cameron12x wrote:
Is a photosite (photodiode) is the same thing as a pixel?
Using the 7D as an example, the math would suggest so (5184 x 3456) ~ 18mp.
From a color resolution perspective (even with interpolation), it's not quite the same as having RGB color information collected and represented by a single pixel (Foveon design). In fact, to me, Bayer sensor resolutions seem a little bit misleading.
Each photosite has a photodiode yes. However a photosite doesn't directly map to a pixel. A pixel as we think of it is a reconstructed element with the values from several photosites contributing to the color channels of the pixel.
There was some debate a while ago because Sigma was marketing Foveon's sensors as 14 megapixel sensors even though they only had something like 5 million photosites. Their argument was that since each photosite in their design captures all 3 colors they should multiply their MP numbers by about 3. A 5mp Foveon sensor would certain resolve more detail than a 5mp Bayer sensor design, however it doesn't come close to 14mp either.
Either way, one should separate resolution from the number of photosites. The maximum resolving power of the sensor can be measure separately (and is something I believe DPR does in their reviews).
cameron12x wrote:
Is a photosite (photodiode) is the same thing as a pixel?
Using the 7D as an example, the math would suggest so (5184 x 3456) ~ 18mp.
From a color resolution perspective (even with interpolation), it's not quite the same as having RGB color information collected and represented by a single pixel (Foveon design). In fact, to me, Bayer sensor resolutions seem a little bit misleading.
ok, this will be quick, but
it's a little bit like video formats (although not really the same since the way the information is stored isn't isomorphic with what comes off of a bayer sensor at all), old VHS was said to have 240 lines or so but you'd be shocked, SHOCKED , what the chroma resolution was and same for DVD only the luminance resolution went way up. The eye is most sensitive to luminance changes and it provides us with the sense of detail.
anyway it's certainly not as ideal as full RGB information at each pixel site as you say but if you do what you need to do to get that with current technology it tends to comes out better using the Bayer method in the end (to get back to video again it's like yes video compression DOES mangle up the signal and more than they claim and you do compress away all sorts of stuff BUT if you were to store lossly compressed video to fit the storage requirements it would turn out worse in the end, perfect lo-res looks worse than imperfect but considerably higher resolution, well at least unless they do a really crappy compression job or they play the game too far or you are not super hyper-sensitive to certain sorts of motion artifacts and the format used has that type but all that aside it's pretty much generally better to use the lossy compressed video than lossless for given storage space, again not quite the same, but it sort of gets the most general point across)
elfanucchi wrote:
LoL - When non engineering professionals think they know and dont have the background to apply technology of "reading between the lines"... its time to unsubscribe.
Have fun 21st Century Digital Dogma Photographers ...
Ultimately, as photographers, it's the end result that counts; i.e., getting the composition right, making the best use of available light etc. All the engineering knowledge you seem to be so proud of ain't gonna help you one bit in that regard.
elfanucchi wrote:
LoL - When non engineering professionals think they know and dont have the background to apply technology of "reading between the lines"... its time to unsubscribe.
Have fun 21st Century Digital Dogma Photographers ...
Instead of condescension, you might try explaining yourself more clearly. I'm happy to learn what you have in mind, but could find no clue as to what it was in the banal marketing video you linked to, and I wasted time watching in trying to understand your point.
ejmartin wrote:
Instead of condescension, you might try explaining yourself more clearly. I'm happy to learn what you have in mind, but could find no clue as to what it was in the banal marketing video you linked to, and I wasted time watching in trying to understand your point.
Your wasting your time trying to understand "The EL". He doesn't have a clue about anything relevant to photography and certainly nothing technical. He enjoys spouting his diatribe on various forums but when you try to get him to explain what he is saying he reverts to personal attacks and condescending remarks.
Jim Victory wrote:
Your wasting your time trying to understand "The EL". He doesn't have a clue about anything relevant to photography and certainly nothing technical. He enjoys spouting his diatribe on various forums but when you try to get him to explain what he is saying he reverts to personal attacks and condescending remarks.
Jim
That's the danger of visiting forums. One must be able to sieve out truths from half-baked lies by those who claim to have special professional knowledge. On the flip side, one can also pick up quite a number of good tips from the true masters.
elfanucchi wrote:
Electronics {process power and logic} do help.
But it dont override CMOS device physics.
The best pixel pitch is still around 7 microns and below 5.5 is problematic
with existing Bayer color scheems.
The 7D has CSFM of 77 and classic 5D is 99 and 5D II is 135 {see link below}.
The new 1DS MK IV is at 5.7 microns with what is called "Deep Well" Sensors. This is an attempt to gather more light via phase shifting technology as we used in phase shift photomasks for microlithography.
I need more info on this but so far dont see it as practical w the published design.
...Show more →
You probably know tons of things about this, but the link you use doesn't point at all that the cut off is 7 micron. In fact high density sensors seems to beat the other handily in IQ.
I suggest you use a better source to support you 7 micron theory as you give neither proof, nor useful data. Rehashing a site which claims the opposite of what you claim is not really helping your case.
He's lucky that his 5D2 continued to work.
I shot the 5D2 under some light rain and I think some water sipped into the joystick. No response from the camera when I shifted the joystick to the left. This problem goes away by itself after a day.
this was cropped down to around a 9MP chunk (too far away) and then resized to 1200 across, f/4, 1/800th, ISO1600 (yeah the shutter could've been slower, although I do find the 7D needs high shutter speeds to really grab full detail, but i had had the TC on a moment before and they were running around spraying so I needed more stop motion and didn't bother to change it later in my excitement)
not that this really demonstrates anything carefully since it is just a random shot so it's not much a point really but anyway it is a photo of sorts
almost no luminanace NR applied (ACR luma NR 3 (very minor) chroma NR 17 no other NR; certainly comes out nice with ACR 5.6 and not of that mazing junk, not that this one had shown actually mazing but the side effects of that still left some junk about before): http://skibum4.smugmug.com/photos/733779715_52VmY-O.jpg
weekh wrote:
He's lucky that his 5D2 continued to work.
I shot the 5D2 under some light rain and I think some water sipped into the joystick. No response from the camera when I shifted the joystick to the left. This problem goes away by itself after a day.
Well, that's Canon QC for you.
I do not know who has the standard product, yours or his?
I do not know who has the standard product, yours or his?
i soaked mine (5D2, wait how did this thread turn into the 5D2 thread suddenly? ) in wet snow yesterday and the day before and it's fine today (and was fine then)
My 5D2 has seen some rain in it's lifetime, with no ill effects. I don't deliberately take it out in a downpour, but I've been in a surprise shower or two with the 5D2 and I've had no problems due to that.
I think that the 7D should fare at least as well, if not better.
, what the chroma resolution was and same for DVD only the luminance resolution went way up. The eye is most sensitive to luminance changes and it provides us with the sense of detail.