Let's Focus on the real issues:

[Timo Autiokari]

I've said it before and I'll say it again . I am 99%
sure that Timo Autiokari is actually Phil Askey .

No.

I saw your earlier post also but took it as a joke so I did not bother to reply to that.

Timo Autiokari
Finland

 

[Marok]

I think it is refreshing for some to point out that higher and higher pixels is not the be all and end all that the Manufacturers' marketing departments are trying to make us all believe .

I've said it before and I'll say it again . I am 99%
sure that Timo Autiokari is actually Phil Askey .

No.

I saw your earlier post also but took it as a joke so I did not
bother to reply to that.

Timo Autiokari
Finland

 

[Gary G.49400]

Hi

Because both the lower noise and the higher dynamic range. I
believe that there is very big market for such a higher quality
1.3MP digicam.

Well,
What's about D7 - 5MP - raw images and downsampling to 1.3MP ?

Gary

 

[The Man]

MikeA

I applaude you. As soon as I can control my laughing and hysterical clapping of appreciation I will get up and give you a standing ovation.

It is only 7:00am here but I might as well go back to bed because my day is now over - you have made my day and there is no point in me just wallowing through the rest of the hours till tonight - it can't get any better after what I just read.
Thank you!!

Wait until you have taken some utterly noisy images yourself, only
then you will know what it means to be disgusted.

It is taking all of the courage I can muster to say this, but I
will do so despite my abject fear:

At some point, one must emerge from behind the comfort of mounds of
technical data, the enchantment of being on a first-name basis with
every pixel in the sensor, the satisfaction of knowing that the
machine is imperfect and that one can safely sneer at it and in
doing so never be vulnerable to attack -- because one is
effectively shielded by huge piles of technical jargon...

... and simply take_pictures .

I have a book of photographs by Robert Capa. If I were to care
about perfection in photographic images in the manner you clearly
wish everyone to care about it, I would have to conclude that
Capa's work is garbage. I would have to conclude that a lot of
other photographers' work is garbage.

Somehow...oh, dear, I feel another wave of timidity coming on...I
have managed to believe -- against the crushing weight of science!
-- that his work and the work of certain other photographers who
never achieved photographic satori as measured by densitometry and
God only knows what else having nothing to do with real photographs
taken for emotional reasons by real photographers...somehow, I
managed to believe it is good work.

But how could this BE? How could such obviously inferior work
created by imperfect human beings using severely flawed equipment
and crude techniques, ever be considered good? Should such
violations of common sense not create huge fogs of cognitive
dissonance?

Well, uh. Nah.

You do NOT want to take this level of noise.

You do NOT care about the extent to which your readers are
satisfied or not-satisfied by their photographs, anything like the
extent to which your messages suggest you care. It is not altruism,
nor anything like. It is endless wallowing in dots . I am left to
wonder, as always, why you bother...

There is absolutely no way "to work through" the very high noise
level and the very small dynamic range. The images will just be useless.

That you could make so absurdly, so irrationally categorical a
"prediction," using the deliberately chosen hot-button word
"useless," once again makes it clear that your intent here has
nothing to do with photography itself_ -- nothing to do with the
making of images.

I know how this will work. Any time someone takes a good photograph
using a D7, if you're in the mood to dump on it you'll simply
declare it "not good" and out into cyberspace will come floating a
great raft of technical jargon to justify the opinion. That's how
self-justification schemes work; they're closed systems. "We
control the horizontal; we control the vertical."
Nothing can assail such "logic."

You give this kind of motivation away every time you use the
hot-button words. Then for a moment the Digital Orthodoxy For Its
Own Sake recedes into the distance and another motive -- the desire
to belittle something -- emerges. It is analogous to the messages
posted by people who pretend to care about photography but who can
never restrain themselves from calling other people's equipment
"toys." Same book, different cover.

If you wish to be endlessly fascinated with dots, so be it. By all
means drink them in. Swim in them. Call them by their first names.
Create arranged marriages for them. Form and re-form them into
intricate little shapes, tie them into fascinating knots of many
colors (all of them will be in the wrong color spaces, of course
...

...but no one else need be similarly preoccupied. Nor should they
be.

I've said that it is the same with all the 3.xMP digicams that have
such a very tiny, very small pixel area (3.4µm x 3.4µm). It is not
just THIS digicam.

I don't care. By godfrey, I DO NOT CARE. I have seen and admired
Pekka Saarinen's work, made with one of those (eeuuuw!) puny little
3.x mpx cameras. Some of it is very good indeed, the hideous
imperfection of the sensor and the intransigence of those snotty
little dots notwithstanding. In other words, the evidence of my
senses -- not someone else's insistence on perfection in assemblies
of dots -- is what I use to evaluate whether I like his work (or
someone else's).

Nor should I go by any other criterion.

Not once have you tried to explain why someone should consider
these assaults of techno-babble to matter in evaluating
photographs. You have not done so because you don't care about that
in the first place, and you would be unable to do so if you did
try. You have only the preoccupation with assemblages of dots in
some theoretically perfect fashion, which no digital camera can
achieve. The non-achievability of perfection reveals nearly all
digital cameras to be huge disappointments -- instruments
incapable, if we follow your line of thought (such as it is), of
making decent pictures. Which is the most bogus, cockamamie,
damfool thing I've ever heard of.

Pain by numbers.

Nobody should be hoodwinked into thinking he should share in this
particular pain. As you have noticed quite often by now, almost
nobody does.

 

[Bobby Norris]

It's possible that Timo is so upset about this noise because
he likes to sharpen his pictures to an incredible degree, which
of course will make things worse. Look at the images
at Timo's website at:
http://www.aim-dtp.net/aim/techniques/index.htm

For example, check out the Sacre Coeur comparison
(the 8th pair down)...if you're going to brighten and
sharpen such a poorly exposed photo, any noise is
going to pop out to the level that even a pre-teen
might find unacceptable. ;-)

• Bobby

Oh! You are telling us that what YOU have is good, but what others
have (such as 3 MP cameras or a D7) just sucks!

No I answered to a question. I also have the Casio QV-3500EX 3.1MP
digicam that has very very poor image quality, similar than the D7
has.

...

Timo Autiokari

 

[Marok]

I own a Casio Qv3500 and when Timo bought one he posted a very constructive article in the Casio forum , which among other things suggested turning sharpening off and contrast down . Very practical advice which improved my photos . No one in the Casio forum seemed to take much notice of it , but a few weeks later someone else suggested the same thing and it was heralded by everyone as an amazing discovery .

For example, check out the Sacre Coeur comparison
(the 8th pair down)...if you're going to brighten and
sharpen such a poorly exposed photo, any noise is
going to pop out to the level that even a pre-teen
might find unacceptable. ;-)

• Bobby

Oh! You are telling us that what YOU have is good, but what others
have (such as 3 MP cameras or a D7) just sucks!

No I answered to a question. I also have the Casio QV-3500EX 3.1MP
digicam that has very very poor image quality, similar than the D7
has.

...

Timo Autiokari

 

[MikeA]

Ok...I have to confess something. I stole all of that from an unpublished novel by Fanny Hurst. Or possibly Nelson Eddy. I forget. It's the weirdest thing. I was thumbing though the book, looking for something uplifting about puppies and kitties, and I stumbled across this passage about digital photography that had an uncanny relevance to Timo's, ah, contributions. And here you thought weird science only happened on cable TV or in some book about Carl Jung.

MikeA
I applaude you. As soon as I can control my laughing and hysterical
clapping of appreciation I will get up and give you a standing
ovation.

Please do not hurt yourself doing this. How would you then ever be able to take noisy unsharp pictures with unacceptable dynamic range???

 

[Tegenfeldt]

Oh! You are telling us that what YOU have is good, but what others
have (such as 3 MP cameras or a D7) just sucks!

No I answered to a question. I also have the Casio QV-3500EX 3.1MP
digicam that has very very poor image quality, similar than the D7
has.

Yeah, and you just said your Casio 3.1 MP digicam sucks too... You are not answering questions, you are just repeatedly stating what you think is facts. And I am sure you will go on repeating that since you think your Casio is so bad, of course we have to believe (you) that the D7 as well as all > 3 MP cameras are just "pre-teens toys" borrowing someones favorite terminology. You can repeat it until hell freezes over, it won´t do you any good.

Many astophotographic applications use CCDs with cells as tiny as
6x6 um, and deals with noise, dark currents and other defects or
effects, and still produces fantastic imagery of the sky... Your
message that the CCD cells are too small to be useable is simply
not true.

Usually they have far larger pixel size, and often gray only. But
6x6 is as much as 36 while 3.4x3.4 is only 11.56. So the 6x6 pixel
is as much as 3.1
times better.

Every CCD cell is in itself gray only, the color filter on top of it is what makes the color, as you well know.

There are bigger CCD cells in use for astropphotography for sure, but also a surprising amount of smaller sizes too, some even smallen than 6x6. Yes it is a factor of 3 times bigger, but what I wanted to illustrate is that your obsession with CCD cell size just simply is not the one and only important thing here. You maniacally search for facts to prove your view of things without realising it is your values that are leading you wrong. You have lost your balance of compromises and stubbornly focus on one thing, CCD size, and think we (the world) has to be convinced we would be better off with a 1.3 MP D7. Again, I simply don´t agree with that.

BUT will people think that 1.3 MP is enough? NO.
There is NO way that I or others will accept 1.3 MP
instead of 4-5 MP just because of noise.

Because both the lower noise and the higher dynamic range. I
believe that there is very big market for such a higher quality
1.3MP digicam.

Timo Autiokari

If you want 1.3 MP why don´t you just buy one of those? And don´t complain on their poor image quality, your message all along is that a 1.3 MP gives better images since it has lower noise and better dynamics. So, buy one, there are several such camera models. But don´t expect me or anyone else in this Minolta forum, where most of the interest is focused on the D7, to listen to your beliefs that there is a MARKET FOR A 1.3 MP D7.

My belief is just as much as yours, and I do not believe there is ANY market at all for a 1.3 MP D7. Period.

 

[Timo Autiokari]

What's about D7 - 5MP - raw images and downsampling to 1.3MP ?

It does help with the noise somewhat, I do quite the same by downsampling the QV3500ex images by 50% (down to 25% area gies 0.8MP from 3.1MP), but this techniques does not help at all with the dynamic range and a the noise level of 4x larger pixel is notably less than what can be achieved by just averaging the 4 smaller pixels.

Timo Autiokari

 

[David J. Littleboy]

I own a Casio Qv3500 and when Timo bought one he posted a very
constructive article in the Casio forum , which among other things
suggested turning sharpening off and contrast down . Very practical
advice which improved my photos . No one in the Casio forum seemed
to take much notice of it , but a few weeks later someone else
suggested the same thing and it was heralded by everyone as an
amazing discovery .

Realy. While Timo's complaining about noise is seriously excessive, thanks to people like Timo (he's not the only one), I'm learning how to keep noise down to acceptable levels. (In Photoshop LE, one can get perfectly good sharpening with almost no noise aggravation simply by increasing the threshold a bit.) Another interesting point is that even D30 and D1x images have noticeable noise if you overly sharpen them. Although it is much easier to mess up an S85 image than a D1x image. Sigh.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

 

[Timo Autiokari]

what I wanted to illustrate is that your obsession with
CCD cell size just simply is not the one and only important
thing here.

It is the most important thing, please read e.g.: http://www.kodak.com/US/en/digital/pdf/largePixels.pdf

If you want 1.3 MP why don´t you just buy one of those?

Because those that exists have small pixel area too. The 2/3 type CCD that the D7 design use makes it possible to have higher quality 1.3MP digicam because the pixel area will be larger. That 1.3MP "D7" digicam would have about the same quality as the S1 pro.

And don´t complain on their poor image quality, your
message all along is that a 1.3 MP gives better images
since it has lower noise and better dynamics.

NO. The message is that a 2/3 type CCD when populated with 1.3MP gives much higher quality than what the current consumer grade gadgets do.

Timo Autiokari

 

[Scotty]

Mike,

Thank you for pointing out the folly of Timo's ways. He must be a tormented soul, so absorbed in dots. Imagine his torment when looking at conventional film photographs - all those grains to count! Let's see - conventional film has grain, digital cameras have noise. What else is there? It's obvious that he'll have to stop taking photographs entirely, lest his obsession with dots consume him.

One could wish that he would simply buy a D1x and go away quietly. But such is not the nature of trolls. As I've said before, his negativity is best ignored.

Regards,
Scotty

p.s. - godfrey who??

 

[Stephan Figge]

Ok,

if you are reading the article from Kodak ( http://www.kodak.com/US/en/digital/pdf/largePixels.pdf )
carefully, you know that everything that counts is the number of photons:

=> S/N ratio increases with the squareroot of the collected photons

therefore - if the microlenses on the CCD work fine - you end up with the same total amount of collected photons on the whole sensor if the total sensor area stays constant. Of course with higher resolution, each pixel has a lower SNR, but if you are binning the pixels (downsampling) you will get a 1.3 MP picture with same SNR.

So Timo, please don't cry for less pixel, but for larger sensor area.

Nevertheless, it is more diffcult to get a good SNR in smaller structures in means of dark current and readout. The article from Kodak is two years old and research maybe went on, getting better isolators and narrower current paths, and hopefully even these problems will be overcome. Therefore a 5MP 2/3" sensor will give us the flexibility to get 1.3MP low SNR pictures AND preteen (pretty) 5MP with two times higher SNR.

what I wanted to illustrate is that your obsession with
CCD cell size just simply is not the one and only important
thing here.

It is the most important thing, please read e.g.:
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/digital/pdf/largePixels.pdf

If you want 1.3 MP why don´t you just buy one of those?

Because those that exists have small pixel area too. The 2/3 type
CCD that the D7 design use makes it possible to have higher quality
1.3MP digicam because the pixel area will be larger. That 1.3MP
"D7" digicam would have about the same quality as the S1 pro.

And don´t complain on their poor image quality, your
message all along is that a 1.3 MP gives better images
since it has lower noise and better dynamics.

NO. The message is that a 2/3 type CCD when populated with 1.3MP
gives much higher quality than what the current consumer grade
gadgets do.

Timo Autiokari

 

[MikeA]

NO. The message is that a 2/3 type CCD when populated with 1.3MP
gives much higher quality than what the current consumer grade
gadgets do.

Repeat after me: There are no photographs. There are only dots. The dots must be perfect. The dots must be perfectly arranged. Any photograph that results from the perfect arrangement of perfect dots, or the imperfect arrangement of imperfect dots, or the perfect arrangement of imperfect dots, or the imperfect arrangement of perfect dots, is strictly incidental and not relevant to photography. Only dots are relevant to photography. There are no photographs. There are only dots. The dots must be perfect. The dots must be pefectly arranged....

When the batteries finally run down, let us know and we'll have someone come over with a fresh set. Likewise, if the tape breaks.

 

[MikeA]

Thank you for pointing out the folly of Timo's ways.

There's a lot of what the guy knows, and some of what he posts, that is very much not folly. And yet the ultimate message is: "your equipment is a toy. I know what's better for you. Cleave to ME . Photography, schmatography..."

That is the underlying message, and that is what needs to be hammered on repeatedly.

One could wish that he would simply buy a D1x and go away quietly.
But such is not the nature of trolls. As I've said before, his
negativity is best ignored.

It is curious. Why bother with any consumer-grade camera? Why not buy a $15,000 or $20,000 scanning back for a view camera, and go take pictures that would make even a Nikon D1X owner weep?

But taking photographs turns out not to be the point. The point is to "do the dots," and to sneer at other people's choice of equipment. Again, that is the underlying message. And it has to be broadcast . The broadcasting turns out to be more important than anything else. Who knows why people do this, endlessly, in photography forums? (They themselves probably don't know why they do it.)

p.s. - godfrey who??

Cambridge?

 

[Tegenfeldt]

what I wanted to illustrate is that your obsession with
CCD cell size just simply is not the one and only important
thing here.

It is the most important thing, please read e.g.:
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/digital/pdf/largePixels.pdf

Okey, I have read that. It is interesting, but I still don´t see your point that it is THE most important thing. If one reads carefully they say that CCD cell size increases SNR for larger cells and have better dynamics, when all other things are constant. For a real world camera solution this is not the case. If one put up a fixed sum of money you get a camera with compromises. If you don´t make compromises on the CCD side because you are obsessed with that, then you will loose on the other parts of the chain.

But that is besides the point. I still firmly stands by that the CCD cell size (noise and dynamics) is a compromise we can live with. The D7 as well as many 3 or 4 or 5 MP cameras do in the real world produce results that shows to be useable. We are many who actually do produce photos with such equippment even if you discard this fact.

If I would build a camera for medical equipment I would make other compromises than for a consumer camera such as the D7.

The D7 seems to be a worthy compromise.

And don´t complain on their poor image quality, your
message all along is that a 1.3 MP gives better images
since it has lower noise and better dynamics.

NO. The message is that a 2/3 type CCD when populated with 1.3MP
gives much higher quality than what the current consumer grade
gadgets do.

Timo Autiokari

You say "NO." just to continue with "consumer grade gadgets"... Your debate tactics stinks. Pardon my language.

 

[Marok]

Who gives a f* about his debating / politeness skills . It's information I visit the site for , which he provides .

Tegenfeldt wrote:
.>

You say "NO." just to continue with "consumer grade gadgets"...
Your debate tactics stinks. Pardon my language.

 

[Scotty]

Unfortunately, this behavior is not limited to photography forums. I'm also a guitar enthusiast, and the same sort of peculiar "broadcasting" occurs there as well. In the guitar forums the culprits are most often teenagers. I wonder what comparison we could draw from that?

You're quite correct that the act of photographing is/should be the thing, not dot counting. Back in the day (I'm growing tired of that phrase already) we used to shoot Tri-X b&w film, often pushed to 1600 ASA (ha, I'm even older than ISO!!). The end result usually had almost no gray tones and grain so big we gave them all names. I didn't do much "dot counting" then either, I just took pictures.

I'm sure that our friend has plenty of usefull stuff to contribute. It's sad that it's so hard to see behind the curtain of negativism.

But taking photographs turns out not to be the point. The point is
to "do the dots," and to sneer at other people's choice of
equipment. Again, that is the underlying message. And it has to
be broadcast . The broadcasting turns out to be more important
than anything else. Who knows why people do this, endlessly, in
photography forums? (They themselves probably don't know why they
do it.)

 

[Berg Na]

Timo's favorite reference article is geared specifically toward industrial applications, rather than digital photography where image resolution (aka MTF) and lens size, cost, and weight are also important parameters. Pixel size is inversely proportional to spatial resolution for a particular focal length, so larger pixels also require larger and more expensive lenses to achieve acceptable resolution. Aliasing problems are also harder to correct with larger pixels. In fact, this article http://www.ptbmagazine.com/SEPT99/ptb.ccdfeat999.html specifically recommends that in selecting the right pixel size, it is often better to err on the small side (see under 'Optical Considerations'). His constant assertion that the 1.3M pixel CCD in the Kodak DCS3 yields high image quality is another joke but, as you and many others have discovered, it is a complete waste of time to attempt to discuss technical matters with loco Timo.

It is the most important thing, please read e.g.:
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/digital/pdf/largePixels.pdf

Okey, I have read that. It is interesting, but I still don´t see
your point that it is THE most important thing...

 

[MikeA]

Unfortunately, this behavior is not limited to photography forums.

I know...then there are the political forums. (eeeeek!)

You're quite correct that the act of photographing is/should be the
thing, not dot counting. Back in the day (I'm growing tired of
that phrase already) we used to shoot Tri-X b&w film, often pushed
to 1600 ASA (ha, I'm even older than ISO!!).

Same here. The grain was grim -- and, you lived with it. Then again, in the case of photographers like Bill Brandt, the grain was part of the art, as it were. I can live with grain -- most people can, if a lot of grain is unavoidable in a given situation. I would have trouble living with a lot of noise, however.

I'm sure that our friend has plenty of usefull stuff to contribute.
It's sad that it's so hard to see behind the curtain of negativism.

Dare I say it? "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!"

(Well, when he's holding forth in a foolish manner, that is.)