Reading mode: Light Dark

Total Light Theory continued.

Go to last post
Iliah Borg said:
bobn2 said:
Iliah Borg said:
bobn2 said:
Iliah Borg said:
bobn2 said:
Iliah Borg said:
bobn2 said:
Iliah Borg said:
bobn2 said:
Iliah Borg said:
Jack Hogan said:
Iliah Borg said:
It is also telling that they do not have exposure / integration time / anything like that as a user-entered parameter in their calculator, instead it is X axis http://camera.hamamatsu.com/eu/en/technical_guides/relative_snr/index.html
Click to expand...
Surprise surprise, no mention of total light on the x-axis, just photons...
Click to expand...
Those photons are total light per pixel ;) How we form an image from those pixels is out of their control. They provide just the raw data.
Click to expand...
I think we should be campaigning for a better deal for photons.
Click to expand...
For the new deal. Part of it must be demosaicking ;)
Click to expand...
Something like that. I always thought it was discriminatory, the way poor photons get segregated into 'signal' (good) and 'noise' (bad). Seems to me there's a bit of good and bad in every photon.
Click to expand...
True, but that exceeds the limits of the instrumentation that is available to me. So I think, like it is with colour management, I opt for smoothness.
Click to expand...
Photons in tuxedos only?
Click to expand...
Smelling Talisker.
Click to expand...
And when they arrive at your sensor, they do so driving an Aston.
Click to expand...
Reciting "If—"
Click to expand...
I think that's more their targets:

If you can keep your energy level when all about you are losing theirs and blaming it on you, you'll be an electron, my lepton.
Click to expand...
Stiff upper lip and not encountering in strong interactions :)

You know that our spectrometer is controlled by particle photon ;)
Click to expand...
And when you confront it, it sits there stroking its cation.
 
alanr0 said:
Joofa said:
alanr0 said:
Porky89 said:
As always, the Hamamatsu article does not even consider the size of the sensor.
Click to expand...
Well that's because it makes no difference to the SNR. In the photon noise limited regime, only the number of photons captured is important.
Click to expand...
IMHO, the size of the sensor (rather the number of pixels, actually) can play a role in parctise. SNR could be affected by how different pixels are combined together for a comparison of large / small or more accurately low / high MP pixel sensors.
Click to expand...
Feel free to take the discussion in that direction.

In the context of my response to Porky89, I am concentrating on the fixed pixel count scenario to keep things focussed.
Click to expand...
That's an important point. When dealing with the likes of Porky, interesting diversions are unproductive.
 
bobn2 said:
alanr0 said:
Joofa said:
alanr0 said:
Porky89 said:
As always, the Hamamatsu article does not even consider the size of the sensor.
Click to expand...
Well that's because it makes no difference to the SNR. In the photon noise limited regime, only the number of photons captured is important.
Click to expand...
IMHO, the size of the sensor (rather the number of pixels, actually) can play a role in parctise. SNR could be affected by how different pixels are combined together for a comparison of large / small or more accurately low / high MP pixel sensors.
Click to expand...
Feel free to take the discussion in that direction.

In the context of my response to Porky89, I am concentrating on the fixed pixel count scenario to keep things focussed.
Click to expand...
That's an important point. When dealing with the likes of Porky, interesting diversions are unproductive.
Click to expand...
The diversions are the only things that keep me reading.

Jim
 
JimKasson said:
bobn2 said:
alanr0 said:
Joofa said:
alanr0 said:
Porky89 said:
As always, the Hamamatsu article does not even consider the size of the sensor.
Click to expand...
Well that's because it makes no difference to the SNR. In the photon noise limited regime, only the number of photons captured is important.
Click to expand...
IMHO, the size of the sensor (rather the number of pixels, actually) can play a role in parctise. SNR could be affected by how different pixels are combined together for a comparison of large / small or more accurately low / high MP pixel sensors.
Click to expand...
Feel free to take the discussion in that direction.

In the context of my response to Porky89, I am concentrating on the fixed pixel count scenario to keep things focussed.
Click to expand...
That's an important point. When dealing with the likes of Porky, interesting diversions are unproductive.
Click to expand...
The diversions are the only things that keep me reading.

Jim
Click to expand...
Sure, but you're not Porky.
 
One result of the total light theory is that it suggests that if you are able to capture more total light, you will have better signal to noise.

Apparently the astronomers have bought into this. They tend to talk about how much light their telescopes can gather, not the size of the sensor.

If increasing sensor size improved signal to noise, we would see small telescopes with very large sensors. The fact that we see very large telescope (very wide aperture diameters) suggests that the people who are serious about working in low light have bought into the total light theory.
 
Mark Scott Abeln said:
Thanks for your response. I suspected, a bit late, that what I proposed wasn't feasible.
Click to expand...
You are welcome. I must say that entropy is not the only information measure. In fact, Gabor intended his time-frequency cell (Gaussian atom) to provide minimum, single 'logon of information'. But, Shannon's idea got more traction regarding 'information'. Gabor became successful in signal analysis.

In any case, entropy, or maximum entropy, which is applicable here, just goes with our usual intuition that, loosely speaking, without prior info the best strategy is to consider all outcomes equally (more or less) likely.

--
Dj Joofa
http://www.djjoofa.com
 
Last edited:
Michael Fryd said:
One result of the total light theory is that it suggests that if you are able to capture more total light, you will have better signal to noise.

Apparently the astronomers have bought into this. They tend to talk about how much light their telescopes can gather, not the size of the sensor.

If increasing sensor size improved signal to noise, we would see small telescopes with very large sensors. The fact that we see very large telescope (very wide aperture diameters) suggests that the people who are serious about working in low light have bought into the total light theory.
Click to expand...
Oh, no. The process of assigning mythical status to 'total light theory' starts. Come on guys, what exactly is there to understand that more signal means better quality?

Lets not pull a GB here. :-)

--
Dj Joofa
http://www.djjoofa.com
 
Last edited:
Joofa said:
Michael Fryd said:
One result of the total light theory is that it suggests that if you are able to capture more total light, you will have better signal to noise.

Apparently the astronomers have bought into this. They tend to talk about how much light their telescopes can gather, not the size of the sensor.

If increasing sensor size improved signal to noise, we would see small telescopes with very large sensors. The fact that we see very large telescope (very wide aperture diameters) suggests that the people who are serious about working in low light have bought into the total light theory.
Click to expand...
Oh, no. The process of assigning mythical status to 'total light theory' starts. Come on guys, what exactly is there to understand that more signal means better quality?

Lets not pull a GB here. :-)
Click to expand...
A slight confusion of terms here. Having a stronger carrier of the signal improves quality. That's the point, not that the signal increases (it clearly doesn't, the 'message' doesn't change) but that the 'signal to noise' improves.
 
bobn2 said:
Joofa said:
Michael Fryd said:
One result of the total light theory is that it suggests that if you are able to capture more total light, you will have better signal to noise.

Apparently the astronomers have bought into this. They tend to talk about how much light their telescopes can gather, not the size of the sensor.

If increasing sensor size improved signal to noise, we would see small telescopes with very large sensors. The fact that we see very large telescope (very wide aperture diameters) suggests that the people who are serious about working in low light have bought into the total light theory.
Click to expand...
Oh, no. The process of assigning mythical status to 'total light theory' starts. Come on guys, what exactly is there to understand that more signal means better quality?

Lets not pull a GB here. :-)
Click to expand...
A slight confusion of terms here. Having a stronger carrier of the signal improves quality. That's the point, not that the signal increases (it clearly doesn't, the 'message' doesn't change) but that the 'signal to noise' improves.
Click to expand...
Now you are exactly pulling a GB.
 
bobn2 said:
Joofa said:
Michael Fryd said:
One result of the total light theory is that it suggests that if you are able to capture more total light, you will have better signal to noise.

Apparently the astronomers have bought into this. They tend to talk about how much light their telescopes can gather, not the size of the sensor.

If increasing sensor size improved signal to noise, we would see small telescopes with very large sensors. The fact that we see very large telescope (very wide aperture diameters) suggests that the people who are serious about working in low light have bought into the total light theory.
Click to expand...
Oh, no. The process of assigning mythical status to 'total light theory' starts. Come on guys, what exactly is there to understand that more signal means better quality?

Lets not pull a GB here. :-)
Click to expand...
A slight confusion of terms here. Having a stronger carrier of the signal improves quality. That's the point, not that the signal increases (it clearly doesn't, the 'message' doesn't change) but that the 'signal to noise' improves.
Click to expand...
i don't think I buy this completely. Consider plain old AM, with the carrier unsuppressed and both sidebands in place. The signal is in the sidebands. Increasing the carrier without increasing the sidebands isn't going to help a lot. In fact, you don't need the carrier at all to demodulate the signal.

Jim
 
Michael Fryd said:
One result of the total light theory is that it suggests that if you are able to capture more total light, you will have better signal to noise.
Click to expand...
Yes. I think that one of the things that confuses people is what the 'signal' is. It is the 'message', that is the information about the scene in front of the camera, not the stream of photons incident on the sensor, or the modulated voltage coming off the sensor, or the string of numbers coming off the ADC, those are all 'carriers'.
Michael Fryd said:
Apparently the astronomers have bought into this. They tend to talk about how much light their telescopes can gather, not the size of the sensor.

If increasing sensor size improved signal to noise, we would see small telescopes with very large sensors. The fact that we see very large telescope (very wide aperture diameters) suggests that the people who are serious about working in low light have bought into the total light theory.
Click to expand...
I think the major problem some people have is giving what they think is blindingly obvious a name like 'total light theory'. The problem is, if it was blindingly obvious to all, it wouldn't be so controversial. A lot of the opposition is from people who simply don't understand what 'exposure' is, and it got the name 'total light' simply because Joe was looking for a term alternative to 'exposure' to define whatever it is (actually, luminous energy) that determines the SNR of the image projected on the sensor.
 
JimKasson said:
bobn2 said:
Joofa said:
Michael Fryd said:
One result of the total light theory is that it suggests that if you are able to capture more total light, you will have better signal to noise.

Apparently the astronomers have bought into this. They tend to talk about how much light their telescopes can gather, not the size of the sensor.

If increasing sensor size improved signal to noise, we would see small telescopes with very large sensors. The fact that we see very large telescope (very wide aperture diameters) suggests that the people who are serious about working in low light have bought into the total light theory.
Click to expand...
Oh, no. The process of assigning mythical status to 'total light theory' starts. Come on guys, what exactly is there to understand that more signal means better quality?

Lets not pull a GB here. :-)
Click to expand...
A slight confusion of terms here. Having a stronger carrier of the signal improves quality. That's the point, not that the signal increases (it clearly doesn't, the 'message' doesn't change) but that the 'signal to noise' improves.
Click to expand...
i don't think I buy this completely. Consider plain old AM, with the carrier unsuppressed and both sidebands in place. The signal is in the sidebands. Increasing the carrier without increasing the sidebands isn't going to help a lot. In fact, you don't need the carrier at all to demodulate the signal.
Click to expand...
I like this example. Only a bonafide engineer can say stuff as above.
 
JimKasson said:
bobn2 said:
Joofa said:
Michael Fryd said:
One result of the total light theory is that it suggests that if you are able to capture more total light, you will have better signal to noise.

Apparently the astronomers have bought into this. They tend to talk about how much light their telescopes can gather, not the size of the sensor.

If increasing sensor size improved signal to noise, we would see small telescopes with very large sensors. The fact that we see very large telescope (very wide aperture diameters) suggests that the people who are serious about working in low light have bought into the total light theory.
Click to expand...
Oh, no. The process of assigning mythical status to 'total light theory' starts. Come on guys, what exactly is there to understand that more signal means better quality?

Lets not pull a GB here. :-)
Click to expand...
A slight confusion of terms here. Having a stronger carrier of the signal improves quality. That's the point, not that the signal increases (it clearly doesn't, the 'message' doesn't change) but that the 'signal to noise' improves.
Click to expand...
i don't think I buy this completely. Consider plain old AM, with the carrier unsuppressed and both sidebands in place. The signal is in the sidebands. Increasing the carrier without increasing the sidebands isn't going to help a lot. In fact, you don't need the carrier at all to demodulate the signal.

Jim
Click to expand...
I think that's an extension over time of the term 'carrier'. In the sense I'm talking about, the sidebands are the 'carrier'. The 'signal' isn't 'in' the sidebands, it's modulated onto the sidebands.

This is the problem with many of these terms, the usage starts being reasonably precise, then it blurs and becomes imprecise. In the sense that Shannon meant, the 'signal' is the 'message' (series of symbols) and the 'carrier' is the mechanism used to transmit that message.
 
Joofa said:
bobn2 said:
Joofa said:
Michael Fryd said:
One result of the total light theory is that it suggests that if you are able to capture more total light, you will have better signal to noise.

Apparently the astronomers have bought into this. They tend to talk about how much light their telescopes can gather, not the size of the sensor.

If increasing sensor size improved signal to noise, we would see small telescopes with very large sensors. The fact that we see very large telescope (very wide aperture diameters) suggests that the people who are serious about working in low light have bought into the total light theory.
Click to expand...
Oh, no. The process of assigning mythical status to 'total light theory' starts. Come on guys, what exactly is there to understand that more signal means better quality?

Lets not pull a GB here. :-)
Click to expand...
A slight confusion of terms here. Having a stronger carrier of the signal improves quality. That's the point, not that the signal increases (it clearly doesn't, the 'message' doesn't change) but that the 'signal to noise' improves.
Click to expand...
Now you are exactly pulling a GB.
Click to expand...
That's probably a good thing, well certainly compared to 'pulling a Joofa'. In the information theoretic sense, what I said is exactly correct.
 
Joofa said:
JimKasson said:
bobn2 said:
Joofa said:
Michael Fryd said:
One result of the total light theory is that it suggests that if you are able to capture more total light, you will have better signal to noise.

Apparently the astronomers have bought into this. They tend to talk about how much light their telescopes can gather, not the size of the sensor.

If increasing sensor size improved signal to noise, we would see small telescopes with very large sensors. The fact that we see very large telescope (very wide aperture diameters) suggests that the people who are serious about working in low light have bought into the total light theory.
Click to expand...
Oh, no. The process of assigning mythical status to 'total light theory' starts. Come on guys, what exactly is there to understand that more signal means better quality?

Lets not pull a GB here. :-)
Click to expand...
A slight confusion of terms here. Having a stronger carrier of the signal improves quality. That's the point, not that the signal increases (it clearly doesn't, the 'message' doesn't change) but that the 'signal to noise' improves.
Click to expand...
i don't think I buy this completely. Consider plain old AM, with the carrier unsuppressed and both sidebands in place. The signal is in the sidebands. Increasing the carrier without increasing the sidebands isn't going to help a lot. In fact, you don't need the carrier at all to demodulate the signal.
Click to expand...
I like this example. Only a bonafide engineer can say stuff as above.
Click to expand...
Maybe why in my career I've ended up several times having to do the job that 'bonafide engineers' couldn't.
 
bobn2 said:
Joofa said:
JimKasson said:
bobn2 said:
Joofa said:
Michael Fryd said:
One result of the total light theory is that it suggests that if you are able to capture more total light, you will have better signal to noise.

Apparently the astronomers have bought into this. They tend to talk about how much light their telescopes can gather, not the size of the sensor.

If increasing sensor size improved signal to noise, we would see small telescopes with very large sensors. The fact that we see very large telescope (very wide aperture diameters) suggests that the people who are serious about working in low light have bought into the total light theory.
Click to expand...
Oh, no. The process of assigning mythical status to 'total light theory' starts. Come on guys, what exactly is there to understand that more signal means better quality?

Lets not pull a GB here. :-)
Click to expand...
A slight confusion of terms here. Having a stronger carrier of the signal improves quality. That's the point, not that the signal increases (it clearly doesn't, the 'message' doesn't change) but that the 'signal to noise' improves.
Click to expand...
i don't think I buy this completely. Consider plain old AM, with the carrier unsuppressed and both sidebands in place. The signal is in the sidebands. Increasing the carrier without increasing the sidebands isn't going to help a lot. In fact, you don't need the carrier at all to demodulate the signal.
Click to expand...
I like this example. Only a bonafide engineer can say stuff as above.
Click to expand...
Maybe why in my career I've ended up several times having to do the job that 'bonafide engineers' couldn't.
Click to expand...
Jim is definitely a bonafide engineer. There is a special way that engineers think, which makes the world go, the no-nonsense approach, abstract-nonsense free approach, lets go and do it mindset. Jim has all of them, and more.

And, certainly he stays out of making things needlessly complicated.
 
bobn2 said:
JimKasson said:
bobn2 said:
Joofa said:
Michael Fryd said:
One result of the total light theory is that it suggests that if you are able to capture more total light, you will have better signal to noise.

Apparently the astronomers have bought into this. They tend to talk about how much light their telescopes can gather, not the size of the sensor.

If increasing sensor size improved signal to noise, we would see small telescopes with very large sensors. The fact that we see very large telescope (very wide aperture diameters) suggests that the people who are serious about working in low light have bought into the total light theory.
Click to expand...
Oh, no. The process of assigning mythical status to 'total light theory' starts. Come on guys, what exactly is there to understand that more signal means better quality?

Lets not pull a GB here. :-)
Click to expand...
A slight confusion of terms here. Having a stronger carrier of the signal improves quality. That's the point, not that the signal increases (it clearly doesn't, the 'message' doesn't change) but that the 'signal to noise' improves.
Click to expand...
i don't think I buy this completely. Consider plain old AM, with the carrier unsuppressed and both sidebands in place. The signal is in the sidebands. Increasing the carrier without increasing the sidebands isn't going to help a lot. In fact, you don't need the carrier at all to demodulate the signal.
Click to expand...
I think that's an extension over time of the term 'carrier'. In the sense I'm talking about, the sidebands are the 'carrier'. The 'signal' isn't 'in' the sidebands, it's modulated onto the sidebands.
Click to expand...
I've never heard that use of the word "carrier" in EE circles. I think it would be pretty confusing to have two meanings for the same word that are likely to be used in the same conversation.

In AM, one of the sidebands, which is all you really need if you can tolerate some SNR loss, is just the baseband signal shifted in frequency.
bobn2 said:
This is the problem with many of these terms, the usage starts being reasonably precise, then it blurs and becomes imprecise. In the sense that Shannon meant, the 'signal' is the 'message' (series of symbols) and the 'carrier' is the mechanism used to transmit that message.
Click to expand...
I see. Did Shannon use the word "carrier" that way? And did he ever talk about the power of the "carrier"?

Maybe I'm about to learn something.

Jim
 
Joofa said:
bobn2 said:
Joofa said:
JimKasson said:
bobn2 said:
Joofa said:
Michael Fryd said:
One result of the total light theory is that it suggests that if you are able to capture more total light, you will have better signal to noise.

Apparently the astronomers have bought into this. They tend to talk about how much light their telescopes can gather, not the size of the sensor.

If increasing sensor size improved signal to noise, we would see small telescopes with very large sensors. The fact that we see very large telescope (very wide aperture diameters) suggests that the people who are serious about working in low light have bought into the total light theory.
Click to expand...
Oh, no. The process of assigning mythical status to 'total light theory' starts. Come on guys, what exactly is there to understand that more signal means better quality?

Lets not pull a GB here. :-)
Click to expand...
A slight confusion of terms here. Having a stronger carrier of the signal improves quality. That's the point, not that the signal increases (it clearly doesn't, the 'message' doesn't change) but that the 'signal to noise' improves.
Click to expand...
i don't think I buy this completely. Consider plain old AM, with the carrier unsuppressed and both sidebands in place. The signal is in the sidebands. Increasing the carrier without increasing the sidebands isn't going to help a lot. In fact, you don't need the carrier at all to demodulate the signal.
Click to expand...
I like this example. Only a bonafide engineer can say stuff as above.
Click to expand...
Maybe why in my career I've ended up several times having to do the job that 'bonafide engineers' couldn't.
Click to expand...
Jim is definitely a bonafide engineer.
Click to expand...
I don't doubt it.
Joofa said:
There is a special way that engineers think, which makes the world go, the no-nonsense approach, abstract-nonsense free approach, lets go and do it mindset. Jim has all of them, and more.
Click to expand...
That let's you out, then.
Joofa said:
And, certainly he stays out of making things needlessly complicated.
Click to expand...
You could learn from him.
 
bobn2 said:
Joofa said:
bobn2 said:
Joofa said:
Michael Fryd said:
One result of the total light theory is that it suggests that if you are able to capture more total light, you will have better signal to noise.

Apparently the astronomers have bought into this. They tend to talk about how much light their telescopes can gather, not the size of the sensor.

If increasing sensor size improved signal to noise, we would see small telescopes with very large sensors. The fact that we see very large telescope (very wide aperture diameters) suggests that the people who are serious about working in low light have bought into the total light theory.
Click to expand...
Oh, no. The process of assigning mythical status to 'total light theory' starts. Come on guys, what exactly is there to understand that more signal means better quality?

Lets not pull a GB here. :-)
Click to expand...
A slight confusion of terms here. Having a stronger carrier of the signal improves quality. That's the point, not that the signal increases (it clearly doesn't, the 'message' doesn't change) but that the 'signal to noise' improves.
Click to expand...
Now you are exactly pulling a GB.
Click to expand...
That's probably a good thing, well certainly compared to 'pulling a Joofa'.
Click to expand...
Oh no, what me and GB? No comparison. GB certainly has talent. I wish I could obfuscate things so much.
bobn2 said:
In the information theoretic sense, what I said is exactly correct.
Click to expand...
If you say so. Who is going to argue with a guy who corrects 'bonafide engineers'. :-)
 
bobn2 said:
Joofa said:
bobn2 said:
Joofa said:
JimKasson said:
bobn2 said:
Joofa said:
Michael Fryd said:
One result of the total light theory is that it suggests that if you are able to capture more total light, you will have better signal to noise.

Apparently the astronomers have bought into this. They tend to talk about how much light their telescopes can gather, not the size of the sensor.

If increasing sensor size improved signal to noise, we would see small telescopes with very large sensors. The fact that we see very large telescope (very wide aperture diameters) suggests that the people who are serious about working in low light have bought into the total light theory.
Click to expand...
Oh, no. The process of assigning mythical status to 'total light theory' starts. Come on guys, what exactly is there to understand that more signal means better quality?

Lets not pull a GB here. :-)
Click to expand...
A slight confusion of terms here. Having a stronger carrier of the signal improves quality. That's the point, not that the signal increases (it clearly doesn't, the 'message' doesn't change) but that the 'signal to noise' improves.
Click to expand...
i don't think I buy this completely. Consider plain old AM, with the carrier unsuppressed and both sidebands in place. The signal is in the sidebands. Increasing the carrier without increasing the sidebands isn't going to help a lot. In fact, you don't need the carrier at all to demodulate the signal.
Click to expand...
I like this example. Only a bonafide engineer can say stuff as above.
Click to expand...
Maybe why in my career I've ended up several times having to do the job that 'bonafide engineers' couldn't.
Click to expand...
Jim is definitely a bonafide engineer.
Click to expand...
I don't doubt it.
Click to expand...
Good.
bobn2 said:
bobn2 said:
There is a special way that engineers think, which makes the world go, the no-nonsense approach, abstract-nonsense free approach, lets go and do it mindset. Jim has all of them, and more.
Click to expand...
That let's you out, then.
Click to expand...
I'm nothing.
bobn2 said:
bobn2 said:
And, certainly he stays out of making things needlessly complicated.
Click to expand...
You could learn from him.
Click to expand...
Definitely! In fact I have learned many things from Jim. Alan R. and Jack Hogan get a honorable mention, too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

I
A7 III noise hot pixels on badly underexposed images in the shadows.
Replies
14
Views
17K
jiberlin
J
JimKasson
Noise, Dynamic Range, Cropping, and Print Size
2
Replies
24
Views
37K
JimKasson
JimKasson
I
Sensor at high ISO Comparison of cameras.
2 3 4
Replies
67
Views
22K
JimKasson
JimKasson
Greg7579
ISO Invariance - Continued - Did the Demo 5 Times in Various Light
3 4 5
Replies
83
Views
37K
Greg7579
Greg7579
B
disagreeing with Thom Hogan
2 3
Replies
40
Views
16K
John Sheehy
John Sheehy

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