Bring Back Super CCD Technology!

Using my S5 recently, I was inspired. I mean, wow you can really get some DR with this camera. Images that pass off as negative film in terms of DR captured, without all the grain. Got me to thinking...

I'm really surprised Fujifilm hasn't brought out a modern version of the S5 Pro sensor. Although modern CMOS chips have great dynamic range, capable of capturing one shot high DR scenes in one file, I think a modern version of the Super CCD would do it much better with even higher quality images. And of course it would be CMOS, not CCD, so it would apply just as well for video as it does stills.

Essentially taking two images at the same time, one for highlights, one for shadows, with two different sized pixels, is genius stuff. Think about how good that would work for say, the new 100mp medium format sensors, or a the new high resolution APS-C sensor in the upcoming X-H2.

Anyways that's my double penny advice for Fujifilm today, I'm out! "Just do it".

If I correctly remember from what I've read about the difference between CMOS and CCD sensors, CMOS can be read out much faster than CCD?

And can be read out continuously, I believe.

I'm not sure on the details anymore.

But from what I recall, in effect CCD is not as suitable for film, or for continuous EVF / LCD display, due to the different way it works.

Tim van der Leeuw wrote:

If I correctly remember from what I've read about the difference between CMOS and CCD sensors, CMOS can be read out much faster than CCD?

And can be read out continuously, I believe.

I'm not sure on the details anymore.

But from what I recall, in effect CCD is not as suitable for film, or for continuous EVF / LCD display, due to the different way it works.

Hi Tim, I addressed this:

" I think a modern version of the Super CCD would do it much better with even higher quality images. And of course it would be need to be CMOS, not CCD, so it would apply just as well for video as it does stills. "

3Percent wrote:

Tim van der Leeuw wrote:

If I correctly remember from what I've read about the difference between CMOS and CCD sensors, CMOS can be read out much faster than CCD?

And can be read out continuously, I believe.

I'm not sure on the details anymore.

But from what I recall, in effect CCD is not as suitable for film, or for continuous EVF / LCD display, due to the different way it works.

Hi Tim, I addressed this:

" I think a modern version of the Super CCD would do it much better with even higher quality images. And of course it would be need to be CMOS, not CCD, so it would apply just as well for video as it does stills. "

SORRY!

I completely overlooked this when reading your post!

😳

But when a SuperCCD is a CMOS it's not a SuperCCD anymore... And so I latched on to the "CCD" part of it and overlooked that bit.

Take a look at the Leica M11.

CCD hasn't gone away. It is used for highly specialized applications. For example the detectors on the James Webb uses CCDs.

https://webb.nasa.gov/content/observatory/instruments/nircam.html

At one time CCD's were coined as "bucket brigades." Each site collected charge and then it was marched off chip like passing a bucket of electrons to the exterior where surrounding circuitry would process the data. In CMOS the amplifiers and ADC's are on chip in the form of CMOS transistors and the digital data is read off the chip in "parallel."

The big advantage of CMOS over CCD for consumer cameras is power consumption and expense of fabrication. On the other hand CCD is much lower noise and more sensitive which is why the Hubble and the Web use CCD cameras most precision instruments use CCD. The down side of CCD is it is more expensive to produce and much more power hungry. That is why it has disappeared in consumer cameras with the exception of maybe those for astrophotography. CCD cameras are uniquely suited for long exposure deep sky photography because of their low noise profile - especially when cooled.

https://www.flir.com/support-center/iis/machine-vision/knowledge-base/key-differences-between-ccd-and-cmos-imaging-sensors/

https://www.skyatnightmagazine.com/top-astronomy-kit/best-ccd-cameras-astrophotography/

Aoi Usagi wrote:

Modern backside illuminated sensors made SuperCCD obsolete. The SuperCCD were made to overcome the limitations of frontside illumination issues.

As I recall, CCD had no circuitry on the front side. They used a "bucket brigade" to move the charges to the read out circuitry at the edges of the sensor. While modern sensors have enough DR to make such a design largely obsolete, I don't think BSI really enters into it.

GossCTP wrote:

Aoi Usagi wrote:

Modern backside illuminated sensors made SuperCCD obsolete. The SuperCCD were made to overcome the limitations of frontside illumination issues.

As I recall, CCD had no circuitry on the front side. They used a "bucket brigade" to move the charges to the read out circuitry at the edges of the sensor. While modern sensors have enough DR to make such a design largely obsolete, I don't think BSI really enters into it.

No BSI doesn't since there was no electronics on the CCD.  The charge was marched off chip for processing.  On the other hand CCD still enjoy a sensitivity, DR and low noise performance advantage over CMOS but at least about 6 dB.  Phase One still uses CCD in several of its backs.

A trip back in time to some photos with my Nikon D200 shows the stunning color that sensor produced. Fuji S5 is built on the D200 body with different firmware.

I was never as satisfied with the color I got for a few generations of Nikon cameras yet the X-T3 also satisfies me and provides much better high ISO performance.

Morris

3Percent wrote:

I think a modern version of the Super CCD would do it much better with even higher quality images. And of course it would be CMOS, not CCD, so it would apply just as well for video as it does stills.

If the sensor is CMOS, you get the advantages of ten years of CMOS camera sensor development.  To make it as nice as a CCD, one would have to replace the modern color filter array with the filters that were used on CCD sensors.  This would lose you at least a stop of sensitivity, but you would get back to the image quality that CCDs are known for.

One poster mentioned the Leica M11.  Maybe Leica did this.

I have a Sigma fp L, which uses the same sensor as the Leica M11, but with standard color filters and micro-lenses (if there are any).  Sigma applies their own color science or color technology to the data and gets great results, in my opinion.  To get this I have to use their free raw developer, Sigma Photo Professional.  It is very computation-intensive and you would want a modern high speed computer to run it on.

But changing back to CCD color filters as used in the old Fujis would definitely get you there!

Will anybody do this?  I wish it were so, but realistically my guess is no.  The costs would be high, and the benefits would be niche.  I'd love to see it in a Fuji camera, or any camera for that matter.

Tom Schum wrote:

3Percent wrote:

I think a modern version of the Super CCD would do it much better with even higher quality images. And of course it would be CMOS, not CCD, so it would apply just as well for video as it does stills.

If the sensor is CMOS, you get the advantages of ten years of CMOS camera sensor development. To make it as nice as a CCD, one would have to replace the modern color filter array with the filters that were used on CCD sensors. This would lose you at least a stop of sensitivity, but you would get back to the image quality that CCDs are known for.

One poster mentioned the Leica M11. Maybe Leica did this.

I have a Sigma fp L, which uses the same sensor as the Leica M11, but with standard color filters and micro-lenses (if there are any). Sigma applies their own color science or color technology to the data and gets great results, in my opinion. To get this I have to use their free raw developer, Sigma Photo Professional. It is very computation-intensive and you would want a modern high speed computer to run it on.

Most everything points to Leica using a Panasonic sensor in the M11. They traditionally used CMOSIS and later Panasonic. The real question is not who makes them but who designs them. Sony is a foundry. Sensors are designed by Leica, Nikon, Sigma with all the design specifications developed and then they are farmed out to a foundry. No different than Apple designing its own processor, Apple Silicon, and farming it out to TSMC to fabricate it in their 5 nm process. QualComm - one of the largest suppliers of mobile phone chips - does not have foundry - they design the products and farm out the production. The M11 sensor does not have PDAF points (no need). The SL2 nor SL2 S do not use PDAF and their sensor are fabricated by Nuvoton. Nuvoton image sensors is the former Panasonic. So given Lecia's relationship with Panasonic and the fact Nuvoton fabricates the SL2 sensor (and Q2/Q2M sensor) it seems a bit strange given the just announced L^2 alliance, they would turn to Sony. If it is a Sony, then it is a custom run with the PDAF layer removed and a specialized layer for antireflection added along with custom micro lenses since the unique flange distance of the Leica M.

One of the big questions on the Leica rumors site and the Leica boards is "who makes the M11 sensor." Interesting fact Sony does not fabricate all the sensors they have contracts to fab. The sub some out to TSMC.

https://www.gizchina.com/2020/07/06/tsmc-expand-its-cooperation-with-sony-cmos-image-sensor-foundry/

In fact rumors have it - TSMC is going to fab iPhone 14 image sensors for Sony.

But the key - which is not recognized is there are semi-conductor companies that are fabless.  Examples, well most of them actually.  QualComm, Apple, Nikon.  Not a foundry between them.  But Nikon seems to design sensors fabricated by Sony that out perform sensors designed by Sony fabricated by Sony.  Then there are fabrication facilities that take the specification from the designers (large S/W files) and lay out the silicone. I fully expect Sigma fp L is a Sony fabricated sensor since it does have PDAF.  On the other hand nobody quite knows about the M11. My guess Panasonic or today Nuvoton.

Morris0 wrote:

A trip back in time to some photos with my Nikon D200 shows the stunning color that sensor produced. Fuji S5 is built on the D200 body with different firmware.

And a different sensor processor and menu system too.

Nice shots below!

I was never as satisfied with the color I got for a few generations of Nikon cameras yet the X-T3 also satisfies me and provides much better high ISO performance.

Morris

Tim van der Leeuw wrote:

3Percent wrote:

Tim van der Leeuw wrote:

If I correctly remember from what I've read about the difference between CMOS and CCD sensors, CMOS can be read out much faster than CCD?

And can be read out continuously, I believe.

I'm not sure on the details anymore.

But from what I recall, in effect CCD is not as suitable for film, or for continuous EVF / LCD display, due to the different way it works.

Hi Tim, I addressed this:

" I think a modern version of the Super CCD would do it much better with even higher quality images. And of course it would be need to be CMOS, not CCD, so it would apply just as well for video as it does stills. "

SORRY!

I completely overlooked this when reading your post!

😳

But when a SuperCCD is a CMOS it's not a SuperCCD anymore... And so I latched on to the "CCD" part of it and overlooked that bit.

Right right, I'm talking about a modern version using the technology of dual pixels, one large one small, similar to the Super CCD.

I didn't mean to imply using a newer CCD sensor. I mean reincarnating the pixel technology in a new CMOS platform. Not sure how many people understand what the S5's sensor really did, but it wouldn't surprise me either. It wasn't very well explained in online literature.

You tell ‘em’ Truman!

Nice explanation of CMOS vs CCD.

additionally, CMOS is noisier to CCD in comparison because each electrical charge from each photosite is read out individually, introducing its own noise, albeit very small but still a measurable amount.

Morris0 wrote:

A trip back in time to some photos with my Nikon D200 shows the stunning color that sensor produced. Fuji S5 is built on the D200 body with different firmware.

I was never as satisfied with the color I got for a few generations of Nikon cameras yet the X-T3 also satisfies me and provides much better high ISO performance.

Morris

Wow, these are insanely beautiful Morris, love the second one.

Pocket Lint wrote:

You tell ‘em’ Truman!

Nice explanation of CMOS vs CCD.

additionally, CMOS is noisier to CCD in comparison because each electrical charge from each photosite is read out individually, introducing its own noise, albeit very small but still a measurable amount.

This thread went sideways quick.

How did we get from my post wanting Fujifilm to resurrect the Super CCD sensor tech to a debate about cmos vs ccd?

Nevermind I don't really care. lol

Let me be clear, this thread was started primarily because of my admiration of the dual pixel technology used in the Super CCD. I'm proposing that a new fabrication, i.e. updated CMOS version of the same technology be incorporated and used in a future camera.

That is all. Nothing more or less.

I'm sure it could be done and I think there are so many potential advantages, taking sensor tech further, beyond even the crazy limits we see these days.

Pocket Lint wrote:

Morris0 wrote:

A trip back in time to some photos with my Nikon D200 shows the stunning color that sensor produced. Fuji S5 is built on the D200 body with different firmware.

I was never as satisfied with the color I got for a few generations of Nikon cameras yet the X-T3 also satisfies me and provides much better high ISO performance.

Morris

Wow, these are insanely beautiful Morris, love the second one.

Thank you,

They have all won contests.  The last one 5 and one included a D300 as a prize.

Morris