Canon Line Offset Noise

Started Oct 20, 2009 | Discussions thread
bronxbombers Forum Pro • Posts: 18,226
Re: Your big 'wrong'...

Mark H wrote:

bronxbombers wrote:

...nonsense, your "For example..." is completely wrong.

The bigger pixels do collect more light (photons) - and that is why they do have better high-ISO performance.

For any given exposure value the 'constant' at the sensor is the 'light per unit area' - a larger pixel size (area) therefore equates to more light collected per pixel.

i don't have the figures in front of me, but I believe the 1D2 was actually quite inefficient to the point that it might well have done less in that regard.

Regardless of camera specific variables - John's clear statement (regarding the 5D, 1D2 v 20D) was...

John Sheehy wrote:

The fact is, all three collect the same number of photons with the same exposure.

...which is complete nonsense - simply, wrong.

well per total area i'd imagine it would be wrong
per area it might well be correct or even understated

For a given exposure value - the larger the pixel size, the more light collected per pixel -

not true at all, it totally depends

Now what sort of a wooly statement is that - "...it totally depends"?

Even if we separate out possible differences in microlense filll factor, or CFA density (which are actually integral parts of the sensor/pixels) - even then, you would have to show a losses of almost -40% for yours or John's statements to be supported (that's almost a whole EV step).

wait you are talking in general here now, this has nothing to do with 1D2 or anything specific, you simply said the larger the pixel, the more light collected, which while often true, is not always true

There appear to be plenty of Canon DSLR cameras out there that do not need any additional noise subtraction process.

well most do have have banding so of course they could benefit
not saying it is the end of the world

Undoubtedly - all cameras have noise, and many cameras' noise may well show some 'banding pattern' in the noise - particularly when staring into black shadows that have been 'pushed 3 stops'.

so what is so wrong about trying to tackle the issue?

why is it ok to beg and beg for more DR and go on about how if they had not put in video maybe they might have spent more time on getting more DR and yet a sin to mention deep shadow banding when that can effectively reduce DR more than anything they could do about regular read noise?

anyway canon did think it important since they did largely fix one of the three main types of banding with the 500D and moreso 7D

Well, you need tell John that - because he is convinced that Canon is 'stupid' and/or 'malicious' and couldn't care less.

well it seems they are starting to care about it (although they did also seem to let out at least a few more with a worse type of banding than before at the same time which was kind of unfortunate, hopefully i wont have to get into multiple swaps)

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
xxD
xxD
xxD
xxD
xxD
xxD
xxD
xxD
tko
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow