CCD vs CMOS

[pedaes]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It is impossible to quote from your post, but it talks of 2020. We are in 2024.  

[Anthony MD]

9 hours ago, pedaes said:

It is impossible to quote from your post, but it talks of 2020. We are in 2024.  

CMOS must have gotten even better…📷

[jaapv]

The strange thing in this discussion is that the colour out of the camera has nothing to do with the sensor maker- it is no more than a monochrome device that only records light intensity. The basic colour rendering of a sensor is determined by the specification of the Bayer filter by the camera maker (and Leica did indeed look at Kodachrome as part of their inspiration, I suspect one still sees remnants of that mindset now - Kodachrome did indeed have a tendency to a Magenta cast, especially Kodachrome 64) plus the colour parameters set in firmware during interpolation. 

[Anthony MD]

6 hours ago, jaapv said:

The strange thing in this discussion is that the colour out of the camera has nothing to do with the sensor maker- it is no more than a monochrome device that only records light intensity. The basic colour rendering of a sensor is determined by the specification of the Bayer filter by the camera maker (and Leica did indeed look at Kodachrome as part of their inspiration, I suspect one still sees remnants of that mindset now - Kodachrome did indeed have a tendency to a Magenta cast, especially Kodachrome 64) plus the colour parameters set in firmware during interpolation. 

Well put…📷

[Jeff S]

51 minutes ago, Anthony MD said:

Well put…📷

Post #22, and others, from a year ago in your own thread. 🙄

Jeff

[LocalHero1953]

15 minutes ago, Jeff S said:

Post #22, and others, from a year ago in your own thread. 🙄

Jeff

That was after the five minute argument. We're now into the half hour argument.😉

[Anthony MD]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 11/18/2023 at 5:01 PM, adan said:

Short version - There are a huge number of steps between light falling on a sensor package (layer of silicon plus other layers) - and a digital image we can see and evaluate. ALL those steps will heavily affect what we eventually see from a sensor, probably far more so than the simple (and simplistic) CCD/CMOS dynamic.

 Extended version (NB: this is a simplified "schematic" description - quibblers take note 😁 ) -

ALL of the following influence the final image - and ALL of them are made by human engineering choices. You can't wander through the woods and find a "natural" CCD or CMOS chip. Someone designed the sensor, and the firmware/software that supports it, to make the specific sensor for the product in hand.

- cover-glass wavelength transmission capability (recall the M8 - leaked a lot of infrared)
- Bayer RGB color filter wavelength spectral transmission range. *
- charge-to-voltage and voltage-to-digital conversion algorithms (CMOS generally does the first on the sensor in each pixel, CCD dumps the charges for the camera to convert)
- the inherent dynamic range of the sensor - how much charge or voltage, per pixel, can fit in, between "empty" and "overflowing."
- tone curves that convert the linear sensor output (1 photon > 1 electron) to a more film-like S-shaped contrast curve. And yes, even for .raw/.DNG images there can be a tone curve specified. **
- for color images, de-mosaicing algorithms *** to blend pure RGB pixels into one another to get all colors in every pixel.

Keep in mind that we never actually see a "raw" picture (except with specialized software). If we could, a color image would look like a chessboard of grays (just brightnesses). It must be converted into a full RGB of HSL image for most software to even display it. What we see on the camera or computer screen are "on the fly interpretations" that our eyes and brains can deal with.

- Color profiles chosen as the default, by Leica (Embedded) and by post-processing software engineers (Adobe, C1, you name it). Which specify the amount of orange or purple (Hue) in a given "red," for example, and how intense it is (per-channel Saturation). Blues more purple or more cyan, greens more yellow or more cyan.
- White balance, chosen by settings, or the camera ("as shot") or the post-processing engineers (Adobe "Auto").

I've noticed, checking some M11 .DNGs, that they come into Adobe Camera Raw with a massive amount of magenta tint in the default "As shot" WB. Which will certainly make the images look "M9 CCD" to some extent. But are not the native color rendering of the M11 CMOS sensor.

- Whether post-processing software uses the "embedded" tone curves or color profiles by default - or whether the user has to intervene (if possible) to get the "most native" camera/sensor output..

On the whole, all those factors will have far more to do with determining the apparent character of a sensor, than whether it is CCD ot CMOS.

Except maybe the DR component. At one time, early CMOS sensors had less DR and less ISO capability (more noise) than CCD, due to the non-light-sensitive circuitry cluttering up the front of each pixel (poor "fill factors"). But CMOS pulled ahead somewhere around 2010 - some of the "puch" of CCDs comes from their lower DR. Just a Kodachrome had more "punch" than color negs - at the cost of inpenetrable shadows at times.

______________________

* Reducing the "purity" of a Bayer filter can improve ISO response by letting more light of other colors reach a given pixel. Same reason a Monochrom can reach higher ISOs than a Bayer-filtered M9/10/11. But will reduce the color discrimination - again, the Monochrom is "color-blind" on its own. And a 2009 CMOS (e.g. Canon 5DI/II) has duller colors than a 2009 CCD (e.g M9).

Of note, Leica changed the red filter specs slightly, in between the M8 and M9 sensors (both identical Kodak CCD architecture otherwise). An engineering choice.

**This image shows the default tone mapping LEICA chose to apply for the M10 vs. the M(typ240) - (both CMOS), compared with the curve Canon chose for the 6D (also CMOS).

Sadly, I've not yet found an M8/M9 CCD camera for comparison testing. I hypothesize it would look more like the M10/Canon curves - or even steeper and "punchier," and with less DR (less leeway/steps between pinning out at black (0) or white (255).

Y = over/underexposure of a gray card in stops, X = actual 256-bit brightness output via the algorithm.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

*** An "artistic interpretation" of how a raw pixel array (a chessboard of gray "brightness values," at left ) gets resolved by an algorithm into a full-color picture.

Just finished reading the post!🥱

Now I’m trying to understand it…📷

[250swb]

2 hours ago, Anthony MD said:

Just finished reading the post!🥱

Now I’m trying to understand it…📷

Poke it with a stick in your imagination if you like, but it's dead and decaying, you've killed whatever the thread was. We are now firmly into the realm of your confirmation bias and a repeating spiral going down the plughole. It becomes unhealthy to keep going through the innards of the sacrificial offerings given up to you in the thread and you repeatedly trying to divine some other meaning from the sacrificial offal other than the truth, which is all now stale and stinks by being dragged out for so long by you.

Edited October 31, 2024 by 250swb

[Anthony MD]

2 hours ago, 250swb said:

Poke it with a stick in your imagination if you like, but it's dead and decaying, you've killed whatever the thread was. We are now firmly into the realm of your confirmation bias and a repeating spiral going down the plughole. It becomes unhealthy to keep going through the innards of the sacrificial offerings given up to you in the thread and you repeatedly trying to divine some other meaning from the sacrificial offal other than the truth, which is all now stale and stinks by being dragged out for so long by you.

Actually I just went digital a little more than a year after shooting film for over 30 years.

Talk about killing a thread someone else started to learn more about digital doesn’t deserve the condescending remarks made.

Get a life…📷

[frame-it]

7 minutes ago, Anthony MD said:

Talk about killing a thread someone else started to learn more about digital doesn’t deserve the condescending remarks made.

but didn't you start this thread?

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Anthony MD]

Just now, frame-it said:

but didn't you start this thread?

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Yes I did.  To learn more about digital photography…📷

[Jeff S]

5 hours ago, Anthony MD said:

Just finished reading the post!🥱

Now I’m trying to understand it…📷

It means your post #89, and many subsequent posts, are silly. Just like Jaap’s post above explains.

Jeff

[Anthony MD]

13 minutes ago, Jeff S said:

It means your post #89, and many subsequent posts, are silly. Just like Jaap’s post above explains.

Jeff

Leave the thread and insult others for a variety…📷

[Anthony MD]

On 10/28/2024 at 8:00 AM, 250swb said:

There is no misunderstanding, the OP introduced two false ideas, that the M9 sensor was modelled specifically to mimic Kodachrome, and when that didn't go down too well to deflect with Plan B and suggest that everybody is now denying it was a sensor manufactured by Kodak. I think trawling back through the posts nobody at all has said the sensor wasn't made by Kodak (and it was a branch of Kodak that had nothing to do with film)

Hey, start you own thread and I’ll criticize your posts…📷

[Anthony MD]

25 minutes ago, Jeff S said:

It means your post #89, and many subsequent posts, are silly. Just like Jaap’s post above explains.

Jeff

So you designed you own CCD and CMOS sensors to be an expert on this subject…📷

[Anthony MD]

8 hours ago, Jeff S said:

Post #22, and others, from a year ago in your own thread. 🙄

Jeff

Is your book still in print on digital sensors…📷

[Jeff S]

39 minutes ago, Anthony MD said:

Is your book still in print on digital sensors…📷

Don’t need a book when Jaap and Andy already explained in a couple of posts why sensors alone don’t inherently determine colors, refuting your claim.  

Jeff

Edited November 1, 2024 by Jeff S

[pgk]

Colour like exposure, depth of field and other such photographic topics, are all widely misunderstood or at least debated as naseum depending on how much is understood and how pedantic the discussers want to be.

FWIW there are basically only 2 ways of looking at colour reproduction: Objective which is an attempt to be precise, scientific and technical, and Subjective or Perceptual which is what most of us actually end up doing, and which relies on us being visually satisfied with the end result. Trying to find a middle ground is probably a complete waste of time and we should aim for an end result that is satisfactory for the intended use of the image. Whilst there are a few photographers who have to be as accurate as possible (when colour matching is required) they are a very small minority. I use both CCD and CMOS cameras and probably prefer the CCD output because I have used CCD cameras for longer and am more used to adjusting the CCD files to obtain the result I want. But like film, CCDs are old tech although none the worse for this.

[Anthony MD]

13 hours ago, Jeff S said:

Don’t need a book when Jaap and Andy already explained in a couple of posts why sensors alone don’t inherently determine colors, refuting your claim.  

Jeff

I disagree…📷

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Jeff S]

On 10/31/2024 at 1:23 PM, Anthony MD said:

Well put…📷

🤪

Jeff