Slashdot Mirror
Sony Shoots For 4-Filter CCD, 8 Megapixel Camera
Artifex writes "If you're looking to spend about $1200 on a new digital camera, check out this Digital Photography Review look at Sony's upcoming 8 MegaPixel Cyber-shot DSC-F828. The most interesting thing isn't the number of pixels in this prosumer-grade camera, but its 4-color filter CCD system. ['Instead of the traditional RGB color filter array, the new CFA is made up of Red, Green, Blue and Emerald (like Cyan) color filters.'] I've always been a strict Canon fan, but this is making me think twice."
is this like in response to the article about those people born with extra cones and see that odd shade of green that no one else can see?
So, my first question is.....How is color management done with this thing given color profile usage in Colorsync and other approaches in say Adobe software? Are there going to be color profile matching algorithms included so I can manage color with this camera?
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
The camera (as almost all other) feature a single CCD. It does however have a 4 color fileter in front of it. BTW, Nikon had that for about 4-5 years now.
Code poet, espresso fiend, starter upper.
Decisions, decisions.
Forgive my ignorance when it comes to photography, but what resolution do we need to reach to achieve 35mm quality pictures. I know my 2.1 megapixel camera can take pictures at 1600x1200 and when those are printed using my HP Photosmart printer they look 'near' perfect.
I'm assuming we're passed 35mm now then, and that these cameras are just going above and beyond what anyone has seen?
If thats 8 mega pixel at 24 bit color thats gonna be 22.8 mb per picture (non compressed)! I don't think I need my pictures to be THAT high quality (or large)
Everyone that disagrees with me is a paid shill
It has only one CCD, but instead of having the regular RGB pattern on it, it has a four color pattern.
e ccd.asp
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0307/03071601sonyrgb
http://www.foveon.com
'nuff said.
Color filters and staggered pixels? Ringing, moire patterns and color bleeding. No thank you.
Now that there is a proper color CCD technology, why is anybody using the old system (at least, on a $1200 'professional' camera).
j
I personally love my Canon EOS 10D. Pictures from it require the use of profanity to describe their amazing clarity, i.e., fucking great. It uses the EOS lens system and is a true SLR. However, if I had the money, I would get a Canon EOS 1D.(DROOL) It has a full size 35mm sensor where the 10D is about 80% the size of a 35mm sensor.
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
I avoid Sony products because of their constant attempts to force consumers into proprietary technology. See the Memory Stick and InfoLithium and Beta and Hi8, all of which are proprietary and require expensive licensing for any third party to make.
When I went looking for a digicam a couple of years ago, it came down to Olympus C3000 an some Sony (DCS-550?). The deciding factor was the Olympus uses readily-available, open-standard AA batteries and Multimedia cards, while the Sony uses proprietary, closed-standard Memory Sticks and InfoLithum batteries.
You mileage may violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics...
Because the whole point of photography is to print the pictures. What good is a high end digital camera if the pics can't be printed in a newspaper or magazine?
Support the First Amendment. Read at -1
Fuji color film essentially has this. 4th color layer that renders tones better, especially in non-optimal light. I think Agfa has this as well.
Would be interesting to find out if this becomes widespread enough, if PhotoShop would allow manipulation of this layer someday. Would be interesting.
I also don't like Sony products for your reasons, however I dont like FUD even more.
This Sony model features a compact flash slot (as well as memory bubble gum slot). This is a truly interesting development, as sony memstick have traditionally cost about 4x as much as the same size CF. And even nowadays you can barely find it bigger size than 128MB (sony has vapored out some PR about memstick up to 1GB, however I have never seen one in any store).
Code poet, espresso fiend, starter upper.
For the same $1200, you can get corrective eye surgery so you can see something close to half the resolution offered....
Emerald (like Cyan)
Isn't cyan blue? Reminds me of an old sketch by the Frantics:
"I remember her eyes over the yawning abyss of a week and a half. I remember their brown glow lighting the room like a shock of azure sky...
Azure...
Blue. Right. They were blue. Blue as ocean water, in its deepest emerald hues....
Emerald.... Green.
Right. They were... they were green, kind of a greeny-blue... Sort of aquamarine, with browninsh flecks.....
OK, I remember her tits.
The center frequencies to which our green and blue cones are sensitive are rather far apart, spectrally -- at least, compared to the G/R cones. Looks like the E sensor on this CCD is between the G/B cones.
(RGB sensors and emitters are generally calibrated to the center frequencies of our cones.)
This is a good idea that I'd never considered. More color information is always good, and we can always just define a transform to reduce it to human optics. If nothing else, this makes more data available for image correction and whatnot. I wonder if you can actually get the RGBE data out of the camera, or if it stores three-channel JPEGs like everyone else?
Well, in any case, tetrachromats rejoice.
CCD is getting kind of old... And the quality is not even close to the CMOS type pickups. A CCD camera has to correct the image using its software before it actually becomes half-ass tolerable, and you still end up with some artifacts when photographing certain textures.
Yes, CMOS cameras are a lot more expensive, but image quality is IMHO better than 35mm film.
Take Canon's EOS DS-1.. Take a look at some of the sample pictures - they are amazing.
http://www.canoneos.com
--- sig moved for great justice.
If you had bothered to look, you would have noticed that this particular sony camera uses standard compact flash cards, in addition to sony's normal memory stick.
It could be that the video camera's ccd dosent even have to be 1mp to take good looking miniDV video. Why put a 3mp sensor into a camera who's primary purpose is to take lower resolution video. They are not crippling anything, it's just the difference between still and video.
Anyways
I, for one, welcome our new emerald overlords!
...that Sony have finally conceded that "Memory Sticks" are a hopeless piece of proprietary crap and have included a Compact Flash slot.
There's an excellent source of information about what "three primary colors" actually means at of Dave Trapp's Sequim (WA) Schools science department site. There's a relatively simple explanation of how color vision works, then a facinating and highly detailed in-depth discussion of the issue.
Some interesting notes from Mr. Trapp:
* "All three [signals] are equally sensitive to blue light, two have expanded ranges that include green and yellow light, and the third signal includes sensitivity to red light."
* "While these paradigms of primary colors have worked well for human printing and light uses for over a century, it is likely that the three primary colors are not descriptive of the world, but rather an artifact of our eyes, the tools we use to perceive the world."
* "The real world does not have primary colors!"
He also discusses how the world would be perceived differently if we evolved a fourth cone, sensitive in the UV region. Very cool stuff!
Interestingly, though, he's no longer teaching science, and details the reasons on his site. Anyone who's ever been driven crazy in a class taught by a guy named simply "Coach" (and who on this site hasn't?) will sympathize with this good teacher's plight.
Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
All right! I've been waiting for a Squant-sensitive camera for a while now. Now I can start creating my web pages using the Negativland Squant Plugin!
I don't know if Nikon has a patent protecting that, but to just make up a plausible reason, I'd guess that the Emerald is close to, but not the same, wavelength as the standard Cyan in a CMY (or CMYK) setup.
I really hope someone does a followup paper (even white papers from one company touting the superiority of its approach to the other's) comparing these. Also, if they could explain whether RGB or CMY is better for sensing light, anyway. My gut instinct is that RGB should be better, because my junior high art teacher and high school physics texts say that light uses RGB and pigments use CMY, but surely Nikon must know something more.
Get off my launchpad!
I can't believe I'm replying to this, but it needs to all be layed out straight. This was supposed to be informative, not argumentative. SO..... here's the whole deal:
1. In a welcome break from their normal policy, Sony is actually including a CF slot. There are some features limited-- you can't record 32fps video at 640x480 on a Memory Stick or a CF card. For that, you need the faster "Memory Stick Pro". I'm having a hard time finding a CF card that will match the MS Pro spec of 15Mbps minimum write speed/160Mbps read speed, so it may simply be an innocent "CF cards aren't fast enough" problem. On the other hand, it very well could be Sony dicking us over, and it would be par for the course. As to meeting the capacity needs, there are 1GB memory sticks available. Pricey, but available.
2. The camera requires infoLithium batteries. The "infoLithium" brand belongs to sony, but a battery is a battery is a battery-- it's not like Sony has some sort of proprietary standard for moving electrons in and out of the camera. Generic replacements for infoLithium batteries are widely available (here for example, right off the top of google). You can get some big-assed NiMH AAs (2200mAh, from what I could dig up) but they will be larger, and they will not last as many charge cycles or perform as well as a Li-Ion battery. Is there a non-proprietary Li-Ion battery for consumer stuff?
Ah well. All i intended to do was point out that Sony had actually taken a step in the right direction for a change. I have a Canon, and no particular interest in Sony gear.
Maybe eventually somebody will come out with a pro camera that uses the same technology, like Sigma with the Foveon sensor in their SD-9, but no pro would use this Sony camera...it's not even an SLR (single-lens reflex). That is, it doesn't have interchangable lenses, and no professional photographer would be caught dead with a camera that doesn't use interchangable lenses.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
For their first experiment, they want to give a third color receptor to monkeys. Then, it's our turn:
There aren't any guarantees of what will happen, or if our brains will even accept the presence of another color, but a quick Google found that tetrachromatic vision is not at all uncommon in the animal kingdom... there's no reason to think we can't adapt.
I wonder if I'd have the guts to try it. I think so, especially after I'm retired and don't have to worry about it affecting my income-generating potential. But why stop at four colors? Give me IR, UV... heck, give me the real high-end and I'll contract myself out to NASA!
Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
From What is the difference between CCD and CMOS image sensors in a digital camera?:
So, it seems to be a matter of having a greater ... ability to discriminate among colors.
Hey, we'll have no discriminating among colors here!
Faith is the very antithesis of reason, injudiciousness a critical component of spiritual devotion. Jon Krakauer
For the rest of us, RGB centered at our own visual peaks makes the most sense of any encoding scheme possible. Not only can we not see another color,
:-)
Not true. We can see colors that monitors can't display -- IIRC, mainly deep purples. Oh, of course, as long as we're using modern monitor technology with RGB additive, storing images in RGB makes perfect sense. However, in general, there are other more general schemes; wavelength+amplitude would be one, and CIE is an internationally accepted standard to describe human vision.
Ah, here we are. A little graph showing how much of the human vision RGB can't cover. Check it out!
but it wastes space in the image (ie, some optimal conversion function can, by physical necessity, reduce those four colors to an RGB triad indistinguishable from the original quartet by a normal human.
And more manipulation could reduce it to TWO numbers, related to wavelength and frequency. And even more could reduce it to two numbers related to the eye's response to wavelength and frequency. I don't think that's been done, but the CIE system reduces to three numbers.
More information does seem better, agreed. However, due to the physiological limitations of human vision, this scheme does not convey any more information, thus my biggest complaint. It seems everyone else missed this as nothing more than a meaningless marketing ploy.
I'm sure it's occurred to you that if you disagree with everyone else, it's sometimes possible that you're missing something.
So you all go out and buy this toy so you can brag about having "better" color, and I'll continue taking perceptually identical pics with my boring 'ol RGB cam that cost $800 less.
We'll have to wait to see real reviews to make a judgement on this one -- the previews I've seen look very positive, regardless of filter technology. It looks like it's a substantial improvement on other cameras in the same price range.
-Billy
That for once, Sony will make a digital camera with colour balance that doesn't look like it was calibrated by a colour blind monkey with a penchant for blue?
It depends how you define pro... no pro (in your definition) would be caught dead with a Sigma SD9 right now either, it's got far too many imaging issues (regardless of the theoretically preferable sensor configuration).
The Sony will appeal to folks straddling the line, who might have considered an E-20 in the past, or who are looking at the low-end SLRs, don't have an existing investment in compatible lenses, and need a good performer at a reasonable price. I use a variety of cameras all the time, and I am very seriously considering the F828 while I wait on the 6MP+ DSLR market to mature and come down to reality.
If I had my druthers, I'd buy an EOS-1Ds for myself right now - but short of that, this is the most thrilling camera for me when you balance the price, performance, and other factors. If you simply MUST have a standard lens mount, then you can't go too wrong with the EOS-10D right now.
Unlimited growth == Cancer.
Resolution is hardly everything... many folks will take a 3-5 megapixel DSLR over a 5-6 megapixel prosumer model any day.
Relevant factors:
Lens systems - most low-end digicams come with shit for lenses, little more than a transparent glob of plastic... chromatic abberations are common, spherical focus problems, color fringing, etc.
Chip - the size, filter configuration (3-color Bayer, 4-color Bayer, Foveon X3, etc), presence of microlenses or not, mfg process (CCD vs CMOS), and other concerns all impact imaging quality (subjective), depth of field, sample depth (8, 10, 12bit/component), noise (or lack thereof), pixel blooming, speed/sensitivity, etc
Camera - just like pro's don't say "Hell, that little point and click does 35mm too, why do I need my 10k worth of Canon gear to do the same", there's no comparing the qualities of a pro camera - the body, controls, post-processing (white balance controls, noise suppression, compression, etc), AF system, with that of a cheap consumer camera.
In other words, in many cases a 3MP image shot by a pro on a quality DSLR of a year or two ago will still surpass anything you can do with that 5-6MP Minolta you just got.
Yes, consumer magazines and newsprint typically have terrible resolution... but still, garbage in = garbage out (it's all relative). Besides, a pro shooting for a major magazine will use pro equipment - that's why it exists... it gives them the fine control they need to get a shot that will pass the photo editors muster. Snap shots on his wife's camera might suit in a pinch, but it won't go over well. I think you underestimate the challenges of professional photography...
Is that people become better photographers without really realiizing it.
The instant feedback you get causes you to automatically start taking better pictures, and you may not even realize it. With film, you have to wait for your photos to develop.. and then you ahve to think back about how you took the picture, settings, the lighting, etc... with instant feedback, you make those associations automatically.
The end result is each pixel on the Sony is only 1/8 the area of the pixel on one of the $1500 advanced amateur digital cameras (Canon EOS 10D, Nikon D100, Fuji S2, Pentax *ist D).
This means each pixel will receive very little light (and thus a low signal to noise ratio) and have images with a lot of electronic noise even at ISO 100. Noise manifests itself as colored dots that pepper smooth areas like skies.
If this camera had used one of the ICX413AQ 6MP APS-size sensors Sony sells Nikon and Pentax rather than the ICX456 used on this camera, it could have been a winner.
I love the Foveon idea and the much better resolution it provides. What keeps me from buying a camera with the Foveon sensor is the review I saw that showed it providing poor color reproduction: pure green is reproduced as olive drab.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
--Cuz, you see, scanners suck for color. (That blue-white neon bulb plays HELL with all color. Images which may have been, say, painted beneath nice warm yellow incadescent bulbs turn into entirely different images when subjected to Borg lighting.)
With this in mind, I dragged a painting down with me and waited around for half an hour for one of the sales people to get free. Business is booming in the digital camera trade. I watched two stalwart pro-camera guys barter on the edge of $10,000 each, all in order to get themselves out of film and finally into the new digital technology. The change-over is hot on, and there aren't enough sales guys to go around! So I waited my turn.
When I was finally able to get some face time with one of the guys, I slapped the illustration down on the counter and told him what I was all about. So ten minutes later, there were three cameras set up for me to try out. I'd brought my own flash card with me so I could take the results home to test. That was my brilliant plan.
Here's where it all went awry. .
First off, the Sigma camera, the Fovon chip notwithstanding, is a poorly designed piece of junk. It wouldn't work. The guy complained that it burned through its batteries like wildfire, (it took at least two different sets of batteries; one for the camera body and one for something else. And still another set for the flash. If one set wasn't up to snuff, the whole thing would do nothing. He said it was a piece of shit. So I never actually got try out the thing.
Furthermore, when you go to buy one of these high-end jobs, the $2000 bucks quoted in the add does not include a lens. Just the camera body. Yikes! --For my needs, I was looking at blowing, at least another $1-2000; probably more. If you are shooting artwork, you can't be screwing around with curving lines and such at the top and bottom of an illustration. Plus, if you want something which is can achieve a 300dpi print quality at a reasonable size. . , well 6 megapixels in the hardware just won't do. --Especially since you can't use all of the image area sighted by the camera. Straight lines go curvey the closer to the edge of the lense you get.
Now I did test a Canon, and an Olympus. Both worked and were designed much more effectively. Plus, both Canon and Olympus offered slightly more affordable lens solutions. The color problem, of course, was gone. The camera would take in whatever color light you bounced off the subject. That wasn't even an issue; color correctors would be looking for new jobs when these kinds of cameras became workable. But this particular camera store didn't have anything which shot in the kind of size range a print illustrator would need.
Now, this problem might go away with the Fovon technology. Supposedly, you get higher resolution for your buck, simply because of how it understands color. But I've yet to test a camera which has the chip.
One way or another, I went home again, convinced that color correction was a task I could handle with a smile simply because of all the money I wouldn't have to spend on a half-assed answer.
-FL
If you add up all the Red, Blue and Green elements in a digital camera's CCD, you end up with the number advertised... 5 or 6 megapixels or whatever. (In this example I will refer to a 5 megapixel camera.)
However this does not REALLY equate to that many pixels as we would normally think of pixels with other devices.
If your LCD monitor can support a maximum of 1280 x 1024 resolution, that multiplies out to be 1.31 megapixels.
But if we were to do the math the way digital camera manufacturers' marketing departments do their math, that same screen would be 3.93 megapixels... which is basically a lie.
What happens inside digital cameras is a certain bit of deception. They use the luminance factor from each of the 5+ million CCD sensors to achieve a semblance of the resolution advertised. However the color value for each of those so-called "pixels" is not independant, but rather is derived from the values of the surrounding pixels.
Therefore we have the baffling paradox of saving a RAW file at full resolution on a 5 MP camera and getting a 7.5 megabyte file; but strangely a TIFF file of the same resolution saves out at 15 megabytes in size. How can this be possible, you rightly ask? Just what is the camera adding to the raw sensor data to create a full resolution file which is somehow twice the size of the raw data? Here's what happens...
In the RAW file there may be 5 million 12-bit samples, half of which are green elements, with the other half evenly split between red and blue elements. Or, there may be 2.5 million 8-bit red, blue and green values each, with not all of them corrresponding to actual CCD elements.
In producing a 15 megabyte TIFF file from 7.5 megabytes of RAW sensor data, the camera's firmware defines a virtual 5 million simulated pixels, each of which has its 24-bit color values derived from the other adjacent physical "pixels." Then once 8 bits each of Red, Green and Blue data are derived for each virtual pixel om the memory array, the whole simulated thing saves out at 15 megabytes.
The ONLY cameras available which do not deceive you in this way are those new ones incorporating the Foveon CCD sensors, which are novel 3D arrays of elements, each element of which produces its own true RGB color values. With the Foveon CCD, each pixel is a true pixel, and the color definition is superior.
To be fair... the color interpolation firmware in standard CCD cameras has gotten so good, that it probably is worth putting up with the marketing deceptions and these artificially puffed up file sizes (200% of what they should be), at least for now.
And more manipulation could reduce it to TWO numbers, related to wavelength and frequency.
First, wavelength = 1 / frequency. They are effectively only a single number. I'm going to guess the "two numbers" you intended were wavelength and intensity.
Second, normal human visual colorspace is inherently three dimentional and cannot be reduced to just two numbers. Just consider white, you cannot reduce white to a wavelength intensity pair. You always need three axes such as (red, green, blue) or (cyan, magenta, yellow) or (hue, saturation, value).
Using more than 3 values always encodes information which we cannot perceive, but it can often be quite useful to do so for a variety of practical reasons.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.