Re: Digital race is only beginning. LOL ha ha
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bernice Loui
Indeed, there are already a good number of problem limiting current image sensor technology today that are not limited by current knowledge of Physics.
Can you name one? And maybe point to a source?
I've seen a lot annecdotal ones come and go. Not long ago it was presumed that 5 micron pixels would be too small, and would give poor s/n and dynamic range performance. Then Nikon/Sony's 4.8 micron sensor broke all the performance records. A year later they produced a 4 micron sensor which does not seem to have introduced any compromises.
When the manufacturers stop investing in smaller pixels, all the attention will turn to better pixels. How to capture more energy, introduce less noise, accurately transfer more cycles per pixel, give better color purity. We will likely see alternatives to the bayer sensor and foveon, and alternatives to cmos.
And consider that these smaller pixel pitches have not been introduced yet in the world of larger sensors. This may take a while ... the guys I know with 60 and 80 megapixel phase one backs have long wish lists, but I almost never see the call for more pixels on those lists. And yes, everyone I know with these backs has large format film experience.
Re: Digital race is only beginning. LOL ha ha
Quote:
Originally Posted by
paulr
Ahhh, good catch. Any sense how this translates to a comparison with CMOS?
Sorry, no.
Re: Digital race is only beginning. LOL ha ha
Quote:
Originally Posted by
paulr
Lenny's suggestion that real improvements would require a larger sensor size is incorrect. We are in the realm of diminishing returns with resolution improvements in 35mm and smaller sensors. But there's a way to go yet. And in the world of medium format, no one has come close to the higher pixel densities that would be both possible and useful. Separately from resolution, s/n performance is important to a degree that's hard to overestimate. We are still far from what's possible there.
You may think so, but I am not interested in resolution. I don't give a sh_t about sharpness, especially sharpness that a printer can't print. Any camera/lens combo these days can do sharp edges - especially a Leica mini, for example. However, I am far more interested in tonal reproduction, definition, etc. And in that arena sensor size is king. I will not believe that a tiny sensor at 35mm size can compare to the information in an 8x10's 10 inches of film. It can't compare in film and it won't do it in digital either.
Lenny
Re: Digital race is only beginning. LOL ha ha
I see mfdb and 35mm FF files on almost EVERY job I work on(I'm a photo assistant).
In my book, MFDB files win hands-down, every time. However for my own shooting, I still prefer to shoot film and drum scan it.
Bigger IS better, most of the time. But these little Panasonic GH3's and XE-1 Fuji's are pretty capable little beasts, when handled well. An ill-processed mfdb file can look like sh*t, and a well-done micro-4/3rds file can sing. Just comes down to the person at the controls ;)
Film still looks better to me though, but convenience and speed? Digital by a large margin.
-Dan
Re: Digital race is only beginning. LOL ha ha
A few points.
First, university researchers get credit, extra grants and general all round kudos if articles about their work appear in the mainstream press. That provides some perverse incentives to press conference research results, which is only made worse by the superficial way science is reported in most news outlets. The end result is exaggerated claims for the significance of the breakthrough, and wildly optimistic projections about potential applications. It's *all* fluff.
This is a good result, and an interesting one. That's why it's in Nature, which in spite of everything still maintains some pretty fierce bulldogs on the gate and doesn't just publish any old thing. But it isn't about to revolutionize sensor technology, not yet at any rate. One of the reasons graphene is so weird - and stable - as a physical substance is that it's pretty inert. That makes it hard to modify, or to make sensors and other electonics out of. The advance here is in the ability to adjust the properties of the graphene sheet without it breaking apart.
The hard limit to sensor performance is photon shot noise. This is a noise built into the light itself, and it cannot be mitigated by anything other than collecting light for a longer time, or over a larger area. There's a lot of nonsense talked about photon shot noise, but it can be measured with current imaging sensors, separately from other sources of noise such as those introduced by the readout electronics of the sensor itself. So the limit is there, will be significant if ISOs climb much beyond 100 000 or so, and can only be combated by capturing every last photon as efficiently as possible.
This material is transparent. OK, partially transparent. You can see the scientist's face through it. Compare the visual effect with a stop-wedge or an ND filter in your mind's eye, and it's clear that at present it offers no threat to class leading silicon-based sensors which turn up to 95% of the light into signal (at some wavelengths). If the substrate were transparent, that would roughly be a four stop ND filter. Graphene has a way to go.
Re: Digital race is only beginning. LOL ha ha
For 99+% of photographers (especially the ones Drew trashes all the time), whatever technology they are currently using is better than their artistic vision. It really doesn't matter if they are using LF, ULF, MFDB, DSLR, point & shoot,... because their vision is their main handicap, not their equipment. Better equipment or technology might make them incrementally better, but that will pale in comparison to what growth in vision would provide (or mastering the equipment they already have).
Re: Digital race is only beginning. LOL ha ha
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Daniel Stone
I see mfdb and 35mm FF files on almost EVERY job I work on(I'm a photo assistant).
In my book, MFDB files win hands-down, every time. However for my own shooting, I still prefer to shoot film and drum scan it.
Film still looks better to me though, but convenience and speed? Digital by a large margin.
-Dan
There is a difference between what a commercial photographer needs and what an artist needs. I don't need convenience and speed. I use a large format camera and tripod and its slower. Unless you look at the goal, of course.
The aesthetic of commercial work is that it must have "impact". Others call it "pop" or snap, intensity, etc. It should shock the viewer into considering what the image has to say. The red of the coke can should stun us into submission. If you look at journalism overall these days you will see this very graphic, intense approach as well. Everything is about shock and awe.
I understand the need for it in a commercial realm. (I have no disrespect for commercial photographers, my father was a very successful one. I grew up in his darkroom, helping him with all sorts of stuff...) Some artists like shock and awe as well. Personally, I am not that interested. I like images where I learn something, where something is so rich in understanding that I am moved. I'm interested in depth. I don't want to be yanked into submission, sold to or anything else. I want to see a work by someone who understood something at a core level and passed it along. Something I can use. It takes time to develop understanding, and to reach the core level of anything. Convenience doesn't help. Photography without understanding or without depth, that just sticks something red in the center of the frame isn't particularly interesting to me.
I have noticed that when photographs pass over the line from something a person looks at to something that someone "experiences" its often because of an overwhelming amount of tonal information. Lot's of delicious midtones. I'm looking for something subtle. I'm 60 and I already got the obvious stuff - a long time ago.
The MFDB's aren't going to do it. Primarily because the sensor size can't carry that much information. It won't compete with 4x5 or 8x10. At least not until they decide to start making larger sensors. At which point I will be happy to move....
Lenny
Re: Digital race is only beginning. LOL ha ha
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Lenny Eiger
You may think so, but I am not interested in resolution. I don't give a sh_t about sharpness, especially sharpness that a printer can't print. Any camera/lens combo these days can do sharp edges - especially a Leica mini, for example. However, I am far more interested in tonal reproduction, definition, etc. And in that arena sensor size is king. I will not believe that a tiny sensor at 35mm size can compare to the information in an 8x10's 10 inches of film. It can't compare in film and it won't do it in digital either.
Lenny
Based on what? The physics disagrees with you .
Re: Digital race is only beginning. LOL ha ha
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bernice Loui
Indeed, there are already a good number of problem limiting current image sensor technology today that are not limited by current knowledge of Physics.
Sorry Bernice, I misread this the first time around. We agree on this; I argued with a point you weren't making.
Re: Digital race is only beginning. LOL ha ha
Quote:
Originally Posted by
paulr
No, the physics agrees with me. Once again, consider the telephone pole that has a million shades of brown. Consider what a 1/4 inch wide swath of film can reproduce... not that much. If the 1/4 inch is on a 4x5, then consider how much info is on a full inch of film on an 8x10. A lot more shades get reproduced. Of course, you can also go backwards to 1/16 on med format or 1/64 on 35mm.
What you are basically saying is that an image sensor the size of 35mm will do as much as an 8x10 piece of film - and that is simply not true. I don't care what the article says, I don't trust Luminous as far as I could throw it to begin with, but in this case I think the article is discussing other issues that have no bearing on this discussion. It seems to be about size difference with matching resolution. It's a little too technical for a Saturday... but it can't turn a 35mm into an 8x10.
Lenny