CCD vs CMOS

[250swb]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

29 minutes ago, Einst_Stein said:

What we see is interpreted color. Quote : “sRGB”, “Adobe RGB”, “Kodak ProRGB”, etc.  or “Monochrome”. Actually it got through at least two olevels of interpretation. The first level is what interpreted by the camera’s firmware. The second level is interpreted by the display, I.r. The monitor or the printer-ink-paper combination. I havent count our eyes and brain. 

CMOS or CCD doesn’t determine the color interpretation. It only provides the raw data. The color interpretation, I.e. the color science is the key.

 

You don't say.

But colour science is the key to what? My opinion, your opinion, the person who writes the Firmware, the boffin who designs the emulsion and decides to make it warm tone or cooler tone? What has colour science to do with Fuji Velvia and having an opinion whether or not you like it's rendering of a scene (all those hideous warm landscapes for example)? There's no science in having an opinion which is why accurate colour has never mattered save for being able to say what inaccurate colour is at the same time and knowing the difference.

[Anthony MD]

4 hours ago, 250swb said:

Maybe a valid point if you are a scientist but when was colour accuracy ever 'a thing' with photographers? I know there is an industry set up to pander to the paranoia surrounding colour accuracy but this is a relatively recent thing, and even in the digital age you could buy an Olympus for 'Olympus colour' or a Sony for 'Sony colour' etc. and they can't all be right. For the life of me I can't remember if it's ever happened before in the history of photography that true to life colour was important. Let me know.

I’m very critical in having true colors shown in my landscape photos.
With the MD 262, I’m amazed at how realistic colors are of landscapes.  Watching videos made using the CCD cameras by Leica even the narrator admits the colors aren’t true to life on trees, plants and flowers…!

Edited October 27, 2024 by Anthony MD

[Anthony MD]

5 minutes ago, 250swb said:

You don't say.

But colour science is the key to what? My opinion, your opinion, the person who writes the Firmware, the boffin who designs the emulsion and decides to make it warm tone or cooler tone? What has colour science to do with Fuji Velvia and having an opinion whether or not you like it's rendering of a scene (all those hideous warm landscapes for example)? There's no science in having an opinion which is why accurate colour has never mattered save for being able to say what inaccurate colour is at the same time and knowing the difference.

The color science of CMOS sensors in the MD 262 are very good indeed…!

[Anthony MD]

1 minute ago, Anthony MD said:

The color science of CMOS sensors in the MD 262 are very good indeed…!

I’ve shot film for 30 years and the flash drives from Blue Moon Camera of the film, especially the color, are much less realistic to me…!

[Jeff S]

40 minutes ago, Anthony MD said:

Yes, at my age they are called senior moments! 
I would appreciate a merge on the two similar threads if I can figure that out…!

The mods could do this for you.  Hit the report button, top right of post, and link other thread.

Jeff

[250swb]

29 minutes ago, Anthony MD said:

I’m very critical in having true colors shown in my landscape photos.
With the MD 262, I’m amazed at how realistic colors are of landscapes.  Watching videos made using the CCD cameras by Leica even the narrator admits the colors aren’t true to life on trees, plants and flowers…!

And yet I only had to go back to 31st August to find a landscape photo you posted of a pond where the colour balance is clearly 'off' and you even mentioned using a polarising filter to make a photograph, which I think throws the idea of being super critical about colour accuracy out the window.

[Jeff S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

8 hours ago, Anthony MD said:

CMOS has more accurate colors whilst CCD has more attractive color…!

The color differences are much more complicated than you describe, with other variables intervening. This article touches on some.

https://www.cobalt-image.com/tutorials/ccd-vs-cmos/
 

Jeff

[Anthony MD]

31 minutes ago, 250swb said:

And yet I only had to go back to 31st August to find a landscape photo you posted of a pond where the colour balance is clearly 'off' and you even mentioned using a polarising filter to make a photograph, which I think throws the idea of being super critical about colour accuracy out the window.

Maybe for you it is but for me it’s not…!

[Anthony MD]

4 hours ago, LocalHero1953 said:

Curious why you're running two threads on CCD vs CMOS @Anthony MD? The other one's been running for a year.
Perhaps they could be merged, both to avoid repetition (forlorn hope) and clogging up the 'New Content' streams.

Asked for the merge…!

[Einst_Stein]

2 hours ago, 250swb said:

You don't say.

But colour science is the key to what? My opinion, your opinion, the person who writes the Firmware, the boffin who designs the emulsion and decides to make it warm tone or cooler tone? What has colour science to do with Fuji Velvia and having an opinion whether or not you like it's rendering of a scene (all those hideous warm landscapes for example)? There's no science in having an opinion which is why accurate colour has never mattered save for being able to say what inaccurate colour is at the same time and knowing the difference.

Warm tone or cooler is determined by the white balance algorithm with the preset hint of light source, and can be somewhat tuned at post processing. CMOS or CCD is irrelevant. Which film also follows the same principle but it has more built- in opinion by the vendor’s color science. In all cases, it is the result of vendor’s color science and the human’s intervention through preset and lost processing.

I don’t buy it the CCD has more attractive color, not at all.

I also don’t buy it the most accurate color is the most pleasing. I like B&W a lot. It is certainly not “accurate” at all. 

But I agree, and no one can deny, that the more modern sensor the richer data it can capture. This allows to achieve more “accurate” color  in whatever sense. I think it is safe to say, it allows human’s intervention with less tendency to look “weird”. I mean, for example, you can tweak the contrast with less chance to loose the desired color balance. 

Here I want to add, if given enough technology attention, even CCD can be improved to capture richer data. At its base, both CCD and CMOS are using the same semiconductor capacitor and the photo-electron effect. The difference is how to transfer the amount of electrons in the semiconductor capacitor to the analog to digital converters. Here the ADCs are also the blind regarding CCD or CMOS. 

Due to general engineering issues, CMOS  wins over CCD. So we can foresee CMOS would be further and further improved in the same direction as if CCD would be improved should it survives. 

Stop  thinking CCD is superior in coloring. We all have appreciated it, but let it rest in peace. 

[Anthony MD]

5 hours ago, 250swb said:

You don't say.

But colour science is the key to what? My opinion, your opinion, the person who writes the Firmware, the boffin who designs the emulsion and decides to make it warm tone or cooler tone? What has colour science to do with Fuji Velvia and having an opinion whether or not you like it's rendering of a scene (all those hideous warm landscapes for example)? There's no science in having an opinion which is why accurate colour has never mattered save for being able to say what inaccurate colour is at the same time and knowing the difference.

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!

If sensors don’t determine color, why is there so much fuss that Kodak developed the sensors for the Leica M8 & M9 cameras for a filmic Kodachrome aspect…? Edited October 27, 2024 by Anthony MD

[3D-Kraft.com]

At the end, it's what the signal processing in the camera makes of it or even further, what you apply in post processing. When Leica came out with the M(240), which was their first CMOS Sensor based rangefinder, their colors where everything else from accurate. They fixed it later somehow with firmware updates. So at the end, I only would agree that in the era of CCD based cameras, they were tuned to show more attractive colors (but not due to the CCD itself). This was the reason, why I decided to add a M9 to my gear in 2024 - and I love it.

Edited October 27, 2024 by 3D-Kraft.com

[costa43]

7 hours ago, a.noctilux said:

I'm glad not selling mine while M246 came.

Sometimes, buying back an M can ( ...not always) cure "regret".

Many times, the "buying back device" upsets because "it's not the same", life is not simple.

I’ve toyed with the idea of purchasing one again but like you say, I may not have the same experience again. 

[250swb]

4 hours ago, Anthony MD said:

If sensors don’t determine color, why is there so much fuss that Kodak developed the sensors for the Leica M8 & M9 cameras for a filmic Kodachrome aspect…?

Who said sensors, or film, don't (in some way) determine colour because it wasn't me? And is it possible for you to make your point, if you have one, without SHOUTING? 

Edited October 27, 2024 by 250swb

[Einst_Stein]

4 hours ago, Anthony MD 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!

If sensors don’t determine color, why is there so much fuss that Kodak developed the sensors for the Leica M8 & M9 cameras for a filmic Kodachrome aspect…?

I said sensor doesn’t determine the color interpretation. Do not skip the last word. 
Sensor offers the raw data, the interpretation determine what it want us to see.

That is why when almost all sensors are made by Sony, we can see so different color renderings from different camera brands. 

[Anthony MD]

1 hour ago, Einst_Stein said:

I said sensor doesn’t determine the color interpretation. Do not skip the last word. 
Sensor offers the raw data, the interpretation determine what it want us to see.

That is why when almost all sensors are made by Sony, we can see so different color renderings from different camera brands. 

Why did Leica want a sensor developed by Kodak to mimic the Kodachrome colors if sensors have no color interpretation…?

Edited October 28, 2024 by Anthony MD

[Einst_Stein]

1 hour ago, Anthony MD said:

Why did Leica want a sensor developed by Kodak to mimic the Kodachrome colors if sensors have no color interpretation…?

I don know what you are talkng about. Kodaxchrome was not the most perferred color pallete at that time anyway. In my personal taste, Leica's color pallete has far exceeded Kodakchorme already. But I can guess what Leica wanted in the joint development.

1: Ovedr all, to get the desired final color rendition, it takes a high quality sensor in terms of recording as rich infos as possible.

2: A proper color filters that matches well with the color science is important too. 

3: The micro-lenses that can match Leica's exisiting lens optical property, especially in terms of periphery image aberation is critical for Leica. 

No one said sensor is not important. It is as important as the lens. But in the root of the technology, CCD does not provided more advantage than CMOS on the path towards the color rendering.

As a sensor, what we want is the high sensitivity and consistency for imaging translation. To simplify the argument, it could mean,  but not limited to, the consistent scalability, may be linearity or logarithmetic or exponentianl, or something else that fits engineer's needs. You can improve CCD towards that or CMOS. The final choice would be the manufacturing or engineering considertion. Now the industry already clearly show CMOS is the winner.

 

Edited October 28, 2024 by Einst_Stein

[Anthony MD]

59 minutes ago, Einst_Stein said:

I don know what you are talkng about. Kodaxchrome was not the most perferred color pallete at that time anyway. In my personal taste, Leica's color pallete has far exceeded Kodakchorme already. But I can guess what Leica wanted in the joint development.

1: Ovedr all, to get the desired final color rendition, it takes a high quality sensor in terms of recording as rich infos as possible.

2: A proper color filters that matches well with the color science is important too. 

3: The micro-lenses that can match Leica's exisiting lens optical property, especially in terms of periphery image aberation is critical for Leica. 

No one said sensor is not important. It is as important as the lens. But in the root of the technology, CCD does not provided more advantage than CMOS on the path towards the color rendering.

As a sensor, what we want is the high sensitivity and consistency for imaging translation. To simplify the argument, it could mean,  but not limited to, the consistent scalability, may be linearity or logarithmetic or exponentianl, or something else that fits engineer's needs. You can improve CCD towards that or CMOS. The final choice would be the manufacturing or engineering considertion. Now the industry already clearly show CMOS is the winner.

 

I’m referring to the older Leica M CCD cameras like the M8 & M9.

The history is that they used Kodak influenced sensors to get the filmic look of Kodachrome…📷

[Einst_Stein]

36 minutes ago, Anthony MD said:

I’m referring to the older Leica M CCD cameras like the M8 & M9.

The history is that they used Kodak influenced sensors to get the filmic look of Kodachrome…📷

No, that is not true. Leica has never tried to product Kodachrome like digital camera. 
One important sensor requirement of M9 is to have special arranged micro lenses. 
You must have a lot of false background informations. Clean them up.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Anthony MD]

7 minutes ago, Einst_Stein said:

up.

 

7 minutes ago, Einst_Stein said:

No, that is not true. Leica has never tried to product Kodachrome like digital camera. 
One important sensor requirement of M9 is to have special arranged micro lenses. 
You must have a lot of false background informations. Clean them up.

 

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!