If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Digital camera design idea
"Don Stauffer" wrote in message ... Different films (and, for that matter, different developers) do things that in the digital world is done with post processing. You can do things with your editor, like unsharp mask and edge enhancement, that duplicate some of the things different film/develpers do. And, you can do it without changing anything before you shoot. So you can take the same basic image and process it any of several ways. Want highly saturated color? Enhanced edges? Do your filtering on image after you download it from camera. Yeah I know that sort of thing can be done in post processing stages, but the things I am talking about cannot be controlled by any post-processing. Eg IR or true B&W require a different sensor to normal colour - converting to colour via the Bayer colour filter, then back to B&W doesn't have the same level of detail as if the image was recorded in B&W from the get-go. Especially if you are using colour filters in - a 6MP colour bayer, with a Red filter (irrespective of if that red filter is used when the photo is taken or in post processing), converted to B&W really only has about 1.5MP of detail - the rest is interpolated. A very high resolution sensor will deliver more noise at high iso's, but if used at low ISO's will deliver a very high detail image, just like low ISO film does. People don't just use Kodachrome 25 for the saturated colours, they also use it for BIG enlargements, which would require 20+ MP to emulate. 20+MP on a normal sized sensor would be noisy as all hell at normal ISO's, but would be pretty good at ISO 25, so would be a good match for film. Likewise, a normal 6MP sensor is noisy as all hell at high ISO's, yet if the sensor was the same size but with 3M sensors, then it's noise levels would be a bit more controlled and would yield good usable pictures. Note that low resolution low noise is not the same as downsampling. The current standard 6-10MP sensors used by Canon/Nikon/Pentax represent a compromise that covers probably 90% of shooting requirements, the other 10% however are totally not catered for by digital. Of course, you need to start with highest res camera you can afford, and shoot/store in non-lossy format, such as TIFF or RAW. Justin Thyme wrote: For a while I've been looking at various DSLRs, and the one thing that bugs me is that if I spend ~2k on a camera, and next year there is some advance in sensor (eg, lets say they jump to 20MP with super low noise or something), I'm still stuck with 2004 technology. One thing that film has as an advantage, is that I can control the type of photo by changing my film. I can put in a 50ISO fine grain film if I want super enlargement capability, or I can put in B&W film, or even IR film for special effects. My film SLR is close on 20 years old - in the last 20 years there have been advances in film technology and all I've had to do to take advantage of them is buy the new roll. So it got me thinking - if the DSLR makers settled on a standard (perhaps like fourthirds that olympus are doing), but also made a standard of interchangeable sensor modules. It would make the camera much more versatile and give it a much longer useful life. For example, at the moment the ISO sensitivity is a combination of sensor element size, and acceptable noise - larger sensor elements result in less noise at high ISO's. So I could see times when it would be really handy if I could choose for example to have a 20MP sensor but at ISO 25, or a 3MP sensor that was still low noise at ISO800. Or maybe I could put in an IR sensor, or a true B&W sensor. Or within a few years there could be a big advance in sensor technology, and having this feature would allow it to be taken advantage of, without having to buy a whole new camera. I know creating a camera like this would add cost, but I think it would make the camera a much more complete replacement for film. Does anyone else think such a feature would be useful? or would it just be a cost adding feature that would have no advantage to anyone except me? -- Don Stauffer in Minnesota webpage- http://www.usfamily.net/web/stauffer |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|