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

Re: Canon - world's largest CMOS sensor

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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.