D100: Photo Results Summary

David SL said:

This result doesn't quite jibe with the "softness" opinions being
thrown about if the D100 is still resolving as much to better
detail (to me the D100 result looks better since it goes further
before being marred by serious moire artifacts like the D60) on
the res. chart.

Click to expand...

David, you may want to update your monitor. I use SUN TFT 18" LCD and it is clearly visible that D60 resolves more detail . D100 images are SOFT. If you can not see this - then something must be wrong with your eyes or your monitor. Results from beta D100 are not excellent,they are dissapointing.
However - I think that the final camera will produce MUCH better results.

David SL said:

I'd say chieving comparable performance to the D60 in beta is an
excellent result.

curtner said:

David SL said:

On point 3 above, I'm not sure I would agree. If you look at
the test patterns and look at how the D100 at normal
sharpening does at resolving the diagonal lines and curves vs.
the D60, the D100 appears to be cleaner. This was just based
on opening the patterns:

d100: http://myalbum.ne.jp/cgi-bin/a_album?pipot_code=92441971758558478909&command=G&filename=fa838615_0001.jpg&file_no=0

d60: http://myalbum.ne.jp/cgi-bin/a_album?pipot_code=92441971758558478909&command=G&filename=fa838615_0005.jpg&file_no=4

in a browser window and looking at them side by side.
If somebody could look at these in Pshop to do the
comparisons it might be interesting

Click to expand...

Here is what I've got with 100% crop of the D100 (normal) and the
D60. It seems to me the resoultion is about the same, although the
D60 resolves more in terms of absolute resolution with moire effect:

Click to expand...

--

Click to expand...

David

then you should preempt your posts with a warning that all it contains is guesswork and hogwash. Most of your posts seem like you have actual knowledge about the subject which you dont.

--
Michael Salzlechner
StarZen Digital Imaging
http://www.starzen.com/imaging

Mike Salzlechner said:

David

then you should preempt your posts with a warning that all it
contains is guesswork and hogwash. Most of your posts seem like you
have actual knowledge about the subject which you dont.

Click to expand...

"guess work and hogwash" because I state a likelyhood and people fail to understand what they read? I must be some wizard at fabricating knowledge if I duped you for so long. In case you wanted to know I am an electrical engineer by education and programmer by profession but I don't profess to offer perfect knowledge on anything unlike some that posted to this thread. This attack is pointless. I am through with it.
--

Lev Brylin said:

Member said:

This result doesn't quite jibe with the "softness" opinions being
thrown about if the D100 is still resolving as much to better
detail (to me the D100 result looks better since it goes further
before being marred by serious moire artifacts like the D60) on
the res. chart.

Click to expand...

David, you may want to update your monitor. I use SUN TFT 18" LCD
and it is clearly visible that D60 resolves more detail . D100
images are SOFT. If you can not see this - then something must be
wrong with your eyes or your monitor. Results from beta D100 are
not excellent,they are dissapointing.
However - I think that the final camera will produce MUCH better
results.

Click to expand...

So your opinion is somehow better than mine because you have a "SUN TFT 18", please. Looking at moire D60 has more, it starts way earlier than the D100 in every test, count the lines. If you want to hide the fact from your eyes that red and blue artifacts appears in D60 images where it DOESN'T in the D100 images then you are free to hallucinate.

I am sure the performance will be better in production, the fact they are extremely close in beta is still noteable.

Regards,

David,

I think you are right. The D100 shots shows less moire compared to the D60. The pictures of the D100 and Dx1 look softer to me then the D60. Are these shots taken in Raw format are in jpeg? Is there a different amount of sharpening applied for each? Or is there something else? I think we have to wait for a good reviewer to find an intelligent answer to this question.

Jan

David SL said:

This result doesn't quite jibe with the "softness" opinions being
thrown about if the D100 is still resolving as much to better
detail (to me the D100 result looks better since it goes further
before being marred by serious moire artifacts like the D60) on
the res. chart.

I'd say chieving comparable performance to the D60 in beta is an
excellent result.

curtner said:

David SL said:

On point 3 above, I'm not sure I would agree. If you look at
the test patterns and look at how the D100 at normal
sharpening does at resolving the diagonal lines and curves vs.
the D60, the D100 appears to be cleaner. This was just based
on opening the patterns:

d100: http://myalbum.ne.jp/cgi-bin/a_album?pipot_code=92441971758558478909&command=G&filename=fa838615_0001.jpg&file_no=0

d60: http://myalbum.ne.jp/cgi-bin/a_album?pipot_code=92441971758558478909&command=G&filename=fa838615_0005.jpg&file_no=4

in a browser window and looking at them side by side.
If somebody could look at these in Pshop to do the
comparisons it might be interesting

Click to expand...

Here is what I've got with 100% crop of the D100 (normal) and the
D60. It seems to me the resoultion is about the same, although the
D60 resolves more in terms of absolute resolution with moire effect:

Click to expand...

--

Click to expand...

--
Jan

yadayadayada....

David SL said:

Mike Salzlechner said:

David

then you should preempt your posts with a warning that all it
contains is guesswork and hogwash. Most of your posts seem like you
have actual knowledge about the subject which you dont.

Click to expand...

"guess work and hogwash" because I state a likelyhood and people
fail to understand what they read? I must be some wizard at
fabricating knowledge if I duped you for so long. In case you
wanted to know I am an electrical engineer by education and
programmer by profession but I don't profess to offer perfect
knowledge on anything unlike some that posted to this thread. This
attack is pointless. I am through with it.
--

Click to expand...

--
Michael Salzlechner
StarZen Digital Imaging
http://www.starzen.com/imaging

David

as an engineer (at least thats what you state you are) i wonder how you can live with using the word likely 3 times in every sentence.

Ron at least shows some knowldege about the subject and admits to not knowing all the details.

If the world would be built on 'likely' and 'guesswork' we would be in big trouble. I hope i never come across any of the software you build that most likely will work based on historical experience.

--
Michael Salzlechner
StarZen Digital Imaging
http://www.starzen.com/imaging

Oh David - your persistence glows more than your prudence today

I seldom do many resolution charts so they are not typically in my portfolio, but real life is another thing. I've tried to attract you to comment on these samples before, but you seem to prefer your own twists and crops. I'll try once more, from the lowest ISO samples of the Japaneese parking lot:



--
Magne

Magne Nilsen said:

Oh David - your persistence glows more than your prudence today
I seldom do many resolution charts so they are not typically in my
portfolio, but real life is another thing. I've tried to attract
you to comment on these samples before, but you seem to prefer your
own twists and crops. I'll try once more, from the lowest ISO
samples of the Japaneese parking lot:



--
Magne

Click to expand...

What jumps out to me the most in these samples is the difference in color balance. I like the D60's better but that doesn't mean that the D60's color balance is more accurate. Next I notice that the images do not have the same FOV. The Canon definitely has a tighter FOV. This does slightly complicate drawing conclusion on sharpness. However, the last thing I noticed was the color fringing around the blue symbol in lower right of the crop for D100. It does not appear to occur to the same degree on the D1X. If the same lens was used for both the D100 and D1X shot that would seem to be a characteristic of the D100 and not the lens.

Normal. The "non" has lesser resolution.

David SL said:

This result doesn't quite jibe with the "softness" opinions being
thrown about if the D100 is still resolving as much to better
detail (to me the D100 result looks better since it goes further
before being marred by serious moire artifacts like the D60) on
the res. chart.

I'd say chieving comparable performance to the D60 in beta is an
excellent result.

curtner said:

David SL said:

On point 3 above, I'm not sure I would agree. If you look at
the test patterns and look at how the D100 at normal
sharpening does at resolving the diagonal lines and curves vs.
the D60, the D100 appears to be cleaner. This was just based
on opening the patterns:

d100: http://myalbum.ne.jp/cgi-bin/a_album?pipot_code=92441971758558478909&command=G&filename=fa838615_0001.jpg&file_no=0

d60: http://myalbum.ne.jp/cgi-bin/a_album?pipot_code=92441971758558478909&command=G&filename=fa838615_0005.jpg&file_no=4

in a browser window and looking at them side by side.
If somebody could look at these in Pshop to do the
comparisons it might be interesting

Click to expand...

Here is what I've got with 100% crop of the D100 (normal) and the
D60. It seems to me the resoultion is about the same, although the
D60 resolves more in terms of absolute resolution with moire effect:

Click to expand...

--

Click to expand...

Magne Nilsen said:

Oh David - your persistence glows more than your prudence today

Click to expand...

Hmmm...how so?

Magne Nilsen said:

I seldom do many resolution charts so they are not typically in my
portfolio, but real life is another thing. I've tried to attract
you to comment on these samples before, but you seem to prefer your
own twists and crops.

Click to expand...

Are you talking about me? I don't recall cropping anything having to do with the D100 before this post.

Magne Nilsen said:

I'll try once more, from the lowest ISO
samples of the Japaneese parking lot:

Click to expand...

Okay Magne I bite:

I took the liberty of sizing up a crop from each to 200% view in photoshop. This way we can more readily see what's going on. Here it is:



1) All three look excellent from a noise perspective, essentially noise free even at 200% mag. However considering that the D1x and D60 are shots at ISO 100 and the D100 at 200, this is really an excellent result by the D100.

2) Using the color picker in photoshop to guage the hues I found the lettering in the D60 and D100 to be closer than either one of them to the D1x.(You can see it clearly above.) Look at the red symbol, in the D60 and D100 it suffers from far less fringing near the edges than the D1x symbol which really looks bloody with the red color smeared throughout the symbol.

3)The blue character to the right also has less fringing in the D60 and D100 followed by the D1x.

4)The D1x crop is also showing moire on the building where as the D60 and D100 are free from it. The D60 and D1x images are just slightly sharper than the D100 image except for the building in the D1x which is unusually soft (look at the horizontal lines) and contains moire as mentioned before.

I am quite glad that such close analysis is required to see which image performs best, as it is a good sign for the final production images. We should find out how those look soon enough.

Regards,

--

David SL said:

Lev Brylin said:

David SL said:

This result doesn't quite jibe with the "softness" opinions being
thrown about if the D100 is still resolving as much to better
detail (to me the D100 result looks better since it goes further
before being marred by serious moire artifacts like the D60) on
the res. chart.

Click to expand...

David, you may want to update your monitor. I use SUN TFT 18" LCD
and it is clearly visible that D60 resolves more detail . D100
images are SOFT. If you can not see this - then something must be
wrong with your eyes or your monitor. Results from beta D100 are
not excellent,they are dissapointing.
However - I think that the final camera will produce MUCH better
results.

Click to expand...

So your opinion is somehow better than mine because you have a "SUN
TFT 18", please. Looking at moire D60 has more, it starts way
earlier than the D100 in every test, count the lines.

Click to expand...

Yes,more moire on D60 shots,but also more resolution.

If you want

David SL said:

to hide the fact from

Click to expand...

Nobody is hiding from that fact,this is not what I am talking about.

your eyes that red and blue artifacts appears

David SL said:

in D60 images where it DOESN'T in the D100 images then you are free
to hallucinate.

Click to expand...

By reading others post I came to the conclusion that you are the one who are smoking mushrums ;-)

David SL said:

I am sure the performance will be better in production, the fact
they are extremely close in beta is still noteable.

Regards,

Click to expand...

It's also clear that the D60 is capturing more detail here. Look at the characters on the bottom left.

--
Ron Parr
FAQ: http://www.cs.duke.edu/~parr/photography/faq.html
Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/parr/

David SL said:

See! How can you not see how this factors into the discussion? I

Click to expand...

How? What factors in? There's no reasoning here or facts here.

David SL said:

noticed you snipped it from its context but. My statement of
"likelyhood" was based around the truth of that statement.. That is
all, I never said CCD would always or certainly beat CMOS, only
that it was "likey" to have better high ISO performance. Given the
differences in photoreceptive area and the max. S/N that could be
"engineered" between the two techs. in the past . Note that
doesn't lock out the alternate possibility and therefor makes it a
valid statement. If you say I can't state "likely" because I don't
know what's in the new CMOS chip in the D60 then we can just
disagree and leave it at an end here. If I said "definitely" I'd
agree with you and say I was wrong but I didn't.

Click to expand...

You still have no basis to make such claims.

David SL said:

David SL said:

I don't know any of these things either and I'll readily admit that
you might be right. It just irks me that you're obviously making
stuff up and trying to pass it off as some kind of expertise.

Click to expand...

Now you are accusing me of fabricating information, listen we went
down a path where words I stated have been misunderstood. I might
have been more careful but if you look at my post history you will
find that when I find my self in the wrong I state it in the forum.
To accuse me of fabrication in a discussion that has the
possibility of increasing both our knowledge bases is really
insulting. I don't like wasting my time "making stuff up" post
after post, I have much better things to do with my time. I hope
you can accept that we disagree on "likelyhood" and leave this at
an end without foisting any more accusations upon me.

Click to expand...

Nope. You're just making wild guesses without any facts to back them up.

--
Ron Parr
FAQ: http://www.cs.duke.edu/~parr/photography/faq.html
Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/parr/

David SL said:

David SL said:

Where did I get this from?

I said, "The D100 uses an interline transfer CCD, which sacrifices
a certain amount of space to the the control lines and charge
transfer area (no transistors)."

Your response, after first ignoring this point was:

"both CCD and CMOS sensors specify active area's to gather light
regardless of type of sensor each uses."

Since no such specifications are publically available for most
sensors, I could only assume that you didn't realize that
significantly less than the reported area of the pixel was
photoreceptive.

Click to expand...

Again, you are misunderstanding..what I meant by "active area" was
the photoreceptive portion or the photodiode itself ..both
technologies have it I don't need "specifications" to make the
statement above, they both are devices that consists of supporting
electronics and photoreceptive elements. What's so hard to get
about this?

Click to expand...

You tell me. You're the one who seems to think you can make predictions without knowing the size of the photodiodes.

David SL said:

I never made a prediction, only stated a "likelyhood" based on
what has been the case in the past. Since likely hood accounts for
the alternate possibility, it can't make me wrong. That's my point
from the start.

Click to expand...

What past? Are there sensors with the same pixel size and transistor size as the D60? Do you know the transistor size on the D60?

David SL said:

Ohhhhh I get it, so you are the only one here qualified to provide
knowledge, but it's beneath you to learn from us? Typical of your
attitude in almost every post I've read from you. I can say that I
have learned somethings (about both people and technology) from
this discourse unlike you.

Click to expand...

Right... You start with, "As an electronics engineer the statement you made is laughable." and now I'm the one with an attidue.

You see, David, when you start trying to act like somebody who knows what he's talking about and has some kind of special education that deserves respect, it's bound to annoy those to which those descriptons accurately apply.

--
Ron Parr
FAQ: http://www.cs.duke.edu/~parr/photography/faq.html
Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/parr/

David SL said:

I don't need to know the active areas to make a statement of
"likelyhood", I can just reference you to sources that state the
fill factor on CCD's has traditionally been greater than CMOS
that's all my statement of "likelyhood" is based on and I admitted
that things can change. Phil's description in this site states
that, and you can find hundreds of others online that state it as
well.

Click to expand...

A statement that fill factors on CCDs has traditionally been greater than CMOS is a vacuous statement because that is just wrong in isolation. As I've been trying to tell you, the fill rate for CMOS will depend upon the transistor size and pixel size. For any given transistor size and count, if you change the pixel size on a CMOS pixel, the fill rate will change. Thus, if you're comparing CCD and CMOS sensors at a given transistor technology, the best you can do is to identify cell size at which the CMOS fill rate becomes greater than the CCD fill rate. A general comment about one having a higher fill rate than the other is automatically wrong. It's like saying Y=X^2 dominates Y=X without saying what part of the curve you're on.

For the D60, you don't know the transistor size or count, so you can't make the comparison. You don't even know what curve you're on.

David SL said:

What people don't understand is that given the history of the two
technologies and their relative efficiencies in the past , there
is in fact a likelyhood that Canon's new chip stays in line with
past CMOS performance. It's not guaranteed, as I stated over and
over to Ron, but it is likely. That's all I am guilty of stating, I

Click to expand...

The problem is your misinterpretation of history compounded with willful ignorance of the relevant variables. The statement, "there is in fact a likelyhood that Canon's new chip stays in line with past CMOS performance" is just an ignorant comment since there is no single baseline for CMOS fill rates as it is a function of (at least) two variables, both of which have likely changed in the move to the D60.

--
Ron Parr
FAQ: http://www.cs.duke.edu/~parr/photography/faq.html
Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/parr/

David SL said:

And here is our problem again Ron, your disagreement with my appeal
to 'historical' or 'past' data to make my "likely" statement. And
why we should just drop it here.

Click to expand...

My problem? Drop it?

This isn't a disagreement on a matter of opinion or taste. It's a disagreement about what conclusions one can draw from the available information. If you have some information about the fill rate of the Sony's interline transfer CCDs and about informaton that would tell us the transistor size and count on the D60, then tell us.

If you understand how these things scale, then you should realize that pointing to some other CMOS sensor with different pixel sizes and unknown transistor counts and sizes is just absurd.

--
Ron Parr
FAQ: http://www.cs.duke.edu/~parr/photography/faq.html
Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/parr/

I'm going to repeat the post I've already made at the bottom of this thread:

-----------------------

There are allot of very smart people who have posted very passionate feelings here in this thread. Some of you are engineers and some are pro-photographers-- while others simply enjoy picture taking. And we all are very excited about technology and sharing our views of it.
So, what did I mean by "Not Ready For Prime Time" or "Looks like a 6MP Coolpix?"

We have set a goal by which to measure the standard of excellence. To some, it has been the Nikon D1 series. To others it has been the Canon 1D. And of course, most famously, the current darling of the DSLR world, the Canon D60.

What they have in common in picture quality is far greater than their differences in features. When viewing an image from any one of these cameras, you can see an almost uniform excellence. All things being balanced, few would describe any one of these cameras as producing an inferior image. If the ultimate goal is to create a "virtual" snap shot of reality, then these cameras have succeeded with gusto. We all gush at some of the work that photographers have taken with these machines.

The D100 images that I have compared (see my first thread), change all of that consistancy. Nikon's standard of excellence was the color gamut quality of the D1X-- and its' superb spectral performance, resolution and low noise. And if you will, its' spacial performance. Canon created the D60 with very similar characteristics-- some a little better-- and some a little worse. But on balance, the D1X created a standard of excellence that both Nikon and Canon seem to edify-- albeit in different engineering ways that have achieved similar visual goals.

The pre-production D100 images dissapointed me because those qualities were not evident in the pre-production samples. No longer were they sharp, no longer were they spectrally balanced or saturated. Its' as if Nikon had shifted what they feel defines excellence in picture taking. Its' as if they felt that the "Coolpix" look would be satisfactory in a DSLR.

If the D1X had defined the absolute in image capture, then the D100 creates a complete departure from that standard. And in my opinion, this is not Nikon's ultimate goal. The "D" series will continue to steer the standard of Nikon's digital imaging excellence. This is their gold standard of visual nirvana. And will remain so.

This is why I believe that when that D100 final production camera rolls off the assembly line-- and when we take that 1st picture-- that it indeed will be as close as possible to the "D" series standard. And it won't look anything like the pre-production photos do today. When that happens, I'll be more than happy to celebrate Nikon's achievement!

They are under the greatest pressure, in fact they are crying. To price the D100 at $2000, they must swallow all there facts:
1) They must buy CCDs at $700 apiece from sony.
2) They must use a $400 body.
3) They must put in $200 worth circuit for digital part including the LCD.
4) They must put in $100 worth accessories.
5) They have to design the whole unit from grounds up.

6) They have to make money while at the same time don't threaten the sale of their own D1 series.

Look at the canon side:
1) They produce their own CMOS with pre-existed device. Cost is minimumn.
2) They need only minor tuning to reach here from well-producted D30.
3) They has already made great money from D30.

4) They have several more months to sell as many as D60's they could make before the D100 even come into production, at maximumn profit level.

Give Nikon a breath, they are a great company. Their finacial status is very poor recently due to the digital crisis(especially in consumer market). I surely hope Nikon can grow heathly though myself are using canon.

Regards,
Wangler

Movie Bear said:

There are allot of very smart people who have posted very
passionate feelings here in this thread. Some of you are engineers
and some are pro-photographers-- while others simply enjoy picture
taking. And we all are very excited about technology and sharing
our views of it.

So, what did I mean by "Not Ready For Prime Time" or "Looks like a
6MP Coolpix?"

We have set a goal by which to measure the standard of excellence.
To some, it has been the Nikon D1 series. To others it has been the
Canon 1D. And of course, most famously, the current darling of the
DSLR world, the Canon D60.

What they have in common in picture quality is far greater than
their differences in features. When viewing an image from any one
of these cameras, you can see an almost uniform excellence. All
things being balanced, few would describe any one of these cameras
as producing an inferior image. If the ultimate goal is to create a
"virtual" snap shot of reality, then these cameras have succeeded
with gusto. We all gush at some of the work that photographers have
taken with these machines.

The D100 images that I have compared (see my first thread), change
all of that consistancy. Nikon's standard of excellence was the
color gamut quality of the D1X-- and its' superb spectral
performance, resolution and low noise. And if you will, its'
spacial performance. Canon created the D60 with very similar
characteristics-- some a little better-- and some a little worse.
But on balance, the D1X created a standard of excellence that both
Nikon and Canon seem to edify-- albeit in different engineering
ways that have achieved similar visual goals.

The pre-production D100 images dissapointed me because those
qualities were not evident in the pre-production samples. No longer
were they sharp, no longer were they spectrally balanced or
saturated. Its' as if Nikon had shifted what they feel defines
excellence in picture taking. Its' as if they felt that the
"Coolpix" look would be satisfactory in a DSLR.

If the D1X had defined the absolute in image capture, then the D100
creates a complete departure from that standard. And in my opinion,
this is not Nikon's ultimate goal. The "D" series will continue to
steer the standard of Nikon's digital imaging excellence. This is
their gold standard of visual nirvana. And will remain so.

This is why I believe that when that D100 final production camera
rolls off the assembly line-- and when we take that 1st picture--
that it indeed will be as close as possible to the "D" series
standard. And it won't look anything like the pre-production photos
do today. When that happens, I'll be more than happy to celebrate
Nikon's achievement!

Click to expand...

--
Darkness is made up of dark particles.

Wangler said:

They are under the greatest pressure, in fact they are crying. To
price the D100 at $2000, they must swallow all there facts:
1) They must buy CCDs at $700 apiece from sony.
2) They must use a $400 body.
3) They must put in $200 worth circuit for digital part including
the LCD.
4) They must put in $100 worth accessories.
5) They have to design the whole unit from grounds up.
6) They have to make money while at the same time don't threaten
the sale of their own D1 series.

Look at the canon side:
1) They produce their own CMOS with pre-existed device. Cost is
minimumn.
2) They need only minor tuning to reach here from well-producted D30.
3) They has already made great money from D30.
4) They have several more months to sell as many as D60's they
could make before the D100 even come into production, at maximumn
profit level.

Give Nikon a breath, they are a great company. Their finacial
status is very poor recently due to the digital crisis(especially
in consumer market). I surely hope Nikon can grow heathly though
myself are using canon.

Regards,
Wangler

Click to expand...

Hahaha, that were very funny final words!
Thanks for the good laugh...
Jack.