Pixel binning

[SrMi]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

2 minutes ago, IkarusJohn said:

What?  If there are larger sensel sites with the same output size, then you must have a larger sensor.  So, you’re saying there is no benefit in the Sony 50c sensor over the Canon 5DsR?  From memory, the sensors were released at about the same time …. From experience, the larger sensor are has larger sensel sites with significant benefits in image quality …

That is not what I said.

When I wrote "same output size, " it meant that I compared the camera output at the same resolutions (print, screen), i.e., after resizing. E.g., take a 60MP and a 24MP file and print them at 13" x 19".

Larger sensors do not implicitly have larger sensels. For example, M10 has larger sensels than X1D (6 vs. 5.3 microns).

There is a thoughtful discussion on DPR's Photographic Science and Technology forum (sensor size matters, sensel size does not):

Help me understand the role of pixel size

11 minutes ago, IkarusJohn said:

Yes, I think we’d worked out that all 60 million (more or less) pixels are read, and therefore Leica’s reference to “pixel binning” was shorthand for clever in camera processing.  Apparently, better than what LR can achieve …

Leica said that the in-camera resolution change is similar to what you can do with Adobe Photoshop.

 

[IkarusJohn]

2 hours ago, IkarusJohn said:

You cannot expect any gain from larger sensel sites when comparing the same output size.

This is what you said.  If you re-size, then you’re playing with the output.  In context, the point I was making is there is no substitute for surface area …

[SrMi]

5 minutes ago, IkarusJohn said:

This is what you said.  If you re-size, then you’re playing with the output.  In context, the point I was making is there is no substitute for surface area …

I agree that there is no substitute for surface area, both for sensor and sensel sizes.
However, sensel size does not matter much if you print or share images online (using resized output). On the other hand, sensel size matters at 100% viewing (pixel peeping).

[adan]

8 hours ago, IkarusJohn said:

I remain confused about how this works in practice.

Well, to some extent, so am I.

Because it is not going to be a simplistic process, with a color Bayer array. And therefore any attempt to describe it in a simple way on the Web is going to be so "wrong" as to be pointless.

Here's one attempt at describing the general process and the algorithms involved - I hope everyone has their degrees in calculus and Fourier Transform and matrix mathematics handy.

https://asp-eurasipjournals.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/1687-6180-2012-125

At one point, I thought (and proposed) that Leica might be converting - temporarily, in the camera's buffer memory -  the sensor data into a full RGB "virtual TIFF" that would look like the scene, at 60 Mpixels.

And then "rephotographing" that full-color image virtually through a virtual-sensor array of 36 or 18 Mpixels. In concept, not really any different that "scanning film" with a DSLR and a macro lens - take a full-color full-res original and "rephotograph it" onto any number of pixels one's real camera may have (10, 12, 15, 18, 20, 24.....).

Except "photographed" with math rather than a lens and a second sensor.

.....................

However, that would allow any output size desired, and Leica has said the "math" doesn't allow, for example, a 24 Mpixel final file. So I expect the reality is more like that math proposal from 10 years ago (but quite probably with 10-years more advanced algorithms).

I.E. hop-skip-and-jumping around the 60 Mpixel raw file, and picking out pixels of matching color (R or G or B ) to average the output from.

(BTW - an "unsharp mask" does a similar job of using a Fourier Transform to add faint (or strong) contrast around every pixel, based on the brightness (rather than color) of pixels in the surrounding matrix. And thus producing more distinct edges).

I do look forward to someone with the appropriate firmware-coding and math knowledge (from here, or dpreview, or interviewing Leica, etc.) digging into the files and/or the camera firmware code to explain - with a bit more simplicity than that research paper - exactly what Leica (or a subcontracted mathematician) came up with.

Because, in any event, it is a definite innovation over what any other production camera has ever even attempted to do before. And it is rather unusual for Leica to be a technology leader in digital.  

Edited February 24, 2022 by adan

[rramesh]

Love pixel binning, because, less pixels to peep. 😀

Edited February 24, 2022 by rramesh

[IkarusJohn]

2 hours ago, adan said:

And then "rephotographing" that full-color image virtually through a virtual-sensor array of 36 or 18 Mpixels. In concept, not really any different that "scanning film" with a DSLR and a macro lens - take a full-color full-res original and "rephotograph it" onto any number of pixels one's real camera may have (10, 12, 15, 18, 20, 24.....).

That is the conclusion I had come to.  All hokus pokus and smoke and mirrors.  It’s enough that I don’t need to understand it.

Edited February 24, 2022 by IkarusJohn

[Robert Blanko]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

For sure, Leica implemented a highly sophisticated algorithm to implement what Leica calls pixel binning. However, from the photographer‘s perspective the improvement over reducing the resolution in post processing seems to be very minor, if noticable at all in practice.

[MaticB]

On 2/3/2022 at 3:26 PM, rramesh said:

 

When Leica says 'pixel binning', are pixels being uniformly binned across the whole sensors, or are more pixels binned in the corners, to improve corner performance? This may explain the reduction from 60 MP to 36 MP and 18 MP.

I believe pixel binning being uniform across the whole sensor, but algoritm calculate "super" pixel with cross section of the adjacent "super" pixels area.

[adan]

7 hours ago, IkarusJohn said:

All hokus pokus and smoke and mirrors.

That's a bit extreme - "smoke and mirrors" implies an intent to obscure or deceive.

[IkarusJohn]

1 hour ago, adan said:

That's a bit extreme - "smoke and mirrors" implies an intent to obscure or deceive.

Tongue in cheek, Andy.  But all this “pixel binning”, cropping and three sensors in one is just marketing mumbo jumbo for some advanced in-camera software magic.  It doesn’t really interest me as much as a simple, high quality sensor. As they’re making the move to an electronic shutter, it’s a shame they didn’t make it a global shutter, or at least achieve what Nikon has with the Z9.

I don’t mean to be a downer, and it seems people who have the camera love it, but I just can’t get my head around the M11.  Is there a downside to any of this?  Probably not - I could just set the output to 36MP (and try to ignore the fact that 24MP I’d paid for had gone somewhere), ignore the cropping (not something that even remotely interests me), accept permanent live view (and set centre-weighted or spot metering) and only use the electronic shutter in artificial light (accepting the busy shutter) … it might as well have video too (something else I could ignore)!

But then I’d be asking why?

[SrMi]

10 minutes ago, IkarusJohn said:

Tongue in cheek, Andy.  But all this “pixel binning”, cropping and three sensors in one is just marketing mumbo jumbo for some advanced in-camera software magic.  It doesn’t really interest me as much as a simple, high quality sensor. As they’re making the move to an electronic shutter, it’s a shame they didn’t make it a global shutter, or at least achieve what Nikon has with the Z9.

I don’t mean to be a downer, and it seems people who have the camera love it, but I just can’t get my head around the M11.  Is there a downside to any of this?  Probably not - I could just set the output to 36MP (and try to ignore the fact that 24MP I’d paid for had gone somewhere), ignore the cropping (not something that even remotely interests me), accept permanent live view (and set centre-weighted or spot metering) and only use the electronic shutter in artificial light (accepting the busy shutter) … it might as well have video too (something else I could ignore)!

But then I’d be asking why?

Many digital M Leica owners see no reason to 'upgrade' to M11. That was the case with every new digital M announced. Those owners are not wrong.
Then there are those owners who felt that every new digital M was a useful update. They are not wrong either.

Apart from GAS ;-), I do not see any reason to 'upgrade' to a new camera if the new features do not speak to me.
I used to get every new Nikon flagship camera, but I am not interested in Z 9. It does not mean that Z 9 is a lousy camera.

[IkarusJohn]

10 minutes ago, SrMi said:

Many digital M Leica owners see no reason to 'upgrade' to M11. That was the case with every new digital M announced. Those owners are not wrong.
Then there are those owners who felt that every new digital M was a useful update. They are not wrong either.

Apart from GAS ;-), I do not see any reason to 'upgrade' to a new camera if the new features do not speak to me.
I used to get every new Nikon flagship camera, but I am not interested in Z 9. It does not mean that Z 9 is a lousy camera.

Very true.  To be honest, I went off those huge Nikons some time ago - but the tech is interesting in the Z9.

[Photoworks]

2 minutes ago, IkarusJohn said:

it’s a shame they didn’t make it a global shutter,

you are funny! I can't find any photo cameras with global shutter on the market. Let's be realistic.

the M11 is just another M camera, with mechanical shutter and extra bonus of electronic shutter.

[IkarusJohn]

1 hour ago, Photoworks said:

you are funny! I can't find any photo cameras with global shutter on the market. Let's be realistic.

the M11 is just another M camera, with mechanical shutter and extra bonus of electronic shutter.

Yep, hilarious … Sorry my point wasn’t more explicit.

If you watch the Thorsten Overgaard video, you get an idea of how the “mechanical shutter and extra bonus of electronic shutter” falls a bit short of what many of us expect of a USD9,000 camera, and what Nikon can deliver with a USD5,500 camera.

So, sure - be realistic! 🙄

[Photoworks]

1 hour ago, IkarusJohn said:

If you watch the Thorsten Overgaard video, you get an idea of how the “mechanical shutter and extra bonus of electronic shutter” falls a bit short of what many of us expect of a USD9,000 camera, and what Nikon can deliver with a USD5,500 camera.

I have watched the video and don't understand your point.

Yes the camera is lots of money. it is a camera made in Germany made mostly by hand and produced in limited quantity. Personally I am glad Leica has found a way to maintain the M camera system in the program of products. it is a unique system that has not other comparisons. You dim any LED light and even the Nikon z9 or Sony a9 will show banding.
 

Sure it is a camera, it takes photos just like many other cameras. Nikon , canon, Sony, Hasselblad have electronic shutter and all of them show banding in one way or another, and to a few exceptions most of them have rolling shutter. I still use different camera systems with electronic shutter in my work when required.

Personally I tend to get hand on a camera and explore the capabilities and limits and use it like any other tool.

 

[adan]

51 minutes ago, IkarusJohn said:

(M11) falls a bit short of what many of us expect of a USD9,000 camera, and what Nikon can deliver with a USD5,500 camera.

Could have said the same thing in 1969.

Nikon Photomic FTn body (black, motor-capable (4 fps), metered, interchangeable finder and view screens, interchangeable backs) - $314.50

Leica SL-MOT body (black, motor-capable (4 fps), metered, no interchangeable finders, screens or backs) - $591.00

Leicaflex SL-MOT cost 87% more than Nikon FTn

M11 costs only 65% more than Z9.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

Why would you expect otherwise? Is it a rational/realistic expectation any more today than 52 years ago?

4 hours ago, IkarusJohn said:

all this “pixel binning”, cropping and three sensors in one is just marketing mumbo jumbo for some advanced in-camera software magic.

Sure. And if Nikon were to provide the same option, Nikon would also use "advanced in-camera software."

3 hours ago, IkarusJohn said:

.....the tech is interesting in the Z9.

Probably. The tech in the M11 is interesting also. I actually have a use for good variable-raw, less so for a shutter speed with extra 000s after it.

See PM

[SrMi]

5 minutes ago, adan said:

<snip>

Probably. The tech in the M11 is interesting also. I actually have a use for good variable-raw, less so for a shutter speed with extra 000s after it.

<snip>

AFAIK, Leica M11 is the only camera that can produce raw files with reduced resolution without degrading image quality.

Edited February 24, 2022 by SrMi

[IkarusJohn]

1 hour ago, Photoworks said:

I have watched the video and don't understand your point.

Yes the camera is lots of money. it is a camera made in Germany made mostly by hand and produced in limited quantity. Personally I am glad Leica has found a way to maintain the M camera system in the program of products. it is a unique system that has not other comparisons. You dim any LED light and even the Nikon z9 or Sony a9 will show banding.
 

Sure it is a camera, it takes photos just like many other cameras. Nikon , canon, Sony, Hasselblad have electronic shutter and all of them show banding in one way or another, and to a few exceptions most of them have rolling shutter. I still use different camera systems with electronic shutter in my work when required.

Personally I tend to get hand on a camera and explore the capabilities and limits and use it like any other tool.

 

Well, I agree on all you say about Leica.

Thorsten recommended using the electronic shutter, except in artificial light and where motion might be an issue.  I don’t see the need, as I rarely use my Noctilux wide open in daylight without an ND filter.  So, apart from the shutter being silent, what do I gain?  I like the normal shutter sound, and I’m really not sure about the permanent live view approach.  Thorsten goes into some detail about lost images and some fault in the mechanical shutter which I didn’t follow - something that would be improved with a firmware update?  But the video just confirmed my unease about this new approach with the electronic shutter, when it seems that there are better implementations out there.  There was a discussion in another thread about how good the Z9 electronic shutter implemenetation is, which also raises the question why Leica couldn’t/didn’t do as well.

I’m no expert (as is abundantly clear), but I do like my M cameras.  I like having much of the tech under the hood (to coin a phrase), with as few unnecessary “enhancements” as possible.  I’m very happy with a camera set to produce DNG files, with minimal settings - white balance set to a single temperature, ISO at the optimal setting for the sensor, and the rest to me.

Hard to test cameras here - so, I appreciate the experience of others, try to understand what the camera does, and then make a decision to buy it (or not).  If I buy it, I then waste no time complaining about what it doesn’t do; I try to make the most of it.

[IkarusJohn]

1 hour ago, adan said:

Could have said the same thing in 1969.

Nikon Photomic FTn body (black, motor-capable (4 fps), metered, interchangeable finder and view screens, interchangeable backs) - $314.50

Leica SL-MOT body (black, motor-capable (4 fps), metered, no interchangeable finders, screens or backs) - $591.00

Leicaflex SL-MOT cost 87% more than Nikon FTn

M11 costs only 65% more than Z9.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

Why would you expect otherwise? Is it a rational/realistic expectation any more today than 52 years ago?

Sure. And if Nikon were to provide the same option, Nikon would also use "advanced in-camera software."

Probably. The tech in the M11 is interesting also. I actually have a use for good variable-raw, less so for a shutter speed with extra 000s after it.

See PM

Right … and as an owner of three Leica systems and more gear than I need, I have become comfortable with Leica’s approach to photography and almost with the expense.  Sorry to bang on (you can ignore my post, if you wish), but I am trying to understand where the M11 is taking the M system.  Many contributors here have helped, for which I am grateful.

My M-A is, perhaps, a case in point.  It just focuses and gives an accurate shutter speed, coupled with excellent lenses.  Nothing more - I’ve had motor-drives, AF, metering options and all the other things that cameras like the F5 have to offer.  I like my M-A and SWC for film, and Monochrom and M10-D for digital.  In that context, perhaps my reservations about the M11 make more sense?  

If not, don’t worry about it … 😉

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Jeff S]

2 hours ago, Photoworks said:

Nikon , canon, Sony, Hasselblad have electronic shutter and all of them show banding in one way or another, and to a few exceptions most of them have rolling shutter. 

 

 

All of them have rolling shutter; the issue is the degree to which they have resulting artifacts.  The Z9 seems to now have the least amount. 

Jeff