If all professional camcorders have 3 CCD-s for more realistic colour rendition, why no manufacturer came out with this in a pro digital SLR? Or will I have to first spend a fortune on an EOS D1 or whatever, just to realize a year after, that there is a "brand new technology 3 CCD SLR"?
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Why not 3 CCD?
- Thread starter N. Nagy
- Start date
DavidP #28649
Forum Pro
I believe the one manufacturer (Foeven ?) has come out with such a beast.
I imagine it's only a matter of time before digital cameras move in this direction (similar to camcorders).
I imagine it's only a matter of time before digital cameras move in this direction (similar to camcorders).
Peter Lindsey50614
Forum Enthusiast
Yes... right now we have point and shoot, (for the large part people who like computers ... progressing to the mainstream) and SLR phototographers (pro and avid alike) who are starting to converge in the middle. There is so much that could be done with CCD/CMOS which we as photographers have never had access to that is most certainly in the pipeline right now..
We are just being provided with that which we understand the most. There are CCD cameras out there which have 14 stops of dynamic range. Far more than film, and far more flexible, but the market is not there yet because we just want our beloved film performance in digital.
Mark my words... the next 5 years is going to show advances in digital which will make the film naysaysers gasp with envy. With memory, disk and processing power prices plummeting as they are, we won't have long to wait before much of the technical and even artistic skill of the photographer is transferred to the darkroom entirely. Just a press of the shutter will record everything and leave the choice of dynamic range, framing, WB for later. Of course, as always, focus and timing are the keys.
There will be a huge demand for artistically and technically talented digi-darkroom maestros.
Damn.. I spend too long in front of this screen. And I'm certainly no Maestro. ... yet ;-)
Hammy #54417
Leading Member
You have to remember that camcorder CCD's are of much smaller proportion than SLR's. Even a high end camcorder has CCD's with a pixel count less than 1Mpix - most only 500,000 or less. They are shooting video at 60 frames/second and can get away with fine detail because of the eye's perception within motion. And at that 60fps, nothing (yet) has the bandwidth to keep up with full frame censors that SLR's are striving for.
Currently, SLR sensors have all of the RGB mounted in one sensor - tight enough that they blend for other colors. Having seperate CCD's would mean a tight pack of the same color sensitive pixels - great for color and resolution - the drawback would be the bandwidth to handle 3+ times the information. This would result in extremely large file sizes as well as very slow camera's.
So, yes, you would have to spend that small fortune to find a manufacturer to build a custom body, large enough to house 3 large CCD's, beam splitter and all associated electonics to syncronize the massive I/O from 3 seperate CCD's. I think that eventually, when CCD/CMOS technology become more affordable, you may see something like this on the high end, but there are alot of technical issues to overcome before it becomes managable and affordable enough to mass market.
Don't get me wrong, I really like the idea, and I think that in several years, we will be seeing items like this as manufacturers are pushed to new limits - and I can't wait!!
Brian.
Currently, SLR sensors have all of the RGB mounted in one sensor - tight enough that they blend for other colors. Having seperate CCD's would mean a tight pack of the same color sensitive pixels - great for color and resolution - the drawback would be the bandwidth to handle 3+ times the information. This would result in extremely large file sizes as well as very slow camera's.
So, yes, you would have to spend that small fortune to find a manufacturer to build a custom body, large enough to house 3 large CCD's, beam splitter and all associated electonics to syncronize the massive I/O from 3 seperate CCD's. I think that eventually, when CCD/CMOS technology become more affordable, you may see something like this on the high end, but there are alot of technical issues to overcome before it becomes managable and affordable enough to mass market.
Don't get me wrong, I really like the idea, and I think that in several years, we will be seeing items like this as manufacturers are pushed to new limits - and I can't wait!!
Brian.
The CCD/CMOS sensor is the most expensive part of the camera right now. Now imagine the price of a camera having 3 sensors
Actually, I find the interpolation algorithms quite effective today. I think the camera manufacturers need to resolve other issues first.Shabok
Van Svenson41689
Member
Good point Peter. Remember that only a century (maybe a little more) ago, negatives were glass. I'm sure that once technology was fazing out that medium, the "tried and true" scoffed at modern technological advances.
Right now, the D30 is darn good and frequently yields better-than-film results. If you want a fantastic CAMERA and it's within your budget, get the D30. I'm sure the D1 is also a fantastic camera, but this is the Canon forum...
-Van
Right now, the D30 is darn good and frequently yields better-than-film results. If you want a fantastic CAMERA and it's within your budget, get the D30. I'm sure the D1 is also a fantastic camera, but this is the Canon forum...
-Van
Kjeld Olesen
Veteran Member
Hi
Allthough it might be technically possible to build a 3 chip camera, it will probably not be a 3 chip SLR camera, as it is simply not possible to work with the existing camera lenses, which are designed for a focus plane at a certain distance behind the shutter plane.
If a beamsplitter and 3 chips should be fitted behind the mirror and shutter, this would require a large shift in the focus plane which again would require totally redesigned optics.
Thus, all in all, it is probably best for anybody who has a large investment in optics that the manufacturers work on developing chips with 3 times more pixels.
Kjeld Olesen
http://www.geocities.com/acapixus
Allthough it might be technically possible to build a 3 chip camera, it will probably not be a 3 chip SLR camera, as it is simply not possible to work with the existing camera lenses, which are designed for a focus plane at a certain distance behind the shutter plane.
If a beamsplitter and 3 chips should be fitted behind the mirror and shutter, this would require a large shift in the focus plane which again would require totally redesigned optics.
Thus, all in all, it is probably best for anybody who has a large investment in optics that the manufacturers work on developing chips with 3 times more pixels.
Kjeld Olesen
http://www.geocities.com/acapixus
Karl Guttag
Veteran Member
While at first glance a single sensor seems like a huge compromise, the 3-sensor approach is not all to the good. The cost of a 3 sensors is more like 4 to 5 times the cost of a single sensor. In addition to the cost of the sensors, there is the cost of the beam splitter. The coating on the beam splitter split the light, but they may introduce unwanted problems.
Then there are the issues of alignment. This can be done mechanically, but it requires extremely high precision and then there are the issues of how well it can hold the tollerance over time and temperatures. Then there is the electronic computational approach which is less expensive (with the falling cost of processing chips), but costs some resolution (any scaling/transformation operation looses some resolution).
The single sensor takes advantage of the fact that human vision needs more luma than color resolution and is more sensitive to green (and gets about 1/2 of the intensity information from green -- thus 2 green filters for each one of red and blue).
There are a lot of other issues, but suffice to say, I don't think anyone has to worry about a Digital camera with 3-chips at the SAME resolution coming out at any where near the price or size of a 1 chip camera any time soon. It is not some evil conspiracy, but rather making the best trade offs of cost and performance.
Karl
Then there are the issues of alignment. This can be done mechanically, but it requires extremely high precision and then there are the issues of how well it can hold the tollerance over time and temperatures. Then there is the electronic computational approach which is less expensive (with the falling cost of processing chips), but costs some resolution (any scaling/transformation operation looses some resolution).
The single sensor takes advantage of the fact that human vision needs more luma than color resolution and is more sensitive to green (and gets about 1/2 of the intensity information from green -- thus 2 green filters for each one of red and blue).
There are a lot of other issues, but suffice to say, I don't think anyone has to worry about a Digital camera with 3-chips at the SAME resolution coming out at any where near the price or size of a 1 chip camera any time soon. It is not some evil conspiracy, but rather making the best trade offs of cost and performance.
Karl
The CCD/CMOS sensor is the most expensive part of the camera right
now. Now imagine the price of a camera having 3 sensors
Actually, I find the interpolation algorithms quite effective
today. I think the camera manufacturers need to resolve other
issues first.
Shabok
D
Divo
Guest
As I understand it the real advantage with 3 chip cameras at least in the video world is color saturation, especially in low light. I don't see a huge problem with color saturation with the current line of digital still cameras; in fact some cameras have too much color.
Best,
David
Best,
David
Well, this isnt the problem. The Foveon (Hasselblad Dfinity) 3 chip camera uses Canon 35mm lenses. The results from this camera are excellent. Check out the Hasselblad site for examples. The reason you dont see more of these is simply the cost.
Michael R. Hinkle
New member
- Messages
- 2
- Reaction score
- 0
Kjeld,
I looked into the Hasselblad DFinity which was announced almost a year ago. It uses 3 sensors and uses a select range of Canon EOS lenses via a converter ring of some sort. Though the camera is small in size, it can not be used without a PC/MAC attached to drive it.
Here is a link to some info on it:
http://www.hasselbladusa.com/about/pr092000d.htm
Michael R. Hinkle
http://www.mrhphoto.com
I looked into the Hasselblad DFinity which was announced almost a year ago. It uses 3 sensors and uses a select range of Canon EOS lenses via a converter ring of some sort. Though the camera is small in size, it can not be used without a PC/MAC attached to drive it.
Here is a link to some info on it:
http://www.hasselbladusa.com/about/pr092000d.htm
Michael R. Hinkle
http://www.mrhphoto.com
S
stripes
Guest
Except for the raw format all the JPG and TIFF files assume you have full color information for all pixels, the files will not get significantly larger (uncompressed TIFF won't get bigger at all; JPGs will only grow much if the extra color info is really very very different from the guesses current single CCD cameras do).
I do agree with the rest of your points though, and think physical size may well keep it out of hand held cameras for a good long time (if 35mm equiv CCD sizes are used at least).
I do wonder will more cameras don't try moving the RGB mask three times for stills though...
Kjeld Olesen
Veteran Member
Hi
Well, as I recall the Foveon is not a SLR, which was exactly my point?
Kjeld Olesen
http://www.geocities.com/acapixus
Well, as I recall the Foveon is not a SLR, which was exactly my point?
Kjeld Olesen
http://www.geocities.com/acapixus
Martyn38590
Forum Enthusiast
Brand new, I don't think so mate ;o)
Check this out from 1996:
http://www.epi-centre.com/reports/9605cs.html
The Minolta RD-175 was a real piece of work. If anyone bitches about the D30 being a bit of a handful with it's battery grip, then tell them to go look at this page.
You can see that the beam splitter and chips , along with the associated electronics made a Dynax500Si SLR into a real monster!
The wierd thing was, that the CCD's weren't just used as red, green and blue devices like in a 3CCD camcorder, but actually as a green, green and other. This was to boost the effective resolution - kind of, but not quite - in a similar way to the RD 3000's two chips. That actually splits the image onto effectively overlapping sensors, rather than interleaving as in the RD-175.
Just a blast from the past. Say anyone remember the Oly D-300L? Hey, anyone remember Mike Lynch and Pier Rodelon?
Blimey, doesn't time fly
Martyn
Scott Larson
Veteran Member
That manufacturer (I can't remember either) had an amazing display for their color-splitting prism. It had a beam of white light going in and spliting into red, green and blue (filtered) points of light. It looked like a heavy and expensive piece of glass though.
Z (is real)
Veteran Member
Foveon. http://www.foveon.net . Carver Mead, a monumental figure in the field of VLSI chip design, is one of the founders.
The weight and the cost limit it to studio use. And if you're out their pricing Hassy's,, you might consider looking at the Foveon... Their current product is 4 megapixels "fully measured." The have put out press releases on their 16 megapixel (monochrome) sensor and indicated that products based on it would likely use a Bayer filter rather than using three chips fully measured. (Search the press release and Photo show archives here on DPReview for Foveon. Phil covered this stuff.)
-Z-
The weight and the cost limit it to studio use. And if you're out their pricing Hassy's,, you might consider looking at the Foveon... Their current product is 4 megapixels "fully measured." The have put out press releases on their 16 megapixel (monochrome) sensor and indicated that products based on it would likely use a Bayer filter rather than using three chips fully measured. (Search the press release and Photo show archives here on DPReview for Foveon. Phil covered this stuff.)
-Z-
Jim Leonard
Well-known member
As I see it, the RGBG mask has the issue of throwing away two thirds of the usable light (half your green and three fourths of your red and blue). You wouldn't need as many pixels for your image to have the same amount of non-interpolated information and therefore you could have more sensitive sensors. This would give you faster sensors (higher iso equivalency) and/or less noise in lower iso's (equivalent to 2 stops). Just imagine your iso 1600 images having the same noise level as your current iso 400 images and being realistically able to take iso 6400 images. The other thing that could be done is just keep the resolution the same and having much higher quality images per pixel. Depending on what I'm shooting I could go either way.
jim
jim
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum