Reading mode: Light Dark

The relationship, or lack of one, between CFA accuracy & noise

Go to last post
JimKasson said:
OutsideTheMatrix said:
JimKasson said:
OutsideTheMatrix said:
This is why they [CCDs] were sharper at base ISO (where no NR is needed for less densely pixel packed sensors) but fell apart at higher ISO.
Click to expand...
Your assumption about the underlying noise is wrong.

Consider two Leica cameras, one CMOS and one CCD.

https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Leica M11,Leica M9

ec117c04eb464deda86ec3fb8fd18400.jpg.png

The CCD sensor has far more noise at all ISO settings.

Here are two Hasselblad cameras, one CCD and one CMOS:

https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Hasselblad H4D-50,Hasselblad X2D-100c

45ad9d11c1f740e3beb7a29373055fea.jpg.png

The CCD sensor has far more noise at all ISO settings.
Click to expand...
These all have a similar number of megapixels I take it?
Click to expand...
No. The CMOS sensors have many more pixels, and finer pitch.
JimKasson said:
I'm comparing older sensors with less megapixels vs modern more pixel packed sensors.
Click to expand...
So am I.
JimKasson said:
By the way, with astrophotography specialty cameras, they all have CCD sensors exclusively. We do 2x2 binning to make the sensor more sensitive (captures more stars at faster shutter speeds.)
Click to expand...
I've seen several CMOS astro cameras advertised.
Click to expand...
When you examine both at 1:1 do you notice the CMOS output to be cleaner?

--
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
-Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961
 
OutsideTheMatrix said:
JimKasson said:
OutsideTheMatrix said:
JimKasson said:
OutsideTheMatrix said:
This is why they [CCDs] were sharper at base ISO (where no NR is needed for less densely pixel packed sensors) but fell apart at higher ISO.
Click to expand...
Your assumption about the underlying noise is wrong.

Consider two Leica cameras, one CMOS and one CCD.

https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Leica M11,Leica M9

ec117c04eb464deda86ec3fb8fd18400.jpg.png

The CCD sensor has far more noise at all ISO settings.

Here are two Hasselblad cameras, one CCD and one CMOS:

https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Hasselblad H4D-50,Hasselblad X2D-100c

45ad9d11c1f740e3beb7a29373055fea.jpg.png

The CCD sensor has far more noise at all ISO settings.
Click to expand...
These all have a similar number of megapixels I take it?
Click to expand...
No. The CMOS sensors have many more pixels, and finer pitch.
OutsideTheMatrix said:
I'm comparing older sensors with less megapixels vs modern more pixel packed sensors.
Click to expand...
So am I.
OutsideTheMatrix said:
By the way, with astrophotography specialty cameras, they all have CCD sensors exclusively. We do 2x2 binning to make the sensor more sensitive (captures more stars at faster shutter speeds.)
Click to expand...
I've seen several CMOS astro cameras advertised.
Click to expand...
When you examine both at 1:1 do you notice the CMOS output to be cleaner?
Click to expand...
At same print size, there is a huge noise different, in favor of the CMOS. I have used both Kodak and Hasselblad CCD camera a lot. Both are very noisy by today's standards.

--

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 blog.kasson.com
 
OutsideTheMatrix said:
Detail Man said:
OutsideTheMatrix said:
... And the colors were more saturated too.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Hey what can I say, some of us love brighter more punchy, Kodachrome style colors.

It's why I buy mostly Olympus and Fuji cameras.
Click to expand...
.
OutsideTheMatrix said:
... brighter more punchy ...
Click to expand...
A subject that has for some time fascinated me regards the aesthetic roots/flavors of sets of archetypal yet subjectively derived metaphorical dream masks which we tend to imagine as underpinning some alleged to be unitary objective reality. Note how few descriptive terms are based (only) in the perceptual faculties involving sight and sound themselves, whereas a multitude of terms rooted in tactile, as well as also perhaps olfactory, impressions abound:

Sight Related:

Shining, glowing, bright, hazy, dim, dark, (and perhaps) reflecting.

Sound Related:

Loud, reflecting.

Tactile/Olfactory Related:

Soft, smooth, rough, fuzzy, firm, hard, punchy, wet, dry, sharp, blunt, dull, thick, thin, spongy, full, fat, meaty, big, bouncy, sticky, tacky, steaming odious groat clusters from old grandma's kitchen.

Please submit any further favorite aesthetic metaphors thought to serve some purpose in attempts to objectively characterize what are implicitly subjective perceptual impression(s).
 
Last edited:
OutsideTheMatrix said:
Jack Hogan said:
OutsideTheMatrix said:
By the way, with astrophotography specialty cameras, they all have CCD sensors exclusively. We do 2x2 binning to make the sensor more sensitive (captures more stars at faster shutter speeds.)
Click to expand...
You owe it to yourself to have a look around OutsideTheMatrix, things have changed over the last decade.

All current kings of Astro are based on CMOS sensors like the Sony IMX571 used in cameras like the ZWO ASI 2600. QE and read noise are much better compared to CCD. They also do 2x2 binning and more, for less.
Click to expand...
I've been using monochrome CCD cameras with color filters for awhile now, have CMOS filters really surpassed them in this area? That would be amazing since the monochrome CCD cameras were already pretty good.
Click to expand...
For an example feast your eyes on these specs OutsideTheMatrix:

Sony IMX571 (mono)
Pixels: 6244 x 4168
Pixel size: 3.76 μm
Sensor size: 23.5 x 15.7 mm
Full well capacity: 50 ke-
Read noise: 1 e-
QE: 80%
Frame rate: 4 FPS
ADC: 16-bit
Color or mono versions
MonoCameras: ZWO ASI2600MM Pro, QHYCCD QHY268 M, + 19 others

Then take a look at the price.

Jack
 
Last edited:
Detail Man said:
OutsideTheMatrix said:
Detail Man said:
OutsideTheMatrix said:
... And the colors were more saturated too.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Hey what can I say, some of us love brighter more punchy, Kodachrome style colors.

It's why I buy mostly Olympus and Fuji cameras.
Click to expand...
.
Detail Man said:
... brighter more punchy ...
Click to expand...
A subject that has for some time fascinated me regards the aesthetic roots/flavors of sets of archetypal yet subjectively derived metaphorical dream masks which we tend to imagine as underpinning some alleged to be unitary objective reality. Note how few descriptive terms are based (only) in the perceptual faculties involving sight and sound themselves, whereas a multitude of terms rooted in tactile, as well as also perhaps olfactory, impressions abound:

Sight Related:

Shining, glowing, bright, hazy, dim, dark, (and perhaps) reflecting.

Sound Related:

Loud, reflecting.

Tactile/Olfactory Related:

Soft, smooth, rough, fuzzy, firm, hard, punchy, wet, dry, sharp, blunt, dull, thick, thin, spongy, full, fat, meaty, big, bouncy, sticky, tacky, steaming odious groat clusters from old grandma's kitchen.

Please submit any further favorite aesthetic metaphors thought to serve some purpose in attempts to objectively characterize what are implicitly subjective perceptual impression(s).
Click to expand...
I question whether objective reality even exists. Everyone perceives colors differently. Have you heard of imaginary colors? It's interesting how they are not supposed to exist and yet some people report being able to see them. Many people find certain scents repugnant, while others don't mind them at all. It's interesting how much of our universe exists inside our own brains.

--
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
-Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961
 
Last edited:
Jack Hogan said:
OutsideTheMatrix said:
Jack Hogan said:
OutsideTheMatrix said:
By the way, with astrophotography specialty cameras, they all have CCD sensors exclusively. We do 2x2 binning to make the sensor more sensitive (captures more stars at faster shutter speeds.)
Click to expand...
You owe it to yourself to have a look around OutsideTheMatrix, things have changed over the last decade.

All current kings of Astro are based on CMOS sensors like the Sony IMX571 used in cameras like the ZWO ASI 2600. QE and read noise are much better compared to CCD. They also do 2x2 binning and more, for less.
Click to expand...
I've been using monochrome CCD cameras with color filters for awhile now, have CMOS filters really surpassed them in this area? That would be amazing since the monochrome CCD cameras were already pretty good.
Click to expand...
For an example feast your eyes on these specs OutsideTheMatrix:

Sony IMX571 (mono)
Pixels: 6244 x 4168
Pixel size: 3.76 μm
Sensor size: 23.5 x 15.7 mm
Full well capacity: 50 ke-
Read noise: 1 e-
QE: 80%
Frame rate: 4 FPS
ADC: 16-bit
Color or mono versions
MonoCameras: ZWO ASI2600MM Pro, QHYCCD QHY268 M, + 19 others

Then take a look at the price.

Jack
Click to expand...
wildly low read noise and very high quantum efficiency!!

full well capacity / dynamic range is amazingly high!!
 
OutsideTheMatrix said:
I question whether objective reality even exists. Everyone perceives colors differently. Have you heard of imaginary colors? It's interesting how they are not supposed to exist and yet some people report being able to see them.
Click to expand...
Well, some people report Elvis sightings... In the context of this discussion, color is a human perception, so it exists in our brains only. This does not mean that there is no physics (and biology, and math) staying behind it, and no models. This is what Jim studies.
OutsideTheMatrix said:
Many people find certain scents repugnant, while others don't mind them at all. It's interesting how much of our universe exists inside our own brains.
Click to expand...
Idealism vs. existentialism?
 
OutsideTheMatrix said:
Jack Hogan said:
OutsideTheMatrix said:
Jack Hogan said:
OutsideTheMatrix said:
By the way, with astrophotography specialty cameras, they all have CCD sensors exclusively. We do 2x2 binning to make the sensor more sensitive (captures more stars at faster shutter speeds.)
Click to expand...
You owe it to yourself to have a look around OutsideTheMatrix, things have changed over the last decade.

All current kings of Astro are based on CMOS sensors like the Sony IMX571 used in cameras like the ZWO ASI 2600. QE and read noise are much better compared to CCD. They also do 2x2 binning and more, for less.
Click to expand...
I've been using monochrome CCD cameras with color filters for awhile now, have CMOS filters really surpassed them in this area? That would be amazing since the monochrome CCD cameras were already pretty good.
Click to expand...
For an example feast your eyes on these specs OutsideTheMatrix:

Sony IMX571 (mono)
Pixels: 6244 x 4168
Pixel size: 3.76 μm
Sensor size: 23.5 x 15.7 mm
Full well capacity: 50 ke-
Read noise: 1 e-
QE: 80%
Frame rate: 4 FPS
ADC: 16-bit
Color or mono versions
MonoCameras: ZWO ASI2600MM Pro, QHYCCD QHY268 M, + 19 others

Then take a look at the price.

Jack
Click to expand...
wildly low read noise and very high quantum efficiency!!

full well capacity / dynamic range is amazingly high!!
Click to expand...
Not for CMOS.
 
OutsideTheMatrix said:
I question whether objective reality even exists. Everyone perceives colors differently.
Click to expand...
99% of women and 93% of men perceive color pretty much the same way in the color matching experiment.
OutsideTheMatrix said:
Have you heard of imaginary colors?
Click to expand...
Imaginary colors are mathematical constructs. Like two of the PPRGB primaries.
OutsideTheMatrix said:
It's interesting how they are not supposed to exist and yet some people report being able to see them. Many people find certain scents repugnant, while others don't mind them at all. It's interesting how much of our universe exists inside our own brains.
Click to expand...
 
Jack Hogan said:
OutsideTheMatrix said:
Jack Hogan said:
OutsideTheMatrix said:
By the way, with astrophotography specialty cameras, they all have CCD sensors exclusively. We do 2x2 binning to make the sensor more sensitive (captures more stars at faster shutter speeds.)
Click to expand...
You owe it to yourself to have a look around OutsideTheMatrix, things have changed over the last decade.

All current kings of Astro are based on CMOS sensors like the Sony IMX571 used in cameras like the ZWO ASI 2600. QE and read noise are much better compared to CCD. They also do 2x2 binning and more, for less.
Click to expand...
I've been using monochrome CCD cameras with color filters for awhile now, have CMOS filters really surpassed them in this area? That would be amazing since the monochrome CCD cameras were already pretty good.
Click to expand...
For an example feast your eyes on these specs OutsideTheMatrix:

Sony IMX571 (mono)
Pixels: 6244 x 4168
Pixel size: 3.76 μm
Sensor size: 23.5 x 15.7 mm
Full well capacity: 50 ke-
Read noise: 1 e-
QE: 80%
Frame rate: 4 FPS
ADC: 16-bit
Color or mono versions
MonoCameras: ZWO ASI2600MM Pro, QHYCCD QHY268 M, + 19 others

Then take a look at the price.
Click to expand...
Following the link provided, it appears that the source Sony corporation information web-page no longer exists - but I located a Wayback archive of original specification document:

https://web.archive.org/web/2022070...oducts/common/pdf/IMX571BLR-J_Flyer_ver10.pdf
 
Last edited:
J A C S said:
OutsideTheMatrix said:
I question whether objective reality even exists. Everyone perceives colors differently. Have you heard of imaginary colors? It's interesting how they are not supposed to exist and yet some people report being able to see them.
Click to expand...
Well, some people report Elvis sightings... In the context of this discussion, color is a human perception, so it exists in our brains only. This does not mean that there is no physics (and biology, and math) staying behind it, and no models. This is what Jim studies.
J A C S said:
Many people find certain scents repugnant, while others don't mind them at all. It's interesting how much of our universe exists inside our own brains.
Click to expand...
Idealism vs. existentialism?
Click to expand...
Yes I love the mathematics of color especially as it applies to narrowband filters used for astrophotography and invisible light photography (both infrared and ultraviolet). UV photography particularly interests me as the camera can capture markings on flowers that are invisible to the human eye but that pollinators like bees can see.

Yes, I think existentialism wins....
 
JimKasson said:
OutsideTheMatrix said:
I question whether objective reality even exists. Everyone perceives colors differently.
Click to expand...
99% of women and 93% of men perceive color pretty much the same way in the color matching experiment.
JimKasson said:
Have you heard of imaginary colors?
Click to expand...
Imaginary colors are mathematical constructs. Like two of the PPRGB primaries.
JimKasson said:
It's interesting how they are not supposed to exist and yet some people report being able to see them. Many people find certain scents repugnant, while others don't mind them at all. It's interesting how much of our universe exists inside our own brains.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
The other example are chimeral colors.

It makes me wonder what Manta Shrimp can see (they have receptors for up to 18 primary colors as well as polarized light.)

--
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
-Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
Detail Man said:
JimKasson said:
OutsideTheMatrix said:
It makes me wonder what Manta Shrimp can see (they have receptors for up to 18 primary colors as well as polarized light.)
Click to expand...
Do you mean mantis shrimp? And I think you mean spectra, not colors.
Click to expand...
"Mantis shrimp's super colour vision debunked" (2014)

"Master of all Low Light Gazers - Periplaneta americana" (2016)
Click to expand...
Cockroaches YUCK, why haven't we exterminated them yet?

There is a list of pests I want to drive to extinction and that's high on the list (along with mosquitos, centipedes, rats, etc.)

Regardless of them being able to distinguish between close wavelengths of light, they can still see polarized light-- which we cannot.

With their huge highly intelligent brains (including the ones in their arms) and large eyes I wonder if Octopus and Giant Squid can see better than we can.
 
OutsideTheMatrix said:
Cockroaches YUCK, why haven't we exterminated them yet?

There is a list of pests I want to drive to extinction and that's high on the list (along with mosquitos, centipedes, rats, etc.)

Regardless of them being able to distinguish between close wavelengths of light, they can still see polarized light-- which we cannot.

With their huge highly intelligent brains (including the ones in their arms) and large eyes I wonder if Octopus and Giant Squid can see better than we can.
Click to expand...
From this extended digression, I'm assuming that you now accept my points about the relative merits of CMOS and CCD sensors in consumer cameras.
 
JimKasson said:
OutsideTheMatrix said:
Cockroaches YUCK, why haven't we exterminated them yet?

There is a list of pests I want to drive to extinction and that's high on the list (along with mosquitos, centipedes, rats, etc.)

Regardless of them being able to distinguish between close wavelengths of light, they can still see polarized light-- which we cannot.

With their huge highly intelligent brains (including the ones in their arms) and large eyes I wonder if Octopus and Giant Squid can see better than we can.
Click to expand...
From this extended digression, I'm assuming that you now accept my points about the relative merits of CMOS and CCD sensors in consumer cameras.
Click to expand...
No, because I still see the older cameras producing better results, I've been buying them on ebay. There should be a real world test rather than just graphical data.
 
OutsideTheMatrix said:
JimKasson said:
OutsideTheMatrix said:
Cockroaches YUCK, why haven't we exterminated them yet?

There is a list of pests I want to drive to extinction and that's high on the list (along with mosquitos, centipedes, rats, etc.)

Regardless of them being able to distinguish between close wavelengths of light, they can still see polarized light-- which we cannot.

With their huge highly intelligent brains (including the ones in their arms) and large eyes I wonder if Octopus and Giant Squid can see better than we can.
Click to expand...
From this extended digression, I'm assuming that you now accept my points about the relative merits of CMOS and CCD sensors in consumer cameras.
Click to expand...
No, because I still see the older cameras producing better results, I've been buying them on ebay. There should be a real world test rather than just graphical data.
Click to expand...
Do you think that everybody's faking the data? Do you think that the data is irrelevant?

Or is it like my mom used to say: my mind is made up; don't confuse me with facts?

I was so glad to get rid of my CCD 'blads and stop worrying about DR except in the studio, where I could control the contrast.
 
JimKasson said:
OutsideTheMatrix said:
JimKasson said:
OutsideTheMatrix said:
Cockroaches YUCK, why haven't we exterminated them yet?

There is a list of pests I want to drive to extinction and that's high on the list (along with mosquitos, centipedes, rats, etc.)

Regardless of them being able to distinguish between close wavelengths of light, they can still see polarized light-- which we cannot.

With their huge highly intelligent brains (including the ones in their arms) and large eyes I wonder if Octopus and Giant Squid can see better than we can.
Click to expand...
From this extended digression, I'm assuming that you now accept my points about the relative merits of CMOS and CCD sensors in consumer cameras.
Click to expand...
No, because I still see the older cameras producing better results, I've been buying them on ebay. There should be a real world test rather than just graphical data.
Click to expand...
Do you think that everybody's faking the data? Do you think that the data is irrelevant?

Or is it like my mom used to say: my mind is made up; don't confuse me with facts?

I was so glad to get rid of my CCD 'blads and stop worrying about DR except in the studio, where I could control the contrast.
Click to expand...
No I don't think the data is being faked at all, I just want to see actual differences in photographs taken using typical shooting conditions in the real world (not laboratory experiments.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

JimKasson
Looking at input-referred read noise spectra across ISO ranges
Replies
8
Views
2K
JimKasson
JimKasson
JimKasson
Accuracy, noise, and CFA spectral responses
Replies
7
Views
2K
moimoi
moimoi
Johnnew Archibald - SMGJohn
Can we actually judge a strict CFA vs a loose CFA by SMI scores?
Replies
11
Views
2K
Johnnew Archibald - SMGJohn
Johnnew Archibald - SMGJohn
C
Comparing E-1 to E-3 and Kodak CCD to LiveMOS/Sony CMOS
Replies
4
Views
844
goblin
goblin
JimKasson
Camera color accuracy outside of the training set
4 5 6
Replies
108
Views
3K
J A C S
J A C S

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