Jump to content

CCD vs CMOS: Can you tell which is which?{merged}


dfarkas

Recommended Posts

x
  • Replies 301
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I can not tell much difference between these images. Perhaps there is a bit more shadow noise if pixel peeping, but nothing that would make me choose one over the other, especially at this size.

The sensors read their color through the filters over the pixels. I doubt that different color material was used in the different sensors. The sensor itself is color blind.

Perhaps the profiles used with the sensors are slightly different, but nothing that can't be changed by a slight adjustment of the file.

So, either sensor will make excellent images.

The differences of having live viewing is important for some.

I prefer the CCD because I seldom turn on the display and have much better tools if I want to make a video (like a cheap Canon camera).

A CCD camera with two or three good lenses is hard to beat.

Film instead of a sensor would show a difference ... much cheaper, better in many ways and different films give a noticeably different look.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the way I'm starting to look at it too. Any digital camera is like ONE film stock. One that can be pushed around a bit to look like different things, but still with its own strengths and weaknesses. I shot a test once where I took the same photograph with a few different films, some slide, some negative, on 4x5. I scanned them and tried to make them look similar. Tedious work.

 

If you want a completely different look, change film stocks, or digital cameras. Or if you are so inclined, waste hours in post-production to end up with a middle-of-the-road compromise.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The filters are different makes, it is rather unlikely they use the same dyes.

I can not tell much difference between these images. Perhaps there is a bit more shadow noise if pixel peeping, but nothing that would make me choose one over the other, especially at this size.

The sensors read their color through the filters over the pixels. I doubt that different color material was used in the different sensors. The sensor itself is color blind.

Perhaps the profiles used with the sensors are slightly different, but nothing that can't be changed by a slight adjustment of the file.

So, either sensor will make excellent images.

The differences of having live viewing is important for some.

I prefer the CCD because I seldom turn on the display and have much better tools if I want to make a video (like a cheap Canon camera).

A CCD camera with two or three good lenses is hard to beat.

Film instead of a sensor would show a difference ... much cheaper, better in many ways and different films give a noticeably different look.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The filters are different makes, it is rather unlikely they use the same dyes.

 

Do you mean that the red goop in the European Cmos filters is different from the goop in Kodak CCD filters? Same for blue and green? It is likely that it all comes from the same source.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the way I'm starting to look at it too. Any digital camera is like ONE film stock. One that can be pushed around a bit to look like different things, but still with its own strengths and weaknesses. I shot a test once where I took the same photograph with a few different films, some slide, some negative, on 4x5. I scanned them and tried to make them look similar. Tedious work.

 

If you want a completely different look, change film stocks, or digital cameras. Or if you are so inclined, waste hours in post-production to end up with a middle-of-the-road compromise.

 

I disagree that having a digital camera is like one film stock. I can get virtually any look I want from digital. DXO for instance can almost instantly simulate virtually any film and can make one digital camera emulate another dugital camera too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree that having a digital camera is like one film stock. I can get virtually any look I want from digital. DXO for instance can almost instantly simulate virtually any film and can make one digital camera emulate another dugital camera too.

 

I agree, Alan, but I suspect you underestimate your post-processing talent. It is still (and inevitably) difficult for many of us to be so fluent. Not that it matters for most.

 

Color is the very most difficult thing to master.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll have to disagree. I have all those plug ins. DXO can change the color and crush your shadows more than what you start out with, it can't add any tonality or highlight separation. There have been many side by side tests between different plug ins and the actual film stocks. As I said, when you match two digital cameras to look the same, you have to do it by dumming each of the respective files down to match the weaker attributes of the two. You have to add grain to one that the other has, you have to crush shadows to what the other looks like, you have to clip highlights to match the weaker one etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Disagree all you want. Various opinions make the world interesting. I have decades of experience with film... including being a custom color printer. I know I have more control and more possibilities with digital than with film... whether scanned or printed. What you know you can or cannot do with either is based on different criteria or knowledge.

 

Yes Pico, color is very difficult to master and after 45 years at it, I'I'm almost there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have more control and more possibilities with digital than with film... whether scanned or printed.

 

I agree that I have more possibilities with digital than with film, but what I cannot recreate is what I get when I overexpose skin tones by about two stops with Fuji NPH or Kodak Portra in natural light. Show me that look from your M9 or M240, and then please let me know how you do it, because I can't replicate it. And mind you, I shoot a lot of digital, for the convenience of it and because I have to.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What on earth would Part 3 add ? Most already have opinions, some have voted on small jpg's and I'm losing interest tbh :cool:

 

I can and have flicked through untortured M240 images and the same for M9 on Huffs site for example and comfortable with my views. I have used an M240 and compared files. If the M240 was not yet released maybe but part 3 on a two year old camera compared to a 6 year old ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that I have more possibilities with digital than with film, but what I cannot recreate is what I get when I overexpose skin tones by about two stops with Fuji NPH or Kodak Portra in natural light. Show me that look from your M9 or M240, and then please let me know how you do it, because I can't replicate it. And mind you, I shoot a lot of digital, for the convenience of it and because I have to.

 

Without seeing some examples, I can't say if this look can be achieved with digital.But negative film does handle over exposure differently as it builds density up to DMax.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...