CCD vs CMOS

[MikeMyers]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, pgk said:

............it really depends what you like. As soon as ISO is increased then shifts occur BUT the M9 files are very flexible and the noise which kicks in during post processing, if you keep ISO at base, can be more 'pleasant' and reminiscent of (but not the same as) film, than the more 'digital' noise from the Sony. ..........  I still like the results from my M9s but they are not suitable for a lot of image making so its really depends on what you are doing and your 'tastes' in colour and noise.

I never thought to analyze any of this many years ago, but I was very pleased with the colors from my CCD sensor cameras, not that I cared about "CCD" back then.  It was simply "the sensor".  Now I read from many people, bot here, and elsewhere, that the CCD sensor captured more pleasing color.  Nobody has disputed this, and I remember discussions in this forum for how to use Lightroom to get the "old" colors.  I have Lightroom, but I now use DxO PhotoLab.  I only shoot in RAW, so I'm not yet dealing with jpg images.

My probably very poor memory is that colors straight from the camera used to be "brighter", or maybe "deeper" is a better word.  My M8.2 and my Nikon D2x and D3 (all CCD) captured images where the colors stood out more.  I'm seeing this now, from people reviewing old cameras on YouTube, specifically saying that the old colors were nicer than the colors we now get from CMOS sensors.  

For those of you who understand this, in general terms, what types of changes do you now make in image processing (if any) to capture the "old" colors from these older cameras?  

I understand, and accept, that to get the most out of our cameras, CMOS is the better way to go, higher ISO speeds and so on, so I have no plans to get rid of my M10 or my D780, but I wish there was a simple way to convert the "new colors" to the "old colors" on my computer, with any image editor.

[mujk]

As already mentioned in this thread, there are many other factors than the sensor itself that affect color rendering. Of course the sensor and Bayer filter set the limits to what can be achieved. It's also good to remember that only three colors (RGB) are actually detected by the filter+sensor as such. All other colors are calculated based on a combination of the intensitities of these. Obviously there are also variations between versions (and possibly even batches) of the same sensor+filter, something clearly visible when comparing raw files from the original M9 sensor with those of the new (replaced) one, using the same external profile for both (not the embedded one).

Leica most probably tries to keep the colors consistent between different cameras (and sensor versions) using in-camera processing and through the color profile. But in some cases there are probably limitations on how much tweaking is possible without causing other problems or sacrificing other benefits. So I guess the result will be more like a compromise in this respect. Fortunately a lot of tweaking can be done in post-processing of the raw files. This includes using another white balance setting than the one proposed by the camera.

 

[Anthony MD]

On 12/16/2023 at 8:09 AM, pippy said:

Yes. When I had the M9 I did things exactly the same as you mention and things haven't changed with processing files from the CMOS of the MD.

Partly my own mild amusement about the whole 'absolutism' regarding colour-fidelity is because of how frequently I see small-yet-definite colour-shift in the studio using what should, in principle, be the same pieces of kit. To give one example; if, having used and colour-calibrated with near-enough 100% accuracy(*), the 85mm prime on my DSLR and I change to the 50mm prime I know that I will need to put '+3 Green' to get back to neutral. I can do this with the software used before post-prod so the images shot will all match throughout the session. If I change which soft-boxes - even those from the same manufacturer - are being used it's a case of Start Again from the Beginning.

But what about when shooting out-and-about with the M-D? The colour-temperature during any one day can go from 3000 - 4000K at sunset / sunrise to 5000 - 6500K at noon on a bright day. On a heavily overcast day the temp. can even go as high as 9000K on, say, an overcast yet bright afternoon. Leaving the camera (for those with the option) on AWB is almost certainly the best 'average' choice but the camera doesn't know what the lens is looking at and will be able to be confused by a proponderence of any particular colour within the scene.

There are too many variables to consider when shooting outdoors that any subtle differences in how CCD / CMOS register images that, IMO, any such differences can be ignored as being insignificant.

Philip.

* We're talking +/- 1 or 2 in a scale of 0-255.

I was advised to point the MD at the sky and lock reading after a +2,3 exposure compensation dial in…!

[Anthony MD]

It works occasionally…!

[Anthony MD]

6 hours ago, mujk said:

As already mentioned in this thread, there are many other factors than the sensor itself that affect color rendering. Of course the sensor and Bayer filter set the limits to what can be achieved. It's also good to remember that only three colors (RGB) are actually detected by the filter+sensor as such. All other colors are calculated based on a combination of the intensitities of these. Obviously there are also variations between versions (and possibly even batches) of the same sensor+filter, something clearly visible when comparing raw files from the original M9 sensor with those of the new (replaced) one, using the same external profile for both (not the embedded one).

Leica most probably tries to keep the colors consistent between different cameras (and sensor versions) using in-camera processing and through the color profile. But in some cases there are probably limitations on how much tweaking is possible without causing other problems or sacrificing other benefits. So I guess the result will be more like a compromise in this respect. Fortunately a lot of tweaking can be done in post-processing of the raw files. This includes using another white balance setting than the one proposed by the camera.

 

 

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!

[pippy]

6 hours ago, mujk said:

...Leica most probably tries to keep the colors consistent between different cameras...but in some cases there are probably limitations on how much tweaking is possible without causing other problems or sacrificing other benefits. So I guess the result will be more like a compromise in this respect...

One fairly common 'limitation' is where there is a case of a 'Crossed-Curves' colour mis-match when correcting for one colour cast merely introduces / increases another cast from the opposite side of the Colour-Wheel. Fuji Velvia - whilst being a beautiful emulsion in many ways - used to give us all sorts of headaches with certain colours being somewhat exaggerated; notably those at the Violet end of the spectrum.

Philip.

[Anthony MD]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 4/3/2024 at 8:32 AM, MikeMyers said:

I never thought to analyze any of this many years ago, but I was very pleased with the colors from my CCD sensor cameras, not that I cared about "CCD" back then.  It was simply "the sensor".  Now I read from many people, bot here, and elsewhere, that the CCD sensor captured more pleasing color.  Nobody has disputed this, and I remember discussions in this forum for how to use Lightroom to get the "old" colors.  I have Lightroom, but I now use DxO PhotoLab.  I only shoot in RAW, so I'm not yet dealing with jpg images.

My probably very poor memory is that colors straight from the camera used to be "brighter", or maybe "deeper" is a better word.  My M8.2 and my Nikon D2x and D3 (all CCD) captured images where the colors stood out more.  I'm seeing this now, from people reviewing old cameras on YouTube, specifically saying that the old colors were nicer than the colors we now get from CMOS sensors.  

For those of you who understand this, in general terms, what types of changes do you now make in image processing (if any) to capture the "old" colors from these older cameras?  

I understand, and accept, that to get the most out of our cameras, CMOS is the better way to go, higher ISO speeds and so on, so I have no plans to get rid of my M10 or my D780, but I wish there was a simple way to convert the "new colors" to the "old colors" on my computer, with any image editor.

The colors from my MD are also very vibrant…!

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!

Edited April 4, 2024 by Anthony MD

[Anthony MD]

On 4/3/2024 at 8:03 AM, jankap said:

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]

Which sensor do you prefer and why…?

[Einst_Stein]

I used to prefer CCD when CMOS sensor is new to me, but now I prefer CMOS. 

CMOS sensor can support wider dynamic range and higher ISO among other advantages.   

[Dazzajl]

That's quite the question. CMOS sensors are better in every quantifiable way and that's what makes a CCD look better. 

[250swb]

A CCD sensor is more closely associated with a film like look, with a bit more character than can be generated by endless dynamic range and ridiculous ISO range of a CMOS. If Leica could come up with a new CCD sensor M they'd sell a ton of cameras absolutely no doubt about it. 

Edited October 25, 2024 by 250swb

[Einst_Stein]

The basic difference between CMOS and CCD is how the bit-info is passed out. CCD is dumped bit by bit to it he neighbor bit and eventually shifted out, while CMOS is direct sent out throug the guided network. There is nothing makes CMO or  CCD more analog. Any such suggestion is imagination.

At most, CCD has a CCD-like look, while CMOS has a CMOS-like look. Like film has a film0like look while digital has a digital-like look.

Which is subjectively better? Your calll. But objectively, CMOS has much better capability. Period.

You can get your preferred what-ever look, in the inferior sense, if you are wiling to work hard on your post-processing. 

[Stuart Richardson]

I genuinely don't know if the CCD look that we talk about is more the "medium DR and colors tuned by Kodak" look or one due to some inherent advantage of CCD's. When I think of "CCD color" I think of the M9 and S2, S006, all of which had and continue to have superb color, but they also had a real Goldilocks level of dynamic range (not too much, not too little) and their colors were tuned by Kodak engineers and Leica. Their dynamic range was higher than slide film but not as much as negative film. It generally covered a full scene in a similar way to our eyes might (without using the iris to close or open), and therefore the colors looked more natural. I think people don't immediately realize that having massive dynamic range also tends to make colors look washed out or flat unless they are properly processed. Contrast gives the colors saturation, and the opposite is also true...lack of contrast washes things out.

These days the CMOS sensors available in cameras like the SL2 are better than the CCD's in the S2 or M9 by most any measure, but as said above that does not mean you cannot prefer their output. I think what many people want is the quality of the straight out of camera results of the M9 and S2/S006 but with the capability of CMOS sensors. I think companies have been trying to sell this to us as presets (even Leica), but I have not seen a single one that was successful to my eyes at least. I think it is exceptionally hard to do. Even Fujifilm, who you would think would be in a good position to be able to do it, cannot make their presets look like the real thing. At least when I tried them, Fuji presets like Provia 100F, Acros etc have little in common with what those films look like.

[LocalHero1953]

A benefit of CMOS was said to be that you could use it for liveview, but CCD could not. I don't know if this is a fundamental property of the sensors or just that it is more difficult for CCD sensors.

[tappan]

I see a lot of how people writing how they like the straight from camera "film" look of a CCD. What I simply WANT from (hopefully) the M12, is NOT necessarily a "film" look straight from camera but a reality look. With my old M9-P (I SOLD IT), I used to be able to count on this closer-to-reality (what I saw when I captured the photo) straight from camera quality.
I don't get that from my M10-R, though it is a little better with my M10-P.

[Einst_Stein]

My first real serious digital camera is Kodak SLR- C, 14MP. It has the most preferred color I have ever had. The other CCD cameras of about the same time look just different. Unfortunate Kodak stopped supporting the software (Kodak Photidesk?).

After it was stolen, I got M9, No, even M9 does not bring back that Kodak look. 

Now I tend to believe Stuart Richardson’s guess. Maybe it is about the color science. Kodak’s color science. 

[pedaes]

Remember this marathon piece of work David Farkus did when the first CMOS M arrived?

https://www.reddotforum.com/content/2015/03/the-great-debate-ccd-vs-cmos-part-3/

But people will still believe what they want to believe.

[Luke_Miller]

I went through the CCD -> CMOS transition with both Nikon and Leica.  Other than the improved CMOS ISO performance I never noticed any other image quality differences. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Jeff S]

42 minutes ago, pedaes said:

Remember this marathon piece of work David Farkus did when the first CMOS M arrived?

https://www.reddotforum.com/content/2015/03/the-great-debate-ccd-vs-cmos-part-3/

But people will still believe what they want to believe.

(Farkas)

One should note, however, that results pertain to screen viewing only, which has its limitations. Prints would involve multiple other variables.  (I’m not suggesting that results would necessarily differ.)

Jeff