Discussion in 'Image Processing' started by rbelyell, May 7, 2015.

  1. rbelyell

    rbelyell SC Top Veteran

    May 14, 2013
    NY Mtns
    this is gonna be fun! just found this on Gizmodo

    so, is it that 'a sensor is a sensor is a sensor' or not? i know two things: one is that interpreting data depends in large part on the interpreter; and two, i know what i see when i see it! so for me photography remains a subjective art that is based entirely on how each individual's eye processes a photo. my eye processes a difference in images produced by these two sensors. maybe this is why...

    Sony RX1; Epson RD1; Kodak Pro slr/n; Olympus EPL-5; Hasselblad XPan/45 & 90mm lenses; Elmarit 21/2.8; Summarit 50/1.5; Summarit 75/2.5; Elmar-c 90/4; Sankyo Komura 135/2.8, Hektor 135/4.5; Contax T*; Kodak Retina IV/S-K lenses 28, 35, 50, 85, 135 & 200mm; Zeiss Ikon 6x9; Praktisix+Zeiss Biometar 120/2.8; Braun Paxina 29 6x6; Photax Boyer Paris 6x6; Mercury 2 35mm; Holga 120 Pano

    Fuji GM670+100/3.5+65/8!
    Bessa T 101 Anniversary Edition in Navy Blue
    Mamiya Six Folder with Zuiko 75/3.5
    Adaptall: Tamron SP 28-85 macro
    Cameras: Canon IX
    PM for more complete descriptions/pix. All in great shape!
    'buy me a drink, sing me a song,
    take me as i come 'cause i can't stay long'
  2. bartjeej

    bartjeej SC Hall of Famer

    Nov 12, 2010
    Real Name:
    I'm mostly in the "sensor is a sensor" camp. Digital images consist of numbers, nothing else. So long as the on-sensor filters are the same (Bayer colour array, anti aliasing filter, IR filter, and whatever else they have), the basic division of photons over the sensor should be equal (outside of certain specialist applications that are irrelevant to consumer photography).

    CCD's used to be better due to the larger percentage of each pixel being available for light gathering, but back-lit CMOS, on-chip noise reduction and less intrusive amplification available on CMOS sensors have made them pretty much equal in terms of light gathering ability.

    So with the distribution of photons over the sensor being equal and the light gathering ability of the sensor also having been equalized, only the process of changing the photons into current and then into bits remains different - but this does not make a difference to the look of the image, only to the overall noise level. And there, too, CMOS is no longer at a disadvantage (except when it comes to rolling shutter effect). Ofcourse the more efficient that process is, the larger the percentage of the photons that can be converted to digital numbers. But the difference between CCD's and CMOS shouldn't lead to, for instance, reds being more vibrant in one technology.

    Finally with medium-format cameras having mostly switched to Sony's CMOS sensor in the past year, I haven't read any complaints about the sensors having lost "that special something" - indicating that the special something is probably down to the overall light gathering capacity that a medium format sensor provides.
  3. rbelyell

    rbelyell SC Top Veteran

    May 14, 2013
    NY Mtns
    i understand what youre saying, but these videos seem to show two very different systems for how each sensor interacts with light. certainly not the same, but a little like how different types of film react differently, yielding different results.

    i hear the 'sensors consist of numbers' thing, and im sure that is correct. it is also, imo, incomplete. the light gathering operation of these two are in fact different. that was the point of my post. i believe the different systems yield different results. i personally see a difference in the results and attribute it to this, and other, factors, though i fully believe others may not see any difference. imo, it is the subjective nature of what the eye sees that makes art. that subjectivity cannot be reduced to 0's, 1's and 2's, or whatever the objective programming nomeclature