Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [PanoToolsNG] Re: Canon - world's largest CMOS sensor

Expand Messages
  • Paul D. DeRocco
    ... It only does that if the FOV is 10 times as large (linearly), doesn t it? -- Ciao, Paul D. DeRocco Paul
    Message 1 of 14 , Aug 31, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      > From: Erik Krause
      >
      > You need a large format lens of course, but the aperture has not
      > necessarily be larger than normal. If a sensor pixel captures
      > a certain
      > number of photons from a given lens at a given aperture 100
      > pixels will
      > capture 100 times as much photons. If now one pixel is as
      > large as 100
      > pixels in the other sensor it captures 100 times as much
      > photons, too.
      > Always with the same lens and aperture.

      It only does that if the FOV is 10 times as large (linearly), doesn't it?

      --

      Ciao, Paul D. DeRocco
      Paul mailto:pderocco@...
    • prague
      It would appear to be an ongoing - and impressive, undisputed - pissing contest on the part of Canon without any real application in real life. Go Canon! But
      Message 2 of 14 , Sep 1, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        It would appear to be an ongoing - and impressive, undisputed - pissing contest on the part of Canon without any real application in real life.

        Go Canon!

        But really, I wish they'd start thinking about more reasonable features.

        -GPS chip (i mean *really* - come on!!!)
        -accelerometer / gyroscope (for recording position, and/or reducing motion blur)
        -faster multiexposure (without mirror flip)
        -in-camera exposure blending
        -more than 2 stops / 3 shots bracketing
        -wifi / local or web uploading from camera

        not as romantic as 120MP or 8" x 8" sensor, i know.... maybe the above features have little value to anyone but me. but i somehow doubt that....




        --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Keith Martin <keith@...> wrote:
        >
        > Sometime around 31/8/10 (at 11:03 -0400) Mark D. Fink said:
        >
        > >not knowing what the resolution is, maybe not. They are quite
        > >vague on that, or did I miss something?
        >
        > Hard to nail down vapour, but I imagine that the huge jump in light
        > sensisitivy is down to much larger sensor sites. Which would mean the
        > resolution would not be increased all that much - if at all.
        >
        > k
        >
      • Ken Warner
        It s for orbiting spy satellites or astronomical telescopes.
        Message 3 of 14 , Sep 1, 2010
        • 0 Attachment
          It's for orbiting spy satellites or astronomical telescopes.


          prague wrote:
          > It would appear to be an ongoing - and impressive, undisputed - pissing contest on the part of Canon without any real application in real life.
          >
          > Go Canon!
          >
          > But really, I wish they'd start thinking about more reasonable features.
          >
          > -GPS chip (i mean *really* - come on!!!)
          > -accelerometer / gyroscope (for recording position, and/or reducing motion blur)
          > -faster multiexposure (without mirror flip)
          > -in-camera exposure blending
          > -more than 2 stops / 3 shots bracketing
          > -wifi / local or web uploading from camera
          >
          > not as romantic as 120MP or 8" x 8" sensor, i know.... maybe the above features have little value to anyone but me. but i somehow doubt that....
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Keith Martin <keith@...> wrote:
          >> Sometime around 31/8/10 (at 11:03 -0400) Mark D. Fink said:
          >>
          >>> not knowing what the resolution is, maybe not. They are quite
          >>> vague on that, or did I miss something?
          >> Hard to nail down vapour, but I imagine that the huge jump in light
          >> sensisitivy is down to much larger sensor sites. Which would mean the
          >> resolution would not be increased all that much - if at all.
          >>
          >> k
          >>
          >
          >
          >
        • Fabio Bustamante
          Couldn t agree more, Jeffrey. ... This is the dumbest. I bet that when Canon release the US$ 100K 8 x8 sensor camera, it will have only 2 stop / 3 shots
          Message 4 of 14 , Sep 1, 2010
          • 0 Attachment
            Couldn't agree more, Jeffrey.

            > -more than 2 stops / 3 shots bracketing

            This is the dumbest. I bet that when Canon release the US$ 100K 8"x8"
            sensor camera, it will have only 2 stop / 3 shots bracketing.

            It definitely seems that the evolution of SLR camera's interface is not
            in sync with the rest of the UI's world. We're kept stuck with such old
            design vices that it even amazes me.

            Let me add some more features I'd like to see in future cameras:

            - Bluetooth remote with real functions instead of the dumb
            wired-focus-and-shutter we've been using for decades. A remote that
            allows you to control f-stop, exposure, ISO etc.
            - Touchscreen (doh!)
            - Hard disk storage
            - Better file and folder naming
            - More presets to save configurations
            - Fully customizable time lapse shooting (preferably with option to
            output as full HD video for those movie capable cameras)
            - Audio notes
            - Maybe getting rid of the shutter? Does a CMOS actually need a physical
            shutter in front of it? All I can say is that it limits flash sync
            speed, reduces MTBF (medium time between fails) and raises maintenance
            costs.
            - Definitely better I.S. (image stabilization).

            A friend of mine has one of those Sony full HD camcorders (gorgeous
            image on a full hd tv, BTW). The effect of the camera's stabilization is
            so brutal that it makes my IS lenses look like cheap toys. Really, it
            seems you're using some magical steadycam. I don't know how different
            their IS technology is from Canon's or if it could be applied to 21mp
            photo sensors, but I would *really* like to have something like that in
            my camera.

            Finally once I thought about a feature to try to raise the chances of
            recovering stolen cameras (I had a Canon 5D and several lenses stolen
            from me in Chile once). It would work more or less like this: every once
            in a while (once every two months, for example - configured by owner)
            the camera displays some fake random error message - but very believable
            - such as "CMOS Error #23-b please take camera to authorized service".
            The camera will then stop working. To disable the fake message the owner
            would have to press a specific secret, pre-configured sequence of buttons.

            If the equipment was stolen and sold to someone, the new owner would
            eventually take the camera to a Canon service. At Canon people would be
            able to access the true owner's information stored by him at the camera
            including name, address, phone and email, and then contact him to see if
            he did sell the camera or if it was stolen.

            Of course professional robbers and dealers would know it and try to
            break this security as best as they can, but still I believe some people
            would fall for that. :-)

            Em 01/09/2010 08:32, prague escreveu:
            > It would appear to be an ongoing - and impressive, undisputed - pissing contest on the part of Canon without any real application in real life.
            >
            > Go Canon!
            >
            > But really, I wish they'd start thinking about more reasonable features.
            >
            > -GPS chip (i mean *really* - come on!!!)
            > -accelerometer / gyroscope (for recording position, and/or reducing motion blur)
            > -faster multiexposure (without mirror flip)
            > -in-camera exposure blending
            > -more than 2 stops / 3 shots bracketing
            > -wifi / local or web uploading from camera
            >
            > not as romantic as 120MP or 8" x 8" sensor, i know.... maybe the above features have little value to anyone but me. but i somehow doubt that....
            >
            >
          • Erik Krause
            ... No. You simply need a different lens - a large format one as they where in use for ages - to have an image circle that is big enough for that sensor. Such
            Message 5 of 14 , Sep 1, 2010
            • 0 Attachment
              Am 01.09.2010 01:21, schrieb Paul D. DeRocco:
              >> > You need a large format lens of course, but the aperture has not
              >> > necessarily be larger than normal. If a sensor pixel captures
              >> > a certain
              >> > number of photons from a given lens at a given aperture 100
              >> > pixels will
              >> > capture 100 times as much photons. If now one pixel is as
              >> > large as 100
              >> > pixels in the other sensor it captures 100 times as much
              >> > photons, too.
              >> > Always with the same lens and aperture.
              > It only does that if the FOV is 10 times as large (linearly), doesn't it?

              No. You simply need a different lens - a large format one as they where
              in use for ages - to have an image circle that is big enough for that
              sensor. Such a lens has a much longer focal length if it covers the same
              field of view as a lens for a DSLR.

              But this has nothing to do with the pixel size. You can have large
              pixels in a small sensor which would result in low resolution. If you
              increase sensor size (but not pixel size) and focal length
              proportionally you get more resolution at same field of view.

              If you increase sensor size, pixel size and focal length proportionally
              you have always the same resolution and the same field of view but any
              single pixel gathers more light and hence produces less noise.

              That is what makes the difference between a full format sensor and the
              match head sized sensor of a compact digital. And that makes the
              difference between a large format sensor and a DSLR.

              --
              Erik Krause
              http://www.erik-krause.de
            • prague
              You mean have a rolling shutter instead? I m pretty sure that would be a very bad idea... http://www.flickr.com/photos/sorenragsdale/3192314056/
              Message 6 of 14 , Sep 3, 2010
              • 0 Attachment
                You mean have a rolling shutter instead?

                I'm pretty sure that would be a very bad idea...

                http://www.flickr.com/photos/sorenragsdale/3192314056/

                --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Fabio Bustamante <contato@...> wrote:
                >
                > - Maybe getting rid of the shutter? Does a CMOS actually need a physical
                > shutter in front of it? All I can say is that it limits flash sync
                > speed, reduces MTBF (medium time between fails) and raises maintenance
                > costs.
              • Ron Rack
                You have to see the video version of the rolling shutter, weird! http://www.wimp.com/recordpropellers/ ron rack ... [Non-text portions of this message have
                Message 7 of 14 , Sep 3, 2010
                • 0 Attachment
                  You have to see the video version of the rolling shutter, weird!

                  http://www.wimp.com/recordpropellers/

                  ron rack


                  On Sep 3, 2010, at 3:44 AM, prague wrote:

                  >
                  >
                  > You mean have a rolling shutter instead?
                  >
                  > I'm pretty sure that would be a very bad idea...
                  >
                  > http://www.flickr.com/photos/sorenragsdale/3192314056/
                  >
                  > --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Fabio Bustamante <contato@...>
                  > wrote:
                  > >
                  > > - Maybe getting rid of the shutter? Does a CMOS actually need a
                  > physical
                  > > shutter in front of it? All I can say is that it limits flash sync
                  > > speed, reduces MTBF (medium time between fails) and raises
                  > maintenance
                  > > costs.
                  >
                  >
                  >



                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.