Reading mode: Light Dark

Anyone else do this math? (1D and 1Ds)

Go to last post
J

JimK74361

Well-known member
Messages
107
Reaction score
0
Location
MI, US
Totally by shear curiosity I stumbled across this:

1Ds: 2464 x 1648 @ 8fps = 32,485,376 pixels processed / second
1D: 4064 x 2704 @ 3fps = 32,967,168 pixels processed / second

Same image processing engine or just coincidentally almost the exact same throughput?
 
JimK said:
Totally by shear curiosity I stumbled across this:

1Ds: 2464 x 1648 @ 8fps = 32,485,376 pixels processed / second
1D: 4064 x 2704 @ 3fps = 32,967,168 pixels processed / second

Same image processing engine or just coincidentally almost the
exact same throughput?
Click to expand...
 
JimK said:
Totally by shear curiosity I stumbled across this:

1Ds: 2464 x 1648 @ 8fps = 32,485,376 pixels processed / second
1D: 4064 x 2704 @ 3fps = 32,967,168 pixels processed / second

Same image processing engine or just coincidentally almost the
exact same throughput?
Click to expand...
I´m sure.
 
That's why there are so many questions about the price.
Same body
Same processing engine
Same amount of memory

Bigger/Different Sensor
Bigger Anti aliasing filter
Lower Frame Rate

Price difference of 3k.
JimK said:
Totally by shear curiosity I stumbled across this:

1Ds: 2464 x 1648 @ 8fps = 32,485,376 pixels processed / second
1D: 4064 x 2704 @ 3fps = 32,967,168 pixels processed / second

Same image processing engine or just coincidentally almost the
exact same throughput?
Click to expand...
 
JimK said:
Totally by shear curiosity I stumbled across this:

1Ds: 2464 x 1648 @ 8fps = 32,485,376 pixels processed / second
1D: 4064 x 2704 @ 3fps = 32,967,168 pixels processed / second

Same image processing engine or just coincidentally almost the
exact same throughput?
Click to expand...
Wow... nice discovery!

Check this out...

32 485 376 pixels per second
32 485 376 pixels per second x 12 bits x 3 colors = 1169473536 bps

That's 1.169 Gbps... or 146 MBps... yow, that's a lot of throughput and processing!
 
aosty said:
Check this out...

32 485 376 pixels per second
32 485 376 pixels per second x 12 bits x 3 colors = 1169473536 bps

That's 1.169 Gbps... or 146 MBps... yow, that's a lot of throughput
and processing!
Click to expand...
Hummm,, some thoughts.

There’s only one color per pixel. On the surface that would seem to indicate that there’s 1/3 less data movement being done.

I’m not sure 12 bits would ever be actually processed by the on camera engine. Any internal processing would only require 8 bits to produce the various jpegs.

Enter the color interpolation algorithm. I believe color interpolation looks at several adjoining pixels to construct the missing two colors for the pixel in question. To me that equates to a many fold increase in processing requirements. On the plus side color interpolation is probably a very good candidate for a parallel dedicated processing engine.

Jpeg processing. For every image the camera will interpolate missing colors, do sharpening, presumably apply proprietary enhancement/noise reduction techniques and then do jpeg compression. Now that would seem to require a significant amount of additional processing even if only done on 8 bits. For an indication: Taking a raw image and processing it on a 1.5Ghz PC (Intel/AMD) using the Canon DLLs takes about 10 seconds. Given that raw files are basically an unprocessed dump of sensors data, that would appear to be a pretty good indication of what the on-board camera processing power might be. Granted general PC processors are just that – general -, and dedicated (perhaps parallel) ASICs (?) are more processor focused – still we’re talking non-pedestrian.

Has anyone outside of Canon seen a block function diagram of the processing engines in any of Canon’s SLRs? Can any of you hardware/image processing types venture a guess as to how many processors, parallelism,, are we talking bleeding edge or pretty vanilla stuff??

Cheers,
Phred
 
I've read a few articles and read comments from people who have worked with Canon on the rollout of the 1Ds, and from everything I've seen it's a simple supply/demand issue.

People upset about the price are complaining that the only change in this camera from the 1D from a technical perspective is the new 11MP full frame CMOS. Everything else looks pretty much the same.

But Canon has said that they are having a lot of difficulty producing these sensors in volume (that will meet all of the stringent specs for color, clarity, low noise) and will be shipping these out in batches of hundreds, rather than thousands. I'm sure the are enough people who have pre-purchased this camera to keep it on backorder for many months.
So why would Canon sell for less? It would be foolish.

And what if they did lower the price to $6500? It would be years before anyone here would get one - look how long people had to wait for the D60!

The early purchasers would put their new 1Ds up on eBay and sell for even more than Canon is asking. And they would get it!

Wait 6 months. If the manufacturing process improves and they can start making these in volume the price will drop $1000 or more.
Regards,
Steve
bfall said:
Bigger/Different Sensor
Bigger Anti aliasing filter
Lower Frame Rate

Price difference of 3k.
JimK said:
Totally by shear curiosity I stumbled across this:

1Ds: 2464 x 1648 @ 8fps = 32,485,376 pixels processed / second
1D: 4064 x 2704 @ 3fps = 32,967,168 pixels processed / second

Same image processing engine or just coincidentally almost the
exact same throughput?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Why don't you (Canon) make a plug-in PCI card with such an imaging processor and a RAW software converter that can take advantage of its presence. Then we could do RAW -> TIFF conversions at the fly, basically disregarding the speed of our (main) CPU?

You can send me a free copy of this card as an appreciation of supplying the idea for free.

--
Kjeld Olesen
http://www.acapixus.dk
 
... and while you are at it, suppy this PCI-card-imaging-engine with an updatable look-up table for correcting all sorts of lens aberations, e.g. barrel/pincusion correction, chromatic aberations, vignetting, you name it ...

--
Kjeld Olesen
http://www.acapixus.dk
 
Make this available on a CF card so I can put it in my laptop or PocketPC. And I want it to have all the code to be able to adjust the sharpness, WB, etc. if I need.
Oh, and make it flash upgradeable so I can keep it upgraded to new versions.
Regards,
Steve
Kjeld Olesen said:
... and while you are at it, suppy this PCI-card-imaging-engine
with an updatable look-up table for correcting all sorts of lens
aberations, e.g. barrel/pincusion correction, chromatic aberations,
vignetting, you name it ...

--
Kjeld Olesen
http://www.acapixus.dk
Click to expand...
 
aosty said:
JimK said:
Totally by shear curiosity I stumbled across this:

1Ds: 2464 x 1648 @ 8fps = 32,485,376 pixels processed / second
1D: 4064 x 2704 @ 3fps = 32,967,168 pixels processed / second

Same image processing engine or just coincidentally almost the
exact same throughput?
Click to expand...
Wow... nice discovery!

Check this out...

32 485 376 pixels per second
32 485 376 pixels per second x 12 bits x 3 colors = 1169473536 bps

That's 1.169 Gbps... or 146 MBps... yow, that's a lot of throughput
and processing!
Click to expand...
Don't confuse average rate with peak rate. The stated rate is the rate INTO the buffer. The throughput rate is considerably lower.

Ken

--
Kenneth Lerman
Systems Essentials Limited
 
You are right sorry! That was a pure typo...shouldn't have slipped through my prepost QC process. ITS BEEN A LONG WEEK! LOL =)
Christopher Glaeser said:
JimK said:
Totally by shear curiosity I stumbled across this:

1D: 2464 x 1648 @ 8fps = 32,485,376 pixels processed / second
1Ds: 4064 x 2704 @ 3fps = 32,967,168 pixels processed / second

Same image processing engine or just coincidentally almost the
exact same throughput?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
It's not just the image processor, but all the data bus, I/O, and everything else in the camera that's the same. The 1Ds is not an entirely new camera. It's just a 1D with a different sensor in it. I'll bet internally it's even the same firmware and that the 2464x1648 and 4064x2704 are just parameters into the processing algorithms.
JimK said:
Totally by shear curiosity I stumbled across this:

1Ds: 2464 x 1648 @ 8fps = 32,485,376 pixels processed / second
1D: 4064 x 2704 @ 3fps = 32,967,168 pixels processed / second

Same image processing engine or just coincidentally almost the
exact same throughput?
Click to expand...
 
P.S. this is exactly why I wished for interchangeable sensors way back when.
Jay Bean said:
JimK said:
Totally by shear curiosity I stumbled across this:

1Ds: 2464 x 1648 @ 8fps = 32,485,376 pixels processed / second
1D: 4064 x 2704 @ 3fps = 32,967,168 pixels processed / second

Same image processing engine or just coincidentally almost the
exact same throughput?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Do you really want that green cast that apparently comes from in-camera JPG's ?
Kjeld Olesen said:
Why don't you (Canon) make a plug-in PCI card with such an imaging
processor and a RAW software converter that can take advantage of
its presence. Then we could do RAW -> TIFF conversions at the fly,
basically disregarding the speed of our (main) CPU?

You can send me a free copy of this card as an appreciation of
supplying the idea for free.
Click to expand...
--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise
 
DavidP said:
Do you really want that green cast that apparently comes from
in-camera JPG's ?
Click to expand...
Well, to be honest, I haven't used in-camera JPG much, so I havent really noticed any green cast. But I suppost that is merely a matter of programming the chip correctly.

If it can be done correctly it in software, then it can also be done correctly in hardware!

--
Kjeld Olesen
http://www.acapixus.dk
 
So when my new sensor arrive (the one I ordered with my D30), and I install it in my D-30 it will do about .85 fps? (2160x1440@3fps=9,331,200 pp/s)

I can handle that, cool! can't wait.
JimK said:
Totally by shear curiosity I stumbled across this:

1Ds: 2464 x 1648 @ 8fps = 32,485,376 pixels processed / second
1D: 4064 x 2704 @ 3fps = 32,967,168 pixels processed / second

Same image processing engine or just coincidentally almost the
exact same throughput?
Click to expand...
 
Do you think that if the 1Ds is set to Small/Fine (2032x1352) it should be able to exceed 8fps?
If it could it would possibly avoid the need to buy a 1D and a 1Ds!

Roger
inigo guionnet said:
JimK said:
Totally by shear curiosity I stumbled across this:

1Ds: 2464 x 1648 @ 8fps = 32,485,376 pixels processed / second
1D: 4064 x 2704 @ 3fps = 32,967,168 pixels processed / second

Same image processing engine or just coincidentally almost the
exact same throughput?
Click to expand...
I´m sure.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top