-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Will the 5D4 & 1D X II really get new sensors?
- Thread starter Rick Knepper
- Start date
crashpc
Veteran Member
It CAN.
To a point, and even in the disagreement part, there is one part to agree. Yes, Canon might have more expensive sensors. Because most of these are APS-C and FF sensors. Sony has cheap sensors, because most of these are camera sensors. Those need to be cheaper because of size and purpose. And those can be cheaper, because less material used, better yields per wafer etc. So it doesnt bring us to any usable conclusion.
True. I don´t deny that those sensors are more expensive. But Canon propably make these with well payed-back inventory.
Yes. They´re propably set to win this way. But it doesn´t mean that Canon RD lake is dry, and will loose another generation after the new one.
It is not always RD and economies of scale, what can make difference. Common and free knowledge doesn´t let too many companies to die just like that, and on the other side, patents can do that to any company in long term war.
I still believe there is no usable data for end customer for next four-five years. No forecast for enthusiasts to know what will be the next step of each company.
AndreeMarkefors
Member
Final picture? Simple approach?
I'm talking about setting up how images are imported into LightRoom BEFORE you start to work on them.
My initial question was to find out if there actually IS a clipping problem in LR related to the 5Ds(r) cameras, or if it simply is related to people not calibrating their import profile…
Take care
Hans Kruse
Senior Member
AndreeMarkefors
Member
If the recovery is automatic or not is secondary to me—as long as the data is there. The looks of the imported file can also we tweaked, like I mentioned earlier.
Now, it would be a problem if 5Ds files show recoverable highlights in Canon's own software, but are clipped (and unrecoverable) in Lightroom. This is what I was wondering: is the actual underlying data not there in Lightroom for these two models?
The value is that you can reduce the sliders you have to move on each image. Set your lens corrections, sharpening values and other tweaks that you often perform so that the software does it for you directly on import.
For people who push and pull each slider on every image—no matter what—it's of little use of course.
Hans Kruse
Senior Member
But that's the issue with the automatic highlight recovery that you don't knpw if the data is there. When the clipping indicators turn on it does not mean there is clipping in the RAW file. There can be significant clipping in the RAW file and no clipping indicators in Lightroom. Change of White balance alone can turn on or turn off the clipping indicators.
I do not use DPP and have only checked a few times. Same with Capture One. But it is unlikely that Lightroom will show clipping and DPP not. DPP does not (to my knowledge) have automatic highlight recovery. Highlight recovery is not related to the highlights slider btw. It's an algorithm that determines if data can be reconstructed in areas where there are clipping of data in the RAW file. There is no way to influence this algorithm which inly works in PV2012.
You made very clear that a preset like you mentioned was not a final edit or near it. If it works for you that's fine. You can make lots of presets, but presets are not really that great since you can only put absolute values in presets.
I have a few presets that I use, but the ost useful imho is to edit one picture and copy the settings to similar pictures and then adjust. But that's getting away from what I understand is your real point: Profiles and what role they play. But profiles do not clip per se although in theory they could.
R
rrccad
Guest
depends on the size of the fab - canon needed two plants to manufacturer 6 million sensors per year. since they still manufacturer around 5.8 milllion sensors per year, going by initial volumes, they are keeping both plants busy.The point is that Canon people tend to concentrate on ownership sensor fab. It's not a big issue. Most image sensing producers use foundry fab, the reason being that until you get as big as Sony, there is not enough business to keep a fab line busy enough to justify keeping it up to date.Hi Bobn2: I realize you have far more knowledge on sensor fab than myself. That being said, it may true Canon started 10 years behind Sony it does not mean they are actually 10 years behind presently. Canon does not need to reinvent the wheel so it is possible Canon column ADC will catch up to the current Sony chips within a couple of years max (and Sony will make some incremental updates in the meantime). Within a few years the column ADC will be very mature tech and there may be little difference between manufacturers at that time. Then again, I could be completely out in left field on this
Of course somebody else will eventually come up with another breakthrough in another area of sensor fab and reset the bar even higherCheers.
Which of course leads to another question - how did canon produce at one time, 10 million a year.
they of course may have improved / updated their equipment without notifying dpreview.
the capital would have been written off years ago. not to mention it would be been simply equipment replacement what would have been near EOL anyways. you don't have to "abandon" a fab because the equipment is no longer in use. you CAN upgrade the equipment. it's costly, but it depends on the wafers/ month to how much it does scale for cost. considering that most of the equipment would have been from canon themselves - what really would have been the cash cost?
the first plant was built I believe 10 years ago, the second, 7 years ago.
one small note though - the 250MP prototype was done on 130nm. there's an entire possibility that canon simply shut down and replaced the 180nm line altogether.
that acquisition cost would have been pocket change in canon's R&D expenditures.
They probably moved to it to smaller geometries with DPAF since the QE from that generation onwards - jumped, and the noise characteristics from the sensors changed. for starters, there's an extra switch for DPAF, wiring, not to mention the pixel itself is cut in half, and with that the QE still jumped over the older 18Mp sensor.
it also explains why they "sat" at 18MP for so long; as since then canon has come out with different sensors for the 70D, 7DII, 80D, T6 in basically 2.5 years. Canon's rapidly changing it's sensors now like they used to.
as far as "catching up" it's usually easier to catch up then it is to break new ground, but it's a matter of patent portfolio. it's not a matter of canon needing years to catch up if they managed to secure the patents necessary to develop a suitable sensor. Some of those patents cleared very late last year.
Also the differences now in between the senors are all within the realms of diminishing returns. the difference between an 80D and a latest tech A6300 is negligible, at the level of pushing you have to do to see the difference, you have other problems cropping up - loss of microcontrast, resolution, clarity, color casting,etc.
Last edited:
stratobill
Senior Member
Cenk
Senior Member
Nikon D7000 vs Canon 80D. Is this a simple coincidence only?
--
Cenk Ogurtani
facebook.com/CenkOgurtaniWildlifePhotography
BlueCosmo5050
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,772
- Solutions
- 4
- Reaction score
- 1,178
It's hard to go through the whole thread and see what I missed, even though this wasn't directed toward me, the person who asked how to use the tone curve instead of the contrast asked a very important question which can advance his photography.
The tone curve does produce the contrast, the luminosity curve is what all of the sliders are based off of, except for the ones that involve color. In that case, you go into the single Red, Green, and Blue curves. If you crank the contrast slider, it contrast the image for you but not as precise as you can get it if you do it yourself in the curve. The curve is your shadows, mid shadows, higher shadows, low part of the mid tones, midtones, the higher part of your mid tones, and the same with highlight.
As far as the colors, all of the colors are in the RGB curves. Learning this will help your photography greatly.
What happened with me, is I had to learn how to be a colorist and color grade videos. In video we are used to using the curves and color wheels. For some reason photography does not adopt the scopes that video programs have, such as the RGB parade, or the luminosity one where you can see how it works.
If you don't want to do video but have Premiere Pro, or download a free trial for 30 days, go to the color tab, import your photo, bring up all 4 of the scopes. Color correct and grade your image with the curves. The color wheels are basically curves as well, they are like the pivot points in the curves.
Once you learn the curves well, you've learned how to color well. I don't touch the sliders in Lightroom or any raw processor, I go right to the curves. I don't use the split tone sliders, I do it myself in the RGB curves.
The RGB curves do everything except for hue, saturation, luminance and a few more things. For example if you use CFL bulbs and you notice your image is green, the green is not over saturated but most photographers think it is and they pull the greens out, which is wrong. You want to even the greens out with the red and the blues, understandably if you've never done video this is not obvious as you can't see a scope showing you. That I know of anyway. The colors in the histogram are not sufficient enough like a scope.
Too much green in an image means that you want to even it out by pulling the green back in which ever area on the curve it's too high in, once even, the image will be correct and then you stylize to taste. But most photographers, if they seen a green image, they would pull the green saturation down.
Learning the curves is so important and I believe you get good at them more quickly if you are willing to edit video.
Adobe SpeedGrade CC has a 30 day trial, also DaVinci Resolve is completely free and most consider it more powerful than SpeedGrade, however I use both and Speedgrade does some things that Resolve can't do so easily.
I also believe learning Photoshop when working with color seeing inputs and outputs will help more so than just Lightroom.
The tone curve does produce the contrast, the luminosity curve is what all of the sliders are based off of, except for the ones that involve color. In that case, you go into the single Red, Green, and Blue curves. If you crank the contrast slider, it contrast the image for you but not as precise as you can get it if you do it yourself in the curve. The curve is your shadows, mid shadows, higher shadows, low part of the mid tones, midtones, the higher part of your mid tones, and the same with highlight.
As far as the colors, all of the colors are in the RGB curves. Learning this will help your photography greatly.
What happened with me, is I had to learn how to be a colorist and color grade videos. In video we are used to using the curves and color wheels. For some reason photography does not adopt the scopes that video programs have, such as the RGB parade, or the luminosity one where you can see how it works.
If you don't want to do video but have Premiere Pro, or download a free trial for 30 days, go to the color tab, import your photo, bring up all 4 of the scopes. Color correct and grade your image with the curves. The color wheels are basically curves as well, they are like the pivot points in the curves.
Once you learn the curves well, you've learned how to color well. I don't touch the sliders in Lightroom or any raw processor, I go right to the curves. I don't use the split tone sliders, I do it myself in the RGB curves.
The RGB curves do everything except for hue, saturation, luminance and a few more things. For example if you use CFL bulbs and you notice your image is green, the green is not over saturated but most photographers think it is and they pull the greens out, which is wrong. You want to even the greens out with the red and the blues, understandably if you've never done video this is not obvious as you can't see a scope showing you. That I know of anyway. The colors in the histogram are not sufficient enough like a scope.
Too much green in an image means that you want to even it out by pulling the green back in which ever area on the curve it's too high in, once even, the image will be correct and then you stylize to taste. But most photographers, if they seen a green image, they would pull the green saturation down.
Learning the curves is so important and I believe you get good at them more quickly if you are willing to edit video.
Adobe SpeedGrade CC has a 30 day trial, also DaVinci Resolve is completely free and most consider it more powerful than SpeedGrade, however I use both and Speedgrade does some things that Resolve can't do so easily.
I also believe learning Photoshop when working with color seeing inputs and outputs will help more so than just Lightroom.
AndreeMarkefors
Member
Hi, Hans. I feel like we're threading water. I haven't asked about highlight recovery and I didn't bring it up. The only thing I did was suggest a method of tuning the default import processing (develop settings) to be less contrasty—because it wasn't clear to me (and still isn't) if the issue was the LOOK of the imported file that was annoying (non issue), OR if data is getting lost, simply by using Lightroom (big issue).
I don't think I've ever used a preset in Lightroom (found in the left panel), other than to test them once or twice out of curiosity.
I was talking about tuning the develop settings, and that is not the same to me. In my opinion everyone should go through them and check that everything is set to their preferred default and then save them to that camera model. This to make sure that even though each file might need further work, at least the starting point has been optimised.
Yes, I was wondering about data corruption, alternatively if Lightroom throws away data that was there to begin with (for this specific camera model).
Iliah Borg
Forum Pro
Which of DSPs inside Nikon cameras is made by Fujifilm?
bobn2
Forum Pro
Iliah Borg
Forum Pro
Last edited:
bobn2
Forum Pro
That is not clear. The gist of the press release for the newer fab was that it was to make sub-APS-C sensors, which at a time it was getting from Sony.depends on the size of the fab - canon needed two plants to manufacturer 6 million sensors per year. since they still manufacturer around 5.8 milllion sensors per year, going by initial volumes, they are keeping both plants busy.The point is that Canon people tend to concentrate on ownership sensor fab. It's not a big issue. Most image sensing producers use foundry fab, the reason being that until you get as big as Sony, there is not enough business to keep a fab line busy enough to justify keeping it up to date.Hi Bobn2: I realize you have far more knowledge on sensor fab than myself. That being said, it may true Canon started 10 years behind Sony it does not mean they are actually 10 years behind presently. Canon does not need to reinvent the wheel so it is possible Canon column ADC will catch up to the current Sony chips within a couple of years max (and Sony will make some incremental updates in the meantime). Within a few years the column ADC will be very mature tech and there may be little difference between manufacturers at that time. Then again, I could be completely out in left field on this
Of course somebody else will eventually come up with another breakthrough in another area of sensor fab and reset the bar even higher
Quite simply, it had two fabs running, the 500nm one for APS-C and bigger and the 180nm one for the in-house 1/7" sensors it was making (probably was selling several million of those, they put it in several high volume cameras). Now, its buying the1/7" from Sony again (and some of those products have gone to 1") and moving APS-C and above to the 180nm line, so the 500nm line is phasing out.
They never have informed DPReview, when they open a new line, thy put aout a press release and write about it in their annual report. You'd wonder why they'd want to keep quiet about major investments, particularly in their annual report.
That depends, doesn't it? A fab line might cost $1bn for a cheap one. Lets' assume the Canon ones weren't new, so used price $500M. If they amortise $10 capital costs per señor, that's 50M sensors they have to make to pay for the fab line, that's about 10 years.
That would fit, with the figures above. The first line has paid for itself, it can go. The second, maybe not (because you can't really add $10 to the cost of a 1/1.7" sensor without making it completely uncompetitive)
That would be very strange. More likely that the 250MP was made in a foundry, maybe an extension of the contracts Canon already have to do part of their wafer processing (the BEOL) at foundries.
Not really. It is a big enough investment it would have had to have appeared in their annual report to investors.
Speculation, we'll see with the next Chipworks report.
I think the step to 180nm would explain all that. Finally they decided to go to Sony for the new 1/1.7" sensors, retire the old line and use the newer one for big sensors. Fits what's known better than the idea that they have an unannounced new 130nm fab line. Moreover, even 180nm was right at the limit of i-line steppers, and Canon does not have an immersion product. So, if Canon really does have its own 130nm facility, it will have to be equipped with Nikon or ASML kit (possibly that would be why they didn't want to publicise it
)Personally, In don't think it has much to do with patents. Much of the performance has to do with fine tuning over time, rather than patents. But sure, yes, Canon won't take 10 years from where they are now to get to where Sony are now. But when they get there, Sony will have moved on. They are already making BSI FF sensors, and I have a suspicion that what's in the D500 is a Sony APS-C stacked sensor.
It's moving to a different sphere with stacked sensors and BSI. That's more about fast lens performance and full frame video read-out rates, global shutters and other facilities.
--
Bob.
“The picture is good or not from the moment it was caught in the camera.”
Henri Cartier-Bresson.
Last edited:
bobn2
Forum Pro
Mikael Risedal
Senior Member
Hans Kruse
Senior Member
I just tried to explain to you what I felt was in your questions. Highlight recovery is an important part of that. It was not clear to me that you were aware of that. But anyway that's the issue of trying to explain something
I was just trying to be helpful, but if you didn't get any help from this that's fine.
It's not throwing away data. Unless you consider potentially less than optimal algoritms in Lightroom
--
Kind regards,
Hans Kruse
Home Page -- http://www.hanskrusephotography.com , http://500px.com/hanskrusephotography, http://www.hanskrusephotography.zenfolio.com
Workshops -- http://www.hanskrusephotography.com/Hans-Kruse-Photo-Workshops/Workshops
Facebook Photography http://www.facebook.com/HansKrusePhotography
Workshop Newsletter signup http://eepurl.com/bA0Pj
Last edited:
Rick Knepper
Forum Pro
AndreeMarkefors
Member
Good. That's reassuring and in line with expectations.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum