Since the GH4 is report to display less rolling shutter than the A7s this does not seem correct. Do you have a link?
CMOS sesnors are improving though and size appears to be a factor. CCD obviously is better.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Why do we have mechanical shutters?
- Thread starter PalmettoFellow
- Start date
CMOS sesnors are improving though and size appears to be a factor. CCD obviously is better.
S
Sonyshine
Guest
My Nikon V1 has both. I mainly use the (totally silent ) very fast electronic shutter. The main exception is when shooting propellor aircraft and helicopters where I use the mechanical shutter to avoid curved prop blades.
Brian D. Schneider
Forum Pro
"That issue is completely non-existent when using a mechanical shutter."
Image taken from the Wikipedia article "Rolling shutter".
An electronic shutter is susceptible to rolling shutter, a.k.a "the jello effect". That issue is completely non-existent when using a mechanical shutter.
Early focal plane shutters had the same problem. For a similar reason
http://maisonbisson.com/post/10531/focal-plane-shutter-distortion/
--
Brian Schneider
Allan Olesen
Senior Member
- Messages
- 3,391
- Solutions
- 7
- Reaction score
- 1,586
Correct. Modern DSLR shutters have sync speeds around 1/150 - 1/250. This is much better than the 1/15 - 1/60 mentioned in this thread, but it would be wrong to say that the problem is completely eliminated.
Ontario Gone
Senior Member
- Messages
- 4,183
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 1,545
Very true, and it is a problem if you shoot fast motion. It is perfectly fine though for anything relatively slow moving. I use it on my GX7 literally most of the time and never have issues. I rarely shoot in fluorescent light and if my subject is moving fast, i have my Fn1 programmed for the change. It's is the one feature i would miss most were it gone, more even than autofocus."That issue is completely non-existent when using a mechanical shutter."
Image taken from the Wikipedia article "Rolling shutter".
An electronic shutter is susceptible to rolling shutter, a.k.a "the jello effect". That issue is completely non-existent when using a mechanical shutter.
Early focal plane shutters had the same problem. For a similar reason
Above is one of many many shots using E shutter. People seem to think everything must be completely motionless, that's not the case. My daughter here was walking as a 3yo would around the brick path. No distortion, slight motion blur on her right foot as it was rising. I wish electronic shutter was on more cameras as i would have more buying options. I refuse to ever buy another camera without this feature, one reason i chose Panasonic.
--
"Run to the light, Carol Anne. Run as fast as you can!"
S
Sonyshine
Guest
I agree!
I love the fast speed and silence of my Nikon V1 electronic shutter - and its handy having the ability to switch to a mechanical one when I need it.
I love the fast speed and silence of my Nikon V1 electronic shutter - and its handy having the ability to switch to a mechanical one when I need it.
Truthiness
Well-known member
- Messages
- 126
- Reaction score
- 120
Implementing a good mechanical shutter increases manufacturing costs (and size - consider cell phone cameras). Camera companies would be deligheted to use image sensors with global shutter. But as you said, they're not without issues at the moment.
Aptina has a easy to understand paper on the issue: https://www.aptina.com/products/technology/Aptina_Global-Shutter-WhitePaper.pdf
For usual photography we don't really need a global shutter, but would be well serverd with a conventional rolling shutter with much faster operation that the today's implementations.
Ontario Gone
Senior Member
- Messages
- 4,183
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 1,545
I don't think it's about video, as Panasonic obviously care a lot about video and they still have a relatively slow rolling shutter and don't use a CCD with global. The issue is sensor performance and cost. Since CCDs are not fabricated the same as CMOS chips, ie they cost more per, plus they have considerably worse ISO performance, that isn't currently a good option. They would get rid of rolling shutter but at the cost of other advantages.
In time one of two things will happen. Either CCD cost and performance will improve to the point we see them in ILC for photos as well as video, or, CMOS will improve rolling shutter times to the point it's a non issue. ATM AFAIK, global shutter isn't possible on CMOS, which is why we don't see it. Hopefully something will change for the better bc electronic shutter is an awesome feature.
Truthiness
Well-known member
- Messages
- 126
- Reaction score
- 120
CCD snapshot shutter is not a freebie, but loses half of the fill factor.
CCD will never come back. Too many drawbacks.
CCD is effectively dead for ILCs. Too power hungry, too expensive system (due to lacking integration), high-noise, not enough manufacturing resources. CCD slowly dies almost entirely if not entirely.
This is indeed the most likely scenario.
Sure it is possible and even implemented by multiple manufacturers - just check the product catalogues if you don't believe me. CMOS GS just involves trandoffs, like higher noise levels, lower QE and DR...
Chris Noble
Veteran Member
No. It is impossible to completely turn several million light sensors in a serially-read array on or off in sync within less than 1/1000 sec. There is too much capacitance in the circuit. Or you have to reduce the well size a lot (which hurts the dynamic range).
Good paper. I learned things from it. I had not thought about the implications of BSI on global shutter, as explained in the paper. That was useful. I think it basically agrees with what I said. The major effect is reduced fill factor. There are secondary effects as well, which also reduce image quality somewhat.
I'd be surprised if cost were an issue with cameras. That's primarily an issue for, as the paper said, 'cost-sensitive applications' like cheap mobile phone cameras, webcams, and non-photographic consumer applications (machine vision is increasingly used in all sorts of oddball places). The cost of an extra metal layer, relative to microlenses, BSI, and other fanciness we do for actual camera sensor is likely to be quite small.
I'd be surprised if cost were an issue with cameras. That's primarily an issue for, as the paper said, 'cost-sensitive applications' like cheap mobile phone cameras, webcams, and non-photographic consumer applications (machine vision is increasingly used in all sorts of oddball places). The cost of an extra metal layer, relative to microlenses, BSI, and other fanciness we do for actual camera sensor is likely to be quite small.
Truthiness
Well-known member
- Messages
- 126
- Reaction score
- 120
I meant cost of the mechanical shutter
Electronic GS wouldn't really cost any more than a regular shutter. This cost would certainly motivate to move away from mechanical shutter.PK24X36NOW
Senior Member
There will always be a good reason for a flapping mirror - it's called an Optical Viewfinder that allows the photographer to see through the taking lens.Only if the sensor is slow reading one line at a time. Some can read the whole frame and and newer CMOS sensors can read faster.
Image taken from the Wikipedia article "Rolling shutter".
An electronic shutter is susceptible to rolling shutter, a.k.a "the jello effect". That issue is completely non-existent when using a mechanical shutter.
In a couple years there will zero need for a mechanical shutter and no good reason for a flapping mirror.
Ontario Gone
Senior Member
- Messages
- 4,183
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 1,545
Negative, EVFs already allow that. What you mean is that mirror allows us to see actual reflected light rather than a digital representation, which is true. What is up for debate is which method is better, or which has what pros and cons. In time, the cons of the EVF will shrink, while the OVF will remain the same.
In time our EVFs will be able to match the exact DR of the sensor. ATM our OVF show a greater DR than what the sensors can capture, since it's our eyes and their shifting DR doing the seeing. This means you might see something in your OVF that won't turn out in the photo. As sensors improve while your eyes don't, eventually it will be the opposite, the sensor will capture beyond what your vision can. The EVF is the same digital system that the sensor is, and can thus be equalized. It's not here yet but this is the future.
Even real time shadow/highlight clipping can be shown in an EVF. Facial recognition, peaking, the list goes on. It is inevitable, eventually the OVF will be solely for nostalgia, just how digital replaced film.
E
Erik Magnuson
Guest
Video modes are different from still modes.
Yes, this is what I used: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/53075914
If this is correct, the sensor can do ~ 15FPS in 12-bit full scan mode. Than means any one scan will be 1/15th of a second. 1/22 if only 10-bit mode.
PK24X36NOW
Senior Member
No, they do not. I said OPTICAL, quite specifically. EVF can never do that.
That didn't require any explanation, had you not purposefully ignored the word "optical."
OVF will always remain better. Some essential EVF cons will never go away.
In time we may put a man on Mars. I wouldn't hold your breath. More than likely they'll arrive at some "good enough" dumbed-down standard, and you'll be stuck with that.
Doubtful; while digital replaced film because it's clearly better than film, the same cannot be said for EVFs vs. OVFs, and that won't change in many essential areas. OVF will always be best in terms of providing a real time, lag free, flicker free view through the taking lens that consumes essentially no battery power, so it's always going to be clearly "better" than EVF. On the other hand, digital is clearly "better" than film in essential ways, like clean, noise free images, higher resolution, flexibility of changing ISO from shot to shot, instant feedback, nearly endless post-shot processing flexibility, etc., and THAT is why digital has essentially replaced film.
A mechanical shutter may be a weak link in the camera, but even low end DSLR shutters are probably rated for at least 50,000 actuations. I don't know about the mirrorless and p&s cameras. Most people will replace their 5 or 6 year old camera with a new one before it wears out.
- Messages
- 30,185
- Solutions
- 112
- Reaction score
- 12,428
Does not an electronic viewfinder also allow the photographer to see through the taking lens just as an endoscope lets one see down the esophagus? You could also say the OVF does actually let you see through the taking lens as it actually just lets you see a reflection of what can be seen down the taking lens. Symantec, I know.
An OVF allows the photographer to see through the taking lens.
An EVF allows the photographer to see through the taking lens.
Are both statements not true?
Unless one wants to look through the viewfinder in the dark and still see the composition/framing without the need to "light" the scene artificially with an external source. An electronic viewfinder might be "better" than an OVF when shooting wildlife near dark. When using ND filters, seems EVF (vs OFV) might be a "better" option at times as well.
In terms of in terms of providing a real time, lag free, and flicker free view, that gap will likely be closed (to the point of the human eye not being able to discern a dif in the near future. To demand otherwise is to simply ignore history. Now if the earth is destroyed in a year by a comet, I'll concede the point and buy your dinner.
--
My opinions are my own and not those of DPR or its administration. They carry no 'special' value (except to me and Lacie of course)
Last edited:
PK24X36NOW
Senior Member
Symantec indeed.
No. An EVF allows the photographer to see through the taking lens. An EVF presents the photographer with a low resolution, low dynamic range, electronic representation of what the photographer would have seen through the taking lens a moment ago.
Me thinks it will be not so near in the future, since improvements in one area compete with improvements in others for the same processing power and battery consumption.
- Messages
- 30,185
- Solutions
- 112
- Reaction score
- 12,428
You mean OVF?
Again, both statements are true (both see through the taking lens)...just in the case of the OVF the photographer is presented with a reflection that has less lag, and more DR. Might be a dimmer image though so less suitable in low light. In that way the OVF is not always better. No absolutes. The EVF might even offer more practical resolution when we consider the electronic zoom capability it might offer.
5 years ago I would have agreed...after looking through the current gen EVF's though...I think the gap closing is much nearer than you might think. Good time to be enjoying the hobby though!
--
My opinions are my own and not those of DPR or its administration. They carry no 'special' value (except to me and Lacie of course)
Last edited:
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum