Fuji's New "Organic Sensor"

Started Nov 20, 2011 | Discussions thread
Aku Ankka
Aku Ankka Contributing Member • Posts: 591
re: (2 of 2)

Erational wrote:

For anyone still following this thread, I see no way EXR couldn't be used to increase sensitivity with out jacking up noise in the organic sensor used in the upcoming Fuji LX.

You don't understand the technology at all - binning pixels does not make the sensor any bigger and the image is constructed from all the pixels in the sensor, not just one (or a bigger binned one).

Aku here thinks that EXR is a non-effective/ bogus technology, and that independent test, reviewers, consumers, and engineers are all wrong.

It is largely inefficient. It lowers the read noise tiny bit (by factor of less than sqrt(2) - remember the quadrature additive nature of noise - and larger total full well requires lower conversion gain which increases noise a bit, thus less than sqrt(2). And it has zero effect on photon shot noise. And above I made a sample calculation for you regarding the relevancy of read noise in modern sensors. Additionally there is the drawback of throwing away resolotion and potentially useful image construction in the sensor).

And you live confidently in a world where all the reviewers just agree with you, even though they don't, especially not the ones who actually know what they're doing. Why not use your own brain instead of trusting those clueless ones that support your predefine view. Truth is not defined by voting as you seem to think, but by facts.

Its a wonderment to me, Aku that you think in item called a "Blur-filter" (aka: anti-aliasing filter) is not going to induce blur. Yes, it's more complex than that, but at an elemental level, it's not.

Do not lie about what I've said, fanboy. And it's not called blur-filter, but AA-filter or low pass filter. Using wrong term implies that it's there to do something that it doesn't do.

You say to just add sharpening and all will be well. I'm sorry, but you can't add detail after you have diminished it. That's called false detail in anybodies' book.

You don't know what the AA-filter does. It lowers pixel level contrast , it doesn't magically tear details away. Instead it throws away false detail beyond nyquist. Relolution is not lowered much at all, but if one doesn't do capture sharpening to counter the softening effect of the AA-filter, the image will appear to have lost details. With proper sharpening there is very little to essentially no detail lost, while aliasing artifacts are gone.

Does this filter have a place in consumer cameras ? Sure, it lowers artifacts and moire. Screens and repeating small patters are especially susceptible to the phenomena. But, some of us want that last measure of detail. You may not think that level of detail is relevant, but some of us are willing to make that trade.

You don't know how detail is recorded and how light manifests itself. You gain almost nothing by removing the AA-filter, but will find aliasing.

Aku, you are correct that the Fuji S5 was a great wedding camera due to it's low susceptability to pattern problems.

That is not the reason, and I don't know how it's AA-filter performed. It was all about low ISO dynamic rage (ie. flash photography and nicely detailed wedding clothing of both extrele ends of tonal range).

Unfortunately, the S5 had an effective 6 MPx out of a total of 12 MPx and times have moved-on. Fuji engineers knew what they were doing in 2007 with the S5, but they are clueless in 2012 with the LX- is that what you are saying ?

No. You sure have a simple world view. The S5 sensor was a kludge that worked well for this one job, but was not that great at other functions.

I've not saying Fuji engineers are clueless. But you are implying they have some secret inside knowledge and even that the laws of physics bend for them.

Yes, I am obviously more optimistic than you. Limited vision gives limited results. Stay stuck in the past if you wish, but some of us are going to move forward without you.

LOL. You have zero realism - no understanding on how the technology works and you just read the marketing material as the holy truth. This is not about me being in the past of who going to future - what a childish way of thinking. It is not up to us to dictate how the future turns, but we can only predict. Either by using evidence of the past and present, like I do, or superstitious belief system like you do.

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