big advantage lies in the fact that the fabrication processes for the photo sensor and the logic layer can be individually optimized. This probably results in the ability to run the logic at much faster speeds (hence the ability to do much higher frame rates as well as 4K). I might have a concern about possible thermal issues, as the underlying circuitry might heat the sensor array unevenly. OTOH, charge injection from the logic could not influence the photosites.

It is really quite an amazing technology, actually bonding two chips on top one another and interconnecting them - all with acceptable yield for a consumer device and the potential noise sensitivity for photosensors.

That is how I understand it too

Direct link | Posted on Jun 11, 2015 at 21:10 UTC
In reply to:

fireplace33: On a technical note,...
At first, I got the impression here that the active area of each individual pixel had somehow become bigger with this new stacked sensor technology, and the sensor could thus gather more light.
But looking closer at the stacked sensor design, the physical size of the array of all the light sensitive pixels is just the same as before.
The active area of the pixels are the same size and the gap between the pixels is also the same.
What becomes smaller is “only” the size of the total chip package (photo sensitive part + logic circuitry part) , since with the new design the logic circuits are placed underneath the photo pixels instead of next to the pixel array.
This obviously brings space advantages to a camera designer and allows more complex circuitry advantages, but not a light gathering advantage, or did I miss something?

Well the diagram in your link sort of proves the point I was making. The active optical sensor size (called "pixel section" in that link) is the same in old and the new design. We both already agreed on that.
And the the area maked as "circuit section" in that link is outide the optical part of the 1" chip pixel area in the old design and so it makes the total package size in old design larger.
The new design puts that "circuit section" underneath the pixel section which is very clever and reduces the total package size but does not increase the light gathering capability of the important "pixel section" by 10% or 30%.
There may be some small improvement in pixel area by connecting the pixels vertically to the circuitry below but so far I have seen no reports on how many % increase that might give. If anyone has any facts here it would be interesting to hear from you.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 11, 2015 at 20:54 UTC
In reply to:

fireplace33: On a technical note,...
At first, I got the impression here that the active area of each individual pixel had somehow become bigger with this new stacked sensor technology, and the sensor could thus gather more light.
But looking closer at the stacked sensor design, the physical size of the array of all the light sensitive pixels is just the same as before.
The active area of the pixels are the same size and the gap between the pixels is also the same.
What becomes smaller is “only” the size of the total chip package (photo sensitive part + logic circuitry part) , since with the new design the logic circuits are placed underneath the photo pixels instead of next to the pixel array.
This obviously brings space advantages to a camera designer and allows more complex circuitry advantages, but not a light gathering advantage, or did I miss something?

I appreciate your multilayer motherboard idea, that is also what I saw in internet eg. like here

http://electroiq.com/insights-from-leading-edge/2013/12/iftle-172-sony-tsv-stacked-cmos-image-sensors-finally-arrive-in-2013/

However, what we need is someone to tell us two "self confessed technical noobs" what the "active area" is of a photosensitive pixel in the previous design and the "active area" of that same pixel in the stacked design.
I somehow doubt that it will be anywhere near 30% bigger in the new stacked sensor.
Where is that info , anybody?

Direct link | Posted on Jun 11, 2015 at 17:56 UTC
In reply to:

fireplace33: On a technical note,...
At first, I got the impression here that the active area of each individual pixel had somehow become bigger with this new stacked sensor technology, and the sensor could thus gather more light.
But looking closer at the stacked sensor design, the physical size of the array of all the light sensitive pixels is just the same as before.
The active area of the pixels are the same size and the gap between the pixels is also the same.
What becomes smaller is “only” the size of the total chip package (photo sensitive part + logic circuitry part) , since with the new design the logic circuits are placed underneath the photo pixels instead of next to the pixel array.
This obviously brings space advantages to a camera designer and allows more complex circuitry advantages, but not a light gathering advantage, or did I miss something?

@nukunukoo
Well I said above that the pixel array sensor size was exactly the same, so we certainly agree there.
What I don't see is any way that a pixel array (light sensor) that is the same size as before has somehow a "bigger surface area for usable light"
If you look at the diagrams in internet, of the stacked sensor then the logic circuitry that was placed "next to" the light sensitive pixel array in the old design is now placed underneath the light sensitive pixel array.
This makes the physical package size of the "thing" that camera designers have to fit into a camera smaller, but doesn't gather more light? it is still a 1" sensor.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 11, 2015 at 14:52 UTC

On a technical note,...
At first, I got the impression here that the active area of each individual pixel had somehow become bigger with this new stacked sensor technology, and the sensor could thus gather more light.
But looking closer at the stacked sensor design, the physical size of the array of all the light sensitive pixels is just the same as before.
The active area of the pixels are the same size and the gap between the pixels is also the same.
What becomes smaller is “only” the size of the total chip package (photo sensitive part + logic circuitry part) , since with the new design the logic circuits are placed underneath the photo pixels instead of next to the pixel array.
This obviously brings space advantages to a camera designer and allows more complex circuitry advantages, but not a light gathering advantage, or did I miss something?

Direct link | Posted on Jun 11, 2015 at 13:24 UTC as 22nd comment | 22 replies
On photo The Welder in the - Canon vs Nikon : The Working Class - (in BW) challenge (4 comments in total)

Congratulations on a great shot !

Direct link | Posted on May 26, 2015 at 22:03 UTC as 2nd comment
On photo Galloping into a New Year in the A "normal" look to the world - full color challenge (1 comment in total)

Amazing wooden horse!

Direct link | Posted on Mar 27, 2015 at 08:05 UTC as 1st comment
On photo Enter the Dragon in the Forced Perspective challenge (1 comment in total)

cool!

Direct link | Posted on Mar 8, 2015 at 09:46 UTC as 1st comment

Wow, these must be really old, looks like #3 was taken at least 2000 years ago

Direct link | Posted on Mar 7, 2015 at 22:08 UTC as 19th comment | 1 reply
On article Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX100 Review (992 comments in total)
In reply to:

jeffinchiangmai1: What is often overlooked when talking about pixels or loss of pixels (as in the LX100) is that the the number of pixels is roughly the square of the sides e.g. 16 mega pixels could roughly equate to 4 x 4 mega pixels.
If you reduce 16 down to 12, that's a loss of 25% actual pixels..
However, this only equates to about 13% loss on the sides of the 4 x 4 square.
Is this such a loss in quality that it first seems?

On the other hand, since this camera has a very short tele (70mm) you will probably find yourself cropping a lot of images to "zoom in" a bit more; and now that "square relationship" will cut your total pixels down very quickly to a very low level. So as the LX100 starts with fewer pixels and then "has to" crop, it's not a particularly good recipe for larger high quality prints :-(
You can't always zoom with your feet, and digital zoom is more or less just the same as cropping.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 25, 2014 at 23:54 UTC
On photo Sunset on the Playa in the Unusual Natural Formations challenge (1 comment in total)

Nice photo.
The mystery of those sailing rocks has finally been solved and even caught on film!
The answer is "ice shove"

Direct link | Posted on Dec 6, 2014 at 22:30 UTC as 1st comment
On photo Massey Ferguson in the wheat field in the The Harvest challenge (1 comment in total)

great shot !

Direct link | Posted on Dec 4, 2014 at 08:11 UTC as 1st comment
On photo Rice farmers I in the The Harvest challenge (4 comments in total)

wow, 1st and 2nd place !
both worthy winners. Good light , movement, composition,...
Interesting processing technique too.
I'm guessing it's a red filter in pp or IR filter while shooting ?
whatever, it delivers some very good contrast.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 4, 2014 at 08:11 UTC as 2nd comment | 1 reply
On article Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX100 Review (992 comments in total)
In reply to:

fireplace33: This looks like a great camera. I was quite tempted.
Lots of nice „PROS“ but in the end put off by the same „CONS“ as mentioned in the conclusion
I’ve listed those CONS in order of imporatnce for me.

Anyone care to speculate if my "top cons" will be addressed and improved in the next version of this camera?

■ Lens range can be limiting
■ 12MP may not be enough for some users
■ Separate clip-on flash simply inconvenient
■ Manually positioning an AF point is awkward - no touchscreen
■ JPEG noise reduction and sharpening are rather crude at low ISOs
■ Noticeable lag switching from shooting mode to playback
■ Focus peaking often too subtle to see
■ Viewfinder can show 'tearing' effect, which will distract some users

@ Chrislumix,
You’re right about the users being different, judging from all the praise in your other forum comments you obviously love this camera.
Yes, it is good, but the optical zoom is a bit too short for me, I wouldn’t mind if the next version of this camera becomes slightly bigger because it still is a much smaller package than my big DSRL + 2 or 3 lenses and heavy tripod. Any sort of digital zoom is more or less just the same as cropping (even if it’s interpolated like with the i-zoom) and then you’re down to only a few real MPixels and not that's not enough for any larger quality prints, at least in the size & quality I’d like.

Even a F1.7 lens can’t provide a bit of fill flash light when it’s needed, and maybe I forgot to bring that little external flash :-(

A touchscreen would be a nice bonus

So for me the main Cons are really the first 3-4 on my list.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 21, 2014 at 12:18 UTC
On article Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX100 Review (992 comments in total)

This looks like a great camera. I was quite tempted.
Lots of nice „PROS“ but in the end put off by the same „CONS“ as mentioned in the conclusion
I’ve listed those CONS in order of imporatnce for me.

Anyone care to speculate if my "top cons" will be addressed and improved in the next version of this camera?

■ Lens range can be limiting
■ 12MP may not be enough for some users
■ Separate clip-on flash simply inconvenient
■ Manually positioning an AF point is awkward - no touchscreen
■ JPEG noise reduction and sharpening are rather crude at low ISOs
■ Noticeable lag switching from shooting mode to playback
■ Focus peaking often too subtle to see
■ Viewfinder can show 'tearing' effect, which will distract some users

Direct link | Posted on Nov 20, 2014 at 15:29 UTC as 122nd comment | 4 replies
On photo Cormorant taking off in the It flies!!! challenge (31 comments in total)

Excellent image !

Direct link | Posted on Nov 12, 2014 at 18:22 UTC as 6th comment
On article Ghost Town: Shooting in Kolmanskop (71 comments in total)

Nice use of light in these shots

Direct link | Posted on Oct 20, 2014 at 06:39 UTC as 18th comment
On article ACDSee Pro 8 and ACDSee 18 announced (53 comments in total)
In reply to:

Drazen Stojcic Buntovnik: Ever since about v4, ACDsee started cramming "feature" upon "feature" into what was once the best, fastest and lightest image viewer available. I remeber a time when ACDsee installation files were 5 MB in size. Nowdays it's over 100... It's just rediculous. Especially the "pro" version. If "pro" means a product is intended for professionals, then it's safe to asume they're using OTHER professional tools to edit and organize their photos. I have never ever used an "edit" funcion in ACDsee. All I want is is a super fast image viewer that instantly opens up any image file format and can equally quickly scroll through hundreds of images. And that's it. Unfortunately, ACDsee has steered away from performance and seems to be focused on being the jack of all trades, when all we need is a master of one: speed.

When I look at my raw images on the hard disk, their thumbs appear almost instantaneously because I use the database feature in ACDSee called
"catalogue folders" (or somthing like that, I'm translating here from the German version)
This feature goes through all selected folders and creates the thumbnails for each image on the disk. It can take a few hours, if you have thousands of images like I do, but it is only done once, while I'm sleeping, and then afterwards those thumbs all appear instantly.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 7, 2014 at 20:43 UTC
On article ACDSee Pro 8 and ACDSee 18 announced (53 comments in total)
In reply to:

Drazen Stojcic Buntovnik: Ever since about v4, ACDsee started cramming "feature" upon "feature" into what was once the best, fastest and lightest image viewer available. I remeber a time when ACDsee installation files were 5 MB in size. Nowdays it's over 100... It's just rediculous. Especially the "pro" version. If "pro" means a product is intended for professionals, then it's safe to asume they're using OTHER professional tools to edit and organize their photos. I have never ever used an "edit" funcion in ACDsee. All I want is is a super fast image viewer that instantly opens up any image file format and can equally quickly scroll through hundreds of images. And that's it. Unfortunately, ACDsee has steered away from performance and seems to be focused on being the jack of all trades, when all we need is a master of one: speed.

@Peter v.d Werf
Glad to hear you have respect for the editing features of ACDSee PRO :-)
It is indeed very easy to use and has a multitude of useful editing and RAW development features.
Nice to have it all in one tool!
By the way, I have a decent computer with lots of RAM and hard drive space & fast processor & fast graphics card, certainly works fast enough for me.
One thing ACDSee doesn't have is working with layers like photoshop can, pity.
What do you think is even better in LR?

Direct link | Posted on Sep 29, 2014 at 08:23 UTC
On article ACDSee Pro 8 and ACDSee 18 announced (53 comments in total)
In reply to:

fireplace33: @DPREVIEW
In your DPReview product database the latest version of ACDSee is shown as only version PRO 5.

http://www.dpreview.com/products/acd_systems/software/acdsee_pro5

I've mentioned this already in the past on your feedback forum, after the version 6 and 7 came along, that an update of your database would make sense. Perhaps you can now update your database to show PRO 8 is here!

Oh dear ignored by DPREVIEW again on this issue :-(
Looks like the DPREVIEW software database will stay locked on the stoneage for now...

Direct link | Posted on Sep 28, 2014 at 14:14 UTC
Total: 172, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »