Do not miss: Understanding ISO and Your Camera's Sensor

Detail Man said:

edhannon said:

As most know, I hold a contrary view about pixel size vs SNR.

... to make sure I have not missed anything, I did a Google on "noise camera pixel size" and went to the sites that had some level of authority:

Stanford paper - larger pixels = better SNR

http://white.stanford.edu/~brian/papers/pdc/pixelSize_SPIE00.pdf

Click to expand...

From the above-referenced paper (in Section 2.1, PDF Page 3, journal Page 453) - where the authors are clearly speaking very specifically about "pixel-level" temporal measuremenrs):

DR increases roughly as the square root of pixel size, since both C and reset noise (kTC) increase approximately linearly with pixel size.

True only to the extent that the spectrum of all internal readout/ADC noises are random in nature.

SNR also increases roughly as the square root of pixel size since the RMS shot noise increases as the square root of the signal. These curves demonstrate the advantages of choosing a large pixel.

True only to the extent that the Photon Shot Noise existing within the light itself dominates noise.

.

I attempt (for the Nth time, it seems) to inspire you to squarely face the following "equivalence". In the quoted text from the Stanford paper above, I substitute every occurance of the term "pixel" with the phrase "image-sensor active-area" ([bolded] below to show the changes made):

DR increases roughly as the square root of [image-sensor active-area] size, since both C and reset noise (kTC) increase approximately linearly with [image-sensor active-area] size.

SNR also increases roughly as the square root of [image-sensor active-area] size since the RMS shot noise increases as the square root of the signal. These curves demonstrate the advantages of choosing a large [image-sensor active-area].

Remaining (for the moment) in the world of temporal noise measurements that such single-photosite analysis necessitates, explain to us why the above [substitutions] would in any way be different when applied to image-sensor active-area sizes of arrays of multiple photosites.

.

Enter the spatial (inter-photosite measurement) domain:

With microlens array assemblies, 100% optical fill-factor is not an unreasonable assumption.

In the spatial domain (as opposed to the temporal domain - the only domain possible with single photosite analysis), explain to us why the above [substitutions] would in any way be different when applied to image-sensor active-area sizes of arrays of multiple photosites.

You have never responded to that query (previously specifically made to you several times) ...

If you cannot identify what differences demonstrably exist between "individual photosite size" and "image-sensor active-area sizes of arrays of multiple photosites" (as those phrases are used in the original, and in the by me modified, quotes appearing above), then there exists no meaningful case that can be made whatsoever for any sort of unique "primacy" of single-photosite analysis.

What matters in analyzing image-sensor performance is spatial (inter-photosite measurements performed over some given measurement time) - not temporal single photosite measurements.

RAW photosite data relates to image-data formed from an image-sensor active-area consisting of an array of multiple photosites. It is not (in applications of interest) about individual photosite output - that is, unless we are discussing a single-photosite ("cyclops") imaging device using one photodetector.

Click to expand...

edhannon said:

jrtrent said:

Thanks for the links--interesting, informative reading, most of which I hadn't seen before.

Click to expand...

Google is your friend

You just have to learn how to use it. I developed the following doing research for work and school:

• Try several combinations of key words about your question - in this case "noise camera pixel size".
• Filter the responses based on the source and your goal. In this case I ignored blogs, personal web sites, advertising, etc. I concentrated on camera manufactures (e.g. Nikon)

Click to expand...

edhannon said:

Detail Man said:

- but in order for users to effectively maximize Exposure, they require the benefits of reliable on-camera RAW channel level indicators - preferably in "preview" (in order to avoid having to "chimp" by first shooting, and then reviewing).

Click to expand...

There is another way.

First, taking the lead from Adams, "calibrate" your "system". I do it by taking a series of images of a gray card and adjusting the exposure from above saturation to below the 0 dB noise point. I plot the resulting ADU vs exposure and measure the number of stops from suggested exposure from the internal meter. I do this for the various qualities of light (sunny, shade, tungsten) and for each lens I have. Turns out I need only nine numbers - 3 each for each quality of light and each class of lens (modern Pentax, legacy Pentax, and other manufacturers). To simplify maters I have wrote software to un-compress the raw files, measure the average ADU values and the SNR, then plot the values. Software also measures computes number of stops from saturation to meter reading. Saturation is where the standard deviation goes down. I identify the suggested exposure by taking two images at the suggested exposure. The software locates the images with the duplicate exposures and uses that as the meter suggested exposure. The major limitation is the need to insure that the light stays relatively constant during the test exposures. I measure and report the variation in LV reported by the camera so I can spot a bad run. Here is an example of the output:



Second, I shoot raw.

Third, for those scenes with troublesome subject brightness range, I use the internal meter in spot mode and determine the recommended exposure for the brightest area where I need to avoid saturation. I adjust that exposure with the calibration factor for the lens and light quality. For my Pentax K-3 and most lenses it is 2 2/3 to 3 2/3 stops depending on quality of light.

Click to expand...

edhannon said:

This is also called "placing" in the zone system.

Click to expand...

edhannon said:

Finally, in post processing I adjust black level, brightness and contrast to suit the image.

Click to expand...

edhannon said:

In other words I "expose for the highlights and develop for the shadows".

Click to expand...

Detail Man said:

Dear Edward,

Well, it looks like you will never answer the above query. I do understand why. There is no answer that differentiates all that "monster pixel worship" from "monster sensor worship" (and the dreaded "total light"). Since (for 100% fill-factor, anyway, down to around 2 Micron pixel size, or so) that fact is indeed true, "pixel size" pretty much relates to spatial frequency resolution only.

Note that each and every image-sensor design is a different creation. Thus, Read Noise and Full Well Capacity (the determinants of "engineering Dynamic Range") depend more on the particular design and process variables than on individual photosite-aperture size itself.

Google is more than just "your friend". It also has the ability to humble one considerably, and reveal just how little one (self included) may know about subjects until they think long and hard about what is really going on. Yours truly has been thus humbled many, many times.

.

Demonstrable realities:

There are, in fact, a couple of tangible (as in "real") areas where "big pixel enthusiasts" can actually "hang their hat" on solid ground, and real, actual concerns (as opposed to vaporous floobydust).

(1) For sub-Micron photosites (unless specific processes are employed in fabrication, which do not appear to have been implemented, it seems), there is the matter of Random Telegraph Noise in the MOSFET source-follower amps which actually *does* present the most significant technological barriers for the "honey, I shrunk the pixels again" bit. Read Eric Fossum's posts as well as Wang's paper (quoted by me) in the thread where this post exists:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/52427150

(2) Lens-system Diffraction effects do indeed "exact a price" where it comes to spatial frequency resolution (the magnitude of the MTF response) for smaller photosite-apertures:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3475094

However, note that "big pixels" themselves exact a very similar spatial frequency resolution "cost". Therefore, pixels can just as well be "too big" as they can be "too small". Think about it sometime.

.

Click to expand...

Sloof Lirpa announces high dynamic range camera - the last word

As is their wont this time of year, the Sloof Lirpa team have produced another blockbuster: this year it's a camera that provides far greater Engineering Dynamic Range (EDR) than anything on the market today. DxO is currently reporting the best EDRs of a bit over 14 stops. The Sloof Lirpa...

blog.kasson.com

JimKasson said:

DM, how about a camera with a really big pixel?

http://blog.kasson.com/?p=9329

Click to expand...

Detail Man said:

JimKasson said:

DM, how about a camera with a really big pixel?

http://blog.kasson.com/?p=9329

Click to expand...

Very clever, indeed ! Such gives new meaning to the amorphous phrase, "pixel-level sharpness".

.

Here is a recent street shot taken with my own Cyclops 2000 that exemplifies the modern condition:



Best viewed at 100% in a fairly dark viewing environment, wearing all black clothing, with a goatee.

Click to expand...

the last word the last word - Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.

Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.

blog.kasson.com

Detail Man said:

roadtrpr said:

Detail Man said:

roadtrpr said:

Iliah Borg said:

http://www.adorama.com/alc/0015174/article/AdoramaU-Understanding-ISO-and-Your-Cameras-Sensor

Click to expand...

Looks like what is needed is some good people to get off the island and venture out into the real world and spread the word about photography according to science.

Click to expand...

"Exposuristas" and their ilk have not only been banished here to "the island" - they appear to have infiltrated the "inner sanctum" of DPReview. Indeed, they seem to be lurking "behind every bush".

Click to expand...

I thought they migrated here.

Click to expand...

There are eight million stories in the Naked City.

Detail Man said:

Now if you can just persuade Gollywop to make that into a viral, scratch that, a popular you tube video.

Click to expand...

"The Resolution Will Not Be Televised" ...

Click to expand...

Detail Man said:

(The market-dominant) JPG-shooters are often unable to reliably determine sensor-level Exposure (by knowing that the status of the RAW channel ADC outputs is a high, yet linear, non-saturated one), even if they would like to. True also for RAW shooters (without their determining reliable "calibration" methods for a specific camera under specific conditions).

It is common for JPG-shooters to have an encouraged faith that their camera metering systems will act effectively to prevent such conditions, while still maximizing sensor-level Exposure. Not so ...

Given the effects of the non-linear gamma-correction (as well as compression in the non-linear RGB transfer-function "shoulders"), I think that it (may) be that some JPG-shooters find themselves preferring to err on the side of lower (sensor-level) Exposure levels - reducing the amount of loss of highlight-details within the in-camera encoded JPGs, while at the same time having the adverse effect of reducing (sensor-level) Signal/Noise Ratios.

All shooters (JPG/RAW) can simply adjust F-Number (for minumum desired Depth of Field) and Shutter Speed (given camera/subject stabilities) prior to adjusting the camera's "ISO" setting value (to the lowest feasible ISO setting in ISO-invariant cameras) - but in order for users to effectively maximize Exposure, they require the benefits of reliable on-camera RAW channel level indicators - preferably in "preview" (in order to avoid having to "chimp" by first shooting, and then reviewing).

DM

Click to expand...

roadtrpr said:

Detail Man said:

roadtrpr said:

Detail Man said:

roadtrpr said:

Iliah Borg said:

http://www.adorama.com/alc/0015174/article/AdoramaU-Understanding-ISO-and-Your-Cameras-Sensor

Click to expand...

Looks like what is needed is some good people to get off the island and venture out into the real world and spread the word about photography according to science.

Click to expand...

"Exposuristas" and their ilk have not only been banished here to "the island" - they appear to have infiltrated the "inner sanctum" of DPReview. Indeed, they seem to be lurking "behind every bush".

Click to expand...

I thought they migrated here.

Click to expand...

There are eight million stories in the Naked City.

roadtrpr said:

Now if you can just persuade Gollywop to make that into a viral, scratch that, a popular you tube video.

Click to expand...

"The Resolution Will Not Be Televised" ...

Click to expand...

You expect a resolution?

Click to expand...

roadtrpr said:

roadtrpr said:

(The market-dominant) JPG-shooters are often unable to reliably determine sensor-level Exposure (by knowing that the status of the RAW channel ADC outputs is a high, yet linear, non-saturated one), even if they would like to. True also for RAW shooters (without their determining reliable "calibration" methods for a specific camera under specific conditions).

It is common for JPG-shooters to have an encouraged faith that their camera metering systems will act effectively to prevent such conditions, while still maximizing sensor-level Exposure. Not so ...

Given the effects of the non-linear gamma-correction (as well as compression in the non-linear RGB transfer-function "shoulders"), I think that it (may) be that some JPG-shooters find themselves preferring to err on the side of lower (sensor-level) Exposure levels - reducing the amount of loss of highlight-details within the in-camera encoded JPGs, while at the same time having the adverse effect of reducing (sensor-level) Signal/Noise Ratios.

All shooters (JPG/RAW) can simply adjust F-Number (for minumum desired Depth of Field) and Shutter Speed (given camera/subject stabilities) prior to adjusting the camera's "ISO" setting value (to the lowest feasible ISO setting in ISO-invariant cameras) - but in order for users to effectively maximize Exposure, they require the benefits of reliable on-camera RAW channel level indicators - preferably in "preview" (in order to avoid having to "chimp" by first shooting, and then reviewing).

Click to expand...

I enjoy your writing style, but I suggest that if you join The missionaries that go out to spread the good word in the real word you leave the direct communication with the photo taking masses to others.

Click to expand...

Detail Man said:

JimKasson said:

DM, how about a camera with a really big pixel?

http://blog.kasson.com/?p=9329

Click to expand...

Very clever, indeed ! Such gives new meaning to the amorphous phrase, "pixel-level sharpness".

.

Here is a recent street shot taken with my own Cyclops 2000 that exemplifies the modern condition:



Best viewed at 100% in a fairly dark viewing environment, wearing all black clothing, with a goatee.

Click to expand...

Iliah Borg said:

roadtrpr said:

Iliah Borg said:

http://www.adorama.com/alc/0015174/article/AdoramaU-Understanding-ISO-and-Your-Cameras-Sensor

Click to expand...

Looks like what is needed is some good people to get off the island and venture out into the real world and spread the word about photography according to science.

Click to expand...

Before anything, cameras need to be optimized for shooting raw. Not only they are not, most of the application/user level programmers in the industry have no clue what are the challenges.

Same is true about shooting accessories. No colormeter will tell you what filter you need to use to balance raw. No exposure meter will allow you to enter the dynamic range in a direct and easy way or, G-в forbid, to enter the table of DR depending on ISO setting. No studio lights or flashes are optimized for the spectral sensitivity of a typical sensor, and no filters are offered.

Click to expand...

Detail Man said:

roadtrpr said:

Detail Man said:

roadtrpr said:

Detail Man said:

roadtrpr said:

Iliah Borg said:

http://www.adorama.com/alc/0015174/article/AdoramaU-Understanding-ISO-and-Your-Cameras-Sensor

Click to expand...

Looks like what is needed is some good people to get off the island and venture out into the real world and spread the word about photography according to science.

Click to expand...

"Exposuristas" and their ilk have not only been banished here to "the island" - they appear to have infiltrated the "inner sanctum" of DPReview. Indeed, they seem to be lurking "behind every bush".

Click to expand...

I thought they migrated here.

Click to expand...

There are eight million stories in the Naked City.

Detail Man said:

Now if you can just persuade Gollywop to make that into a viral, scratch that, a popular you tube video.

Click to expand...

"The Resolution Will Not Be Televised" ...

Click to expand...

You expect a resolution?

Click to expand...

I assumed that ... *you* ... were the one who here dreams of some sort of imagined "resolution" ?

Detail Man said:

Detail Man said:

(The market-dominant) JPG-shooters are often unable to reliably determine sensor-level Exposure (by knowing that the status of the RAW channel ADC outputs is a high, yet linear, non-saturated one), even if they would like to. True also for RAW shooters (without their determining reliable "calibration" methods for a specific camera under specific conditions).

It is common for JPG-shooters to have an encouraged faith that their camera metering systems will act effectively to prevent such conditions, while still maximizing sensor-level Exposure. Not so ...

Given the effects of the non-linear gamma-correction (as well as compression in the non-linear RGB transfer-function "shoulders"), I think that it (may) be that some JPG-shooters find themselves preferring to err on the side of lower (sensor-level) Exposure levels - reducing the amount of loss of highlight-details within the in-camera encoded JPGs, while at the same time having the adverse effect of reducing (sensor-level) Signal/Noise Ratios.

All shooters (JPG/RAW) can simply adjust F-Number (for minumum desired Depth of Field) and Shutter Speed (given camera/subject stabilities) prior to adjusting the camera's "ISO" setting value (to the lowest feasible ISO setting in ISO-invariant cameras) - but in order for users to effectively maximize Exposure, they require the benefits of reliable on-camera RAW channel level indicators - preferably in "preview" (in order to avoid having to "chimp" by first shooting, and then reviewing).

Click to expand...

I enjoy your writing style, but I suggest that if you join The missionaries that go out to spread the good word in the real word you leave the direct communication with the photo taking masses to others.

Click to expand...

I shall gracefully "bow out" now, so that those more eloquent than I can now take the podium:

DM ...

Click to expand...

roadtrpr said:

"ISO isn’t even an acronym, but a shortname for “International Organization for Standardization..."

Click to expand...

roadtrpr said:

If a group of missionaries do ever get off the island they might find it effect to write one or more Wikipedia articles. A title that could serve as bait would be "Exposure Triangle". It might take a team to fend off the revisions from the exposure triangle worshippers.

Click to expand...

Great Bustard said:

Detail Man said:

JimKasson said:

DM, how about a camera with a really big pixel?

http://blog.kasson.com/?p=9329

Click to expand...

Very clever, indeed ! Such gives new meaning to the amorphous phrase, "pixel-level sharpness".

.

Here is a recent street shot taken with my own Cyclops 2000 that exemplifies the modern condition:



Best viewed at 100% in a fairly dark viewing environment, wearing all black clothing, with a goatee.

Click to expand...

I'm disappointed to find that you're spying on me. ;-)

Click to expand...

Iliah Borg said:

... especially in regards to ISO settings explanation. He told me that:

- it means all the voluminous work of evangelists needs to be re-written, and their names may be smeared because of 10+ years of misstating the matter.

Click to expand...

Detail Man said:

Iliah Borg said:

... especially in regards to ISO settings explanation. He told me that:

- it means all the voluminous work of evangelists needs to be re-written, and their names may be smeared because of 10+ years of misstating the matter.

Click to expand...

So far, only a few of the "illuminati" have prostrated themselves before the "cathedral of science":

Click to expand...

Iliah Borg said:

Iliah Borg said:

"ISO isn’t even an acronym, but a shortname for “International Organization for Standardization..."

Click to expand...

Well, we know it is not - it stands for Greek iso- ≈ equal (ἴσος)

Click to expand...

Iliah Borg said:

Iliah Borg said:

If a group of missionaries do ever get off the island they might find it effect to write one or more Wikipedia articles. A title that could serve as bait would be "Exposure Triangle". It might take a team to fend off the revisions from the exposure triangle worshippers.

Click to expand...

Couple of months ago I wrote privately to one of the chief triangulistas, suggesting to change the course, especially in regards to ISO settings explanation. He told me that

- it is too complicated for the average user (he actually went much stronger than that)

- it is of no practical use

- it means all the voluminous work of evangelists needs to be re-written, and their names may be smeared because of 10+ years of misstating the matter.

--
http://www.libraw.org/

Click to expand...

roadtrpr said:

Maybe in addition to Wikipedia articles a popular blog could be created that would administer curative medicines serriptiously.

Click to expand...

Iliah Borg said:

Iliah Borg said:

Maybe in addition to Wikipedia articles a popular blog could be created that would administer curative medicines serriptiously.

Click to expand...

I know a lot of folks submitting the corrections to Wiki only to see their edits to be reverted in a matter of minutes.

Click to expand...

Iliah Borg said:

A collective blog may be a better option, with editors elected among those who are qualified to speak on the matters. Promoting such a blog may be a difficult task however.

Click to expand...