81–90 of 98 posts
I bet it can do some insane slowmo frame rates too in normal lighting conditions. For all they put into this sensor, surprised Canon produced such a crapily edited video.
So, with all the critical details here about CCD sensors, you expert guys are telling me that I should not rush out and spend $10 K, $20 K, or whatever for the latest Nikon/Canon single lens reflex with a CCD sensor and a bag of lenses and, instead, keep my old Nikon Nikormat with its bag of Nikon lenses? Let's see, opening the bag for the first time in a while, I have a Nikkor 200 mm f4, a Nikkor 105 mm f2.5, a Nikk…
> carrying a serving tray with her hand made Sachertorte mit Schlagobers (whipped cream)? What am I reading
A Sachertorte is a chocolate cake famous from Hotel Sacher in Vienna. It has lots of chocolate and eggs, some apricot jam, and only a little flour. The cake is chocolate, and there is a covering of a soft candy-like chocolate over the whole cake. As is common with coffee and deserts in Vienna, it is commonly eaten with whipped cream.
If you are having a romantic candle lit dinner with a pretty girl wearing a pretty cocktail dress and for desert she goes to the kitchen and comes out wearing a frilly apron over her dress and carrying a tray with that cake and whipped cream, that she made herself just for you, then you have lots of symbols, worth photographing, of a potential of a very happy marriage and home life (although some women would say would be happy mostly only for you) which, of course, is one of the main reasons to take pictures.
So, with all the critical details here about CCD sensors, you expert guys are telling me that I should not rush out and spend $10 K, $20 K, or whatever for the latest Nikon/Canon single lens reflex with a CCD sensor and a bag of lenses and, instead, keep my old Nikon Nikormat with its bag of Nikon lenses? Let's see, opening the bag for the first time in a while, I have a Nikkor 200 mm f4, a Nikkor 105 mm f2.5, a Nikk…
* this sensor is for video, your Nikormat cannot do video * practicality of digital vs analog, people will trade quality for convenience * with Bayer filter you don't lose exactly 1/2 of resolution, the algoritms employed do a little better than that
I had to Google "Bayer filter" -- the Wikipedia page is good. So, yes, without knowing it, I was describing a Bayer filter.
For video, sure, my Nikormat is only a still camera, but my guess is that the Canon CCD sensor will also get used for still photography. Then a question is, would that chip make a much better 35 mm 'class' still camera than my old Nikormat with, say, just Kodacolor film? Apparently on ASA speed values, the Canon sensor would totally blow away any film.
But on resolution, I was guessing that film such as Kodacolor in a good, old still camera such as my Nikormat might still be close to competitive.
But I have fallen so behind in photography that I don't even know what the camera ads mean when they say how many pixels their sensor has. For the Dalsa sensor I described, would the ads say 48 million pixels or just 1/4th of that many, 12 million, after the Bayer filtering?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
1. Noise increases as pixel size increases. So you can't just make the pixels bigger. 2. The 5 megapixel camera on an iPhone 4 is pretty amazing. I wouldn't call it a waste of resources. 3. Displacing MF from high-end camera manufacturers requires tiny pixels. You can shoot pictures for e.g. magazines on a $2,000 D600 today, but in 2003 you would have needed at least $4,000 MF camera plus a $10,000+ scanner. Yes, thi…
It is simply not true that noise increases as pixel size increases. The exact opposite is widely known to be true. See this page, for example: http://firmitas.org/Sensor.html
So, with all the critical details here about CCD sensors, you expert guys are telling me that I should not rush out and spend $10 K, $20 K, or whatever for the latest Nikon/Canon single lens reflex with a CCD sensor and a bag of lenses and, instead, keep my old Nikon Nikormat with its bag of Nikon lenses? Let's see, opening the bag for the first time in a while, I have a Nikkor 200 mm f4, a Nikkor 105 mm f2.5, a Nikk…
Check your suspicions again. Kodak has discontinued, in the past few years:
* Kodachrome
* High color Portra films (the VC versions)
* Ektachrome (pro and consumer)
* Plus-X Pan
I suspect consumer negative film is on the way out. You'll be stuck with Ektar and Portra, or maybe just one of those two choices. All of the above films were discontinued before Kodak filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, so perhaps it will only get worse.
THE BIG PROBLEM: You cannot inexpensively scan 35mm at high resolution. Photographers have been saying for years that film is great because you can just hang on to your negatives and wait for the prices on good scanners to come down, but my experience is that the nice scanners ($3,000 Nikon Coolscan 9000) yield an actual resolution much closer to 2000 dpi rather than the advertised 4000 dpi. You could also buy a Flextight or a drum scanner for like $12,000, and you can send good frames out for drum scanning at $40 per frame.
This means that with a good setup you'll be getting roughly 5+ MP pictures out of your 35mm rig.
In most situations, it's not even close to competetive with the quality of a modern 24 MP DSLR with a full frame sensor. It's just a hell of a lot cheaper.
So, with all the critical details here about CCD sensors, you expert guys are telling me that I should not rush out and spend $10 K, $20 K, or whatever for the latest Nikon/Canon single lens reflex with a CCD sensor and a bag of lenses and, instead, keep my old Nikon Nikormat with its bag of Nikon lenses? Let's see, opening the bag for the first time in a while, I have a Nikkor 200 mm f4, a Nikkor 105 mm f2.5, a Nikk…
> I suspect I will be able to buy film such as Kodak Kodacolor for a long time Check your suspicions again. Kodak has discontinued, in the past few years: * Kodachrome * High color Portra films (the VC versions) * Ektachrome (pro and consumer) * Plus-X Pan I suspect consumer negative film is on the way out. You'll be stuck with Ektar and Portra, or maybe just one of those two choices. All of the above films were disc…
On scanning resolution, thanks for the detail. So, the resolution I am getting now at Sam's Club, 1818 * 1228 = 2,232,504 maybe isn't too awful.
Apparently getting color negative film scanned to something like the old Kodak PhotoCD is still possible at, say,
http://www.twocatdigital.com/scanning.html
Their Web site mentions files sizes and file types, but I didn't find much on their resolution in pixels.
So, net, right, it looks like a current, high-end, Nikon or Canon full frame 35 mm digital single lens reflex camera or even a movie camera with the Canon CCD sensor of the OP will be much better than color negative film in my old Nikormat on sensitivity, i.e., ASA 'film speed' and resolution.
So, if I want to dig into photography again, then I should get a sack full of modern equipment and copies of the relevant Adobe software. In the meanwhile, shooting color negative film and getting it scanned at Sam's Club (if they still do that), Wal-Mart, TwoCat, etc. seems like still a relatively good way to take pictures.
Is this a color sensor? The high end astrophotography sensors tend to be monochromatic, with a filter wheel placed in front of the sensor. That way, each well has 3 times as much chance of seeing a photon.
All sensors are monochrome just with red, green, and blue filters over pixels in what's called a Bayer pattern. The only real exception to this rule that I can think of is the Foveon sensor.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, an f/0.7 aperture is a ridiculously wide aperture (thus, it lets in a lot of light[1]), two stops brighter than f/1.4 (a "stop" means a doubling of the amount of light; f/1.2 lenses are the fastest lenses commonly available, and they'll cost around $2k), or four stops faster than f/2.8 (which is what the fastest commonly available zoom lenses are, and they're expensive too). Leica make a very rare f/0.95 lens th…
Holy cow! I just visited arethuza's Wikipedia link below... I read the NASA trivia about the movie on a forum a few years back and it just popped into my memory. I had no idea these were incredibly rare. Yes, the irony him shooting 2001 wasn't lost on me. Without reflections, space is pretty dark (excluding starlight) so I imagine the new Canon lense will see a lot of space use. Provided it can be made sufficienty RA…
Lots of infrared too, though.
In a way it's kind of simple, isn't it? Having "only" Full HD on a 35 mm sensor simply means you have much larger individual potential wells, capturing more photons per pixel. What I'm really wondering about is the dynamic range - wouldn't that also drastically increase?
Too bad the whole camera business wasted a huge amount of resouces over ten years on a stupid tinier and tinier pixels race.
Not that stupid. While more pixels = more noise holds true for the SAME sensor, it doesn't hold true for later sensors that have better less noise and better gain at the CCD/CMOS level.
Current 16 megapixel cameras have LESS noise and better color rendition than 3mp cameras with the same sensor size 10 years ago.