While this entry is being updated, here are a few of my galleries on cameras with a CCD sensor:
|
|||||
CMOS VS CCDComments: 193, on the topic: ccd vs cmosAdd a comment |
|||||
|
|
|||||
|
|||||
CMOS VS CCDWhile this entry is being updated, here are a few of my galleries on cameras with a CCD sensor: Comments: 193, on the topic: ccd vs cmosAdd a comment |
|||||
|
|
|||||
Copyright © Radojuva.com. Blog author - Photographer in Kiev Arkady Shapoval. 2009-2023
Someone can give examples from a tripod from the same angle, under the same conditions, the difference between CMOS VS CCD, for example, examples: landscape, sky, vegetation, water, etc. And then, many say CCD cool and all that, but there are no examples. Show!
just look at this site for examples of reviews of cameras with ssd, smc and super-ssd matrix.
I see that people do not understand the difference between CCD and CMOS sensors, and why did the CMOS sensor not immediately find its place in professional cameras with large sensors?
Although CCD is called analog, the design difference between CCD and CMOS sensors is small. CMOS uses the same photodiodes as CCD, the only difference is in the built-in signal amplifier, which is located on each pixel in the CMOS sensor. This need arose more because high-resolution video could be shot on digital SLRs. Also, the repeated collection of information from each pixel during the exposure gives more data for subsequent processing by the processor of the color gamut. In a CCD sensor, information is recorded slowly, because all the pixels in the matrix are used to shift the accumulated charges, which are passed through a single signal amplifier. That is, the charges from the bottom row of the CCD matrix are moved to the buffer, and then in turn pass through one signal amplifier, like a machine gun belt through one machine gun. The charges of the next row are moved to the vacant place of the lower row, and so the whole matrix is "shot".
In the CMOS sensor, there is no charge shift from row to row, but the signal amplifier stands at every pixel. The amplified signal is immediately taken from several rows simultaneously into several buffers, and then this information passes through several analyzers and is digitized. And so many times during the exposure. Therefore, after a long exposure, the buffer memory is full, and the processor needs more time to process the information.
As a person who works in microelectronic technologies, I can assure you that due to the limited ability of the machines and the heterogeneity of the silicon substrate itself from its center to the edge, the values of complementary transistors (CMOS) are heterogeneous. Therefore, the larger the sensor, the greater the heterogeneity in its elements. Now imagine that in the matrix the gain is not the same in every pixel. What is it? - noise in the picture. While on the CCD sensor, all charges were amplified through the same amplifier channel. As a result, the CCD sensor produces less noise than the CMOS.
Photos from your Sigma SD-15 - complete gaffno ...! In direct (color rendering, DD) and in terms of composition ...! What did you try to prove that you have a cool camera ...? Although this article is more than 5 years old, the topic remains relevant ...
Just a man made several mistakes at once:
1) There was no need to drop links to VKontakte. This social network disfigures and strongly compresses the pictures.
2) A person is not very able to work with this camera.
3) The photos are really strange.
PS> From the Foveon matrices you can draw a lot, with a certain skill.
The trouble is that the SD14 / SD15 is very outdated.
More or less at the moment - SD1, SDQuattro, SD Quattro H (APS-H crop like Canon's units).
This is with SD1M.
Quite DIFFERENT "business"!
Simple - GORGEOUS !!!!!
Looks like a person has more ambitions than experience and knowledge….
You can even make a masterpiece with a "soap box" - CCD matrices allow you to do this.
The whole “trick” is that “programs for dummies” in “soap boxes” VERY dramatically change the color rendition and other parameters of the picture - with each specific model it is NECESSARY to carry out a series of experimental shootings in order to “understand” your camera! And when you know ALL the possibilities, you can work miracles ...
I am sure that any old device can make excellent shots, you just need to KNOW and BE ABLE ...
It is not known how much processing there is; but the photo is gorgeous, yes.
Thank you!
There was no processing on all three photos.
Just shot in RAW and processed in Sigma Photo Pro.
No tinting or filters.
These are chamber colors.
Camera-SD1 Merrill, 35mm / 1.4Art glass for SA mount.
It is interesting how MUCH such a device costs today and is there any sense for taking SUCH money for it ?! Is there really no alternative BETTER ??? !!!!
Example 2 on SD1M
Example 3 on SD1M
Something is wrong
A few words about CCD))
There is such a utility with a lot of peresets, "Calor Efex PRO 4" called)) I will make you there visualization "as if CCD", and grain Fuji Superia and Kodak Elite Chrome 200))))
it will be sour cream instead of sour cream
When will the people stop confusing the characteristic film pattern and primitive digital noise ...
And this Kal_Oru Effex of the "PRO" type is up to a real imitation of a drawing (not noise) - like walking to the Moon. But the people did not find the real film and will never bother with it, so they take any pathetic imitation.
And that’s all, this time the article came out very short. But I just don’t want to stretch it just for volume, but I showed everything that I wanted in the article.
))))) something broke!
Arkady, and this article will appear soon?
Here is some kind of "funeral" color gives CMOS, I personally like CCD photos, although of course there is high-speed performance and all that. I deliberately avoided technical details and tried to evaluate the impression.
It is at Kenon that he is mourning with dull funeral shades .. And at Sonya he is bright and colorful, as if painted with cheap Chinese felt-tip pens. Photographers from the city park like to sell such pictures to moms. The only thing missing is the flowers and horses added in Photoshop around the edges. ChMOS is multifaceted ...
Is he like Canon ?!
And what about Nikon then? Eklmn ...
No. To be honest, here everyone has their own cockroaches in their heads. Who cares about this difference in color rendering between sensors, who does not, and who does not see it at all. But those who used to sit tightly on a film slide see clearly. Regarding Nikon: I knew one fan of this office, I went through all the lines. It seems that he liked everything, he collected it for a full frame. Then he disappeared somewhere unexpectedly. But then he showed up. Recently I saw it with the 717th ancient Sonya, you know, such a silvery, 2/3 ssd matrix with five megapixels ... happy, smiling. He says he finally found what he needs. So it goes….
-And what, father, there are brides in the city? - To whom and the mare's bride.
There is no difference! If we shoot in the daytime, not on high ISO. And about some more interesting colors - these are all fairy tales! Everything is the same, they just forgot everything, in order to remove information from the RAV file, you need some camera profile settings, programs that are often different, and, for some reason, when switching to CMOS, the output image was made “colder”. Who likes it? I like the warmth, for example. But with only one adjustment of the white balance (I work in Lightroom), EVERYTHING IS EASILY REDUCED TO AN ABSOLUTELY THE SAME PICTURE !, moreover, to “the same” details both in highlights and in shadows. For example, I took shots from D5200 and D200 (a great difference in time and technology), and even the detail, despite its difference in megapixels, turned out to be almost the same on the 24-120 lens.
Now about the difference: The higher the ISO, the more noisy the CCD, and at high ISO, and long exposure, the more hot pixels on the CCD. But this is all despite the fact that CCD technologies have ceased to be developed, due to their high cost, high power consumption, etc. (by the way, the D200 lasts much longer than the D5200, despite the age of its own battery)
The main conclusion I made: All modern digital cameras, starting with Fuji S2Pro - are
An excellent tool for obtaining high-quality photos! The only important thing is in what hands this tool is :)
"EVERYTHING IS EASILY BROADCASTED TO AN ABSOLUTELY THE SAME PICTURE!"
It is understandable, lightroom is able to spoil a photo - to equate good with bad.
At D200, the battery capacity is almost twice as large, and even there they use cylindrical cells (against flat EN-EL14), the cylinder has a higher current output.
I can say about the same thing about the D5100-D7100: two EN-EL14 batteries last for about the same number of frames as one EN-EL15.
The display eats a lot, and LiveView is so damn good - about ten times fewer frames come out.
"The display eats a lot, and LiveView is so damn good - about ten times fewer frames come out."
==========================
well, just a binomial of Newton, what revelations you just don't know! it turns out that the display is on, consumes a lot ... did not know, did not know .. who would have thought! )))
you have little understanding of what you are talking about or you have problems with the monitor and / or vision.
or all at once.
no RAV will add halftones to you if their matrix does not display! not add at all! ))))
no developer and post-processing will add color to you if the sensor coverage is less in this area than the color space.
no developer and post-processing will correct the color curve if the matrix has a color shift in this area)))
This is the alphabet of digital photo.
Although a lot of people watch it all on uncalibrated monitors or smarts, so you can shoot on anything if you like. )))
Give a definition of halftone?
Start with a primitive test.
https://www.xritephoto.com/cool-tools
You have little understanding of what you are talking about, or you have problems with the development of graphic editors, or all at once.
And the lack of halftones and color gamut and color shift and a bunch of other exotic things that not every amateur photographer will encounter at least once in his life, perfectly works in any sane photo editor.
By and large, it is impossible to fix only the uncaped lens cap.
This is the alphabet of digital photo.
Although a lot of people watch all this on monitors that they consider to be calibrated, and assure that only the CCD contains a special magic, in short - you can shoot with anything, if only you like it. )))
@ And the lack of halftones and color gamut and color shift and a bunch of other exotic things that not every amateur photographer will encounter at least once in his life, perfectly works in any sane photo editor.
By and large, it is impossible to fix only the uncaped lens cap.
This is the ABC of digital photography. @ ””
=====================
rave. from the word at all.
how can I explain it to you, well, quite simply ... if you do not want to understand what color gamut, color accuracy and other "exotic" is, then this does not mean at all that you do not have these problems in your pictures)))
ANY CAMERA works in the color space, well, absolutely any! ))) and you may not know at all! ))) and it will work! oh, as it happens)))
You do not know and do not understand, but it works)))
and any camera has its own coverage and color accuracy, well, absolutely any)).
and you come across this well EVERY PICTURE.
and again, if you persistently correct in “any sane photo editor” the missing halftones, shift color and other delights of the matrix curve and the curved color profile, then this simply means that you do not distinguish the color well and do not understand what you are doing))))
The fact that you do not know how and do not want to be able to work with photo editors does not mean at all that no one can. Give me an example of a shot with what you call “missing halftones”, and then something like that — only with “present”.
And then we'll talk.
Onotole, yes do what you want)))
they don’t pay me to spend my time on you and teach you the basics of not even color, but how the digital camera works.
your epic nonsense that “color coverage” is “exotic”, with “which not every amateur photographer will encounter at least once in his life” I repost to the people here, the evening was a success! ))) but how do you COLOR that the matrix did not remove you will edit in BB - this is a song! )))
the question is not that you don’t understand how a number works and what color is in a number, the question is that you are not trying to just figure it out, but insist on your ignorance.
I look forward to yelling "give an example and prove that the earth is not on three whales and is generally not a fact that it is round"))))
The drain is counted.
I asked for an example, not a proof.
And, of course, by "color gamut" I meant "obvious insufficiency / inconsistency of the camera's color gamut with the sRGB standard". I'm sorry, I should have been more accurate in expressing my thoughts, otherwise someone might suddenly have an evening.
There is no concept of “digital color” in nature. All color is analog, and only analog, because you see it on the monitor, or in the photograph that you hold in your hands!
Achepyatka…”you see”!!!Sorry!
Physically, both film and digital work in the same way, because .... What you see is what you get! The color gamut of a matrix or film is its potential maximum capabilities with an ideal color balance graduated in a professional calorimeter! All this matters and it matters a lot. When you make a copy of a color image, for example, you shoot an icon or a picture or a photograph where color accuracy is especially important, it is a customer requirement! If you do not have a full match of the color of the sample and your image, you simply will not be paid!!!
“Physically, both film and digital work in the same way, because…. What you see is what you get!”
Unfortunately, the quality of film development in the lab is highly dependent on advertised lab employees, who are often students working for food. Ran into this. All these arguments about the film were interesting about 15 years ago. Now - it's good if your film is not burned with chemistry, not lit up or crookedly shown, so that all the colors will float and already joy. Sad experience, alas, there is. At current prices for film (x2 for a year and before during the pandemic period), the clumsiness of developing it by poor students, it is not clear what reagents and under what conditions, the whole point of shooting on film disappears. You can’t even imagine how happy I am when at least something hasn’t been burned or messed up in the lab.
In Kiev, they can easily show, scan the plate of a laboratory decal. In the Dnipro, Cherkasy, Odessa tezh, you can clearly show and reveal your swimming. Bachiv, who is manifested in Kharkov, but he himself did not say anything there, I can’t say anything about the quality.
With each other, there are problems.
By God, do not disgrace, read the literature. And then based on your statements, you can compose jokes.
This is me to Onotol and Fed2.
Ahahaha. So I take a picture, open it in the Lab, turn the channels over and it turns red green to green or vice versa. Or I carry out other manipulations, increasing-decreasing the saturation / brightness / tone of individual shades, apply 3DLut transforms and change the picture as I want.
What is transmission accuracy? Every monitor you have, even a calibrated one, will display the same picture in different ways - just change the viewing conditions. More precisely, you will perceive it differently. Everything affects - the temperature and position of the light source in the room, the size of the diagonal, even your condition and mood. The only criterion for a visual image is whether you like it or not. Everything.
"What is transmission accuracy?"
For me, this is the accuracy of the shades of yellow, red and blue, and white, as well as a skinton like I remembered it when photographing under certain lighting conditions. I have good visual memory, so when processing raw, I always pay attention to how the camera understood what I want from it.
A person does not remember a picture; memorizing pictures will devour all available memory. A person remembers visual sensations. To recreate the feeling of a sunset, you either need to be placed in the same conditions in which you watched the sunset or twisted the colors, because it's one thing when the sunset is in front of you in a 180-degree panorama, and it's another - it's on the monitor screen or even more so on the phone.
Well, the most idiotic lesson, of course, is to compare cameras by the way they conduct internal color correction of the footage. There is continuous taste and averaging.
Skinton lovers require a separate cauldron in hell, because the perception of a human face live and a human face in the image differs - the brain is generally very sensitive to everything that it interprets as a face. This is not counting the fact that the color of a person's face changes depending on both the condition of the person (pale, red, hot, bad, tanned, sick, burnt), and on the lighting conditions. And the liberties of color correction generally kill the skinton theory completely. Look at Daenerys in Game of Thrones, if only in the last season when she is filmed with one correction outside of Winterfell in winter weather where she is pale, inside Vienterfell by candlelight and on Dragonstone, where is teal orange and almost red. And she is EVERYWHERE Daenerys and she has everything awesome with a skin tone at every location. Because it is important not to measure the ephemeral accuracy of color rendering, but to be appropriate, authentic and artistic. Do you shoot portraits of people or a piece of human skin?
I remember very well how the shade of color looked on the back of the car.
For example, Bayside Blue at Skyline R34. What he looked like when shooting and HOW it should look in the photo. Just like when shooting.
I repeat - I have good visual memory and a well-tuned monitor.
The fact that the monitor may be slightly mistakenly configured - I admit (although it is not my first year and not the first year I have double-checked the correctness of the color rendition), but I check the material not only on the monitor, but also on other devices.
It is important for me that the colors are the same as I remember it when shooting. Or perhaps slightly saturated in warm hues. The main thing is that the greens do not come out. I would generally add a preset to the cameras of individual manufacturers - to tone down the saturation of the green.
I do not watch TV shows, sorry no time.
It's difficult to agree with skinton - there are skin defects, banal lack of sleep - all this is visible. Here you already need to think.
some muddy holivar.
what are you guys arguing about? about animals or iron?
Coloring thing is accurate, easy to measure.
there are color spaces, there is color accuracy, saturation, etc.
There are tools for measuring and obtaining results. there are monitors with calibration, etc. etc.
for today the best matrices in terms of color gamut and color accuracy are CMOS - whether CCD fanboys like it or not)))
What else to discuss? moans that before the grass was greener, sausage 2.20 of paper, etc.? Or what exactly does anyone like? So this is pointless, everyone has his own vision and according to statistics 70% of the population has problems with distinguishing colors and midtones in particular.))))
For some reason, this is the topic CMOS VS CCD excites primarily Nikonists. Guys, understand, this is not a CMOS problem for Nikon cameras, this is a Nikon problem that can’t set the CMOS in its cameras to a sane color! )))
Therefore, the logic - old Nikon CCDs are good in color - new Nikon on CMOS are bad - it means bad CMOS - alas, it does not work))))
Try cameras with normal color profiling and you will be happy with CMOS)))
I read an interview with one of Nikon's engineers on one of the English-language resources.
And there was the following about color: expensive top-end cameras from the Pro segment Nikon seeks to adjust to real or less saturated than real colors. The cameras of the amateur segment are vice versa towards more saturated ones. Now we are talking about camera jpg and colors in RAW with the “BB AUTO” preset.
And this can really be seen on the same imaging resource by carefully looking at the color graphics. On PRO cameras, colors are more precisely tuned than on amateur ones.
Now I'm wondering how Canon adjusts its color profile for what reasons ...
For example, on the first or second dime or units. Okay, let's not ...
I'm not a fan of any of the brands, but it's just an interesting story - we shoot in 14-bit RAW, and then we turn this case into 8-bit jpg and upload these pictures somewhere. Where people watch them in a compressed form with compression of the spoiling color (as in VKontakte or Instagram). It is especially funny when you later find out on what technique this photo was taken. So that's what I mean - we shoot for ourselves and for people. And if this is a hobby, and not earnings, then the main thing is not what was filmed, but how it was filmed and that both themselves and people like these pictures.
And then another dilemma arises - maybe one thing is pleasant to yourself, but the main colors are brighter, more colorful and still look at these pictures from phones or laptops on TN matrices.
I agree with you, but here it constantly pops up 'they look at TN monitors and smartphones ...'
So, most modern smartphones (4-5 years old and newer), costing from $ 100-150, have just IPS matrices with quite sane colors, and significantly surpass those of inexpensive laptops (for some reason, all, or almost all laptops up to $ 1000 equipped with TN-matrices, although IPS is not much more expensive ...) and cheap monitors. TN matrices, of course, are very sad in terms of color and midtones (and there is no excuse for those 'photographers' who talk about color without having at least an inexpensive IPS monitor)
Not certainly in that way. in terms of color, all profiles on kmos at nikon were very sad, on nikon ru and other forums there were always holivars which developer to choose to pull out at least some color.
a breakthrough was the d850, which was doped in color for the profiles of kenon, and now this camera is rightfully considered the best among Nikons.
under the canon, they finished on Sony a7mk3, the new nine Panas and almost all the Olympuses.
One of the most popular inquiries on Western forums of sonnews is where to get a profile for a dormouse to get the color of Kenon.
Why does it all converge to the color profile of Kenon? It is most accurate and commercially successful, pleasing to the eye.
Like fanboys of other brands or not, alas, this is just a fact.
As for the bit depth, everything is very simple - here is a 4K video, it downsizes to 1080p and is comparable to what was originally 1080p - the difference is very noticeable. So I hope it's clear?
Well, of course, no BB or lightroom, in principle, can not return the color of which is not present or correct the exposure by channels (remember what a matrix is and how many colors there are on filters ...).
nikogda nebilo NIKON!! i da CCD lutchshe po tzvetu!!! a eshe lutchshe eto FOVEON.. NO ETO DRUGAYA ISTORYA!!!
Where is the article?
it's time to write about the MOS matrix
Is the article still updating?)
I think that the pictures presented by the Pokémon are just warm and it is always perceived more positively than cold ones.
The difference between cmos and ccd, in my practice, is that on d200 I can shoot without blur for 1/125 sec, on d300s only for at least 1/500 sec.
Very strange difference
“There are many things in the world, friend Horatio ...” © etc.
Having a D40, a D7000 and having recently acquired a battered D700 (finally), I did a comparison test. Just find out for yourself what the most tube SSD is, the most reviled kmos and where is the magic capacity of a full frame.
The lenses are different. Picture control settings are sat+1 everywhere. I slightly corrected the EV (+-0,5 based on the histogram) and the BB by eye in my native nx-d (laptop with a tn matrix)….
Picture #1:
Well, + - half a step, bb by eye, tweaked here, tweaked there - this is not a comparison, but a mockery
Well, if Arkady himself is already interested, then I’ll do it like the book says
bush?%(((
oho-ho
Picture #2
Picture #3
Conclusion: D40 is the coolest because it’s the lightest
What kind of “volume” etc. did you want to see on your bush, especially when filmed at infinity? Petrosyan is crying for you (not a photographer).
This looks like some kind of unfunny joke :)
Nice bush, looks normal even at infinity)). In general, the article is about color, and I wanted to say that I don’t see a noticeable difference in the picture between my cameras (within the error limits of the exposure meter and BB). Tomorrow I’ll try to post the “bush” shot in zero jpg.
please no need)))
So, by popular demand)))…
Lens Nikkor 50/1,8D, Zerojpg, picture control – SD, wb – cloudy, base ISO, f2,8
Intracameral jpg
D40, shutter speed 1/125 sec.
Subjectively, this one is nicer (at least from a cheap work monitor).
On the D700 the concrete under the bush below turned into yellow shades, and on the D7000 it turned green.
I'll have to watch it again at home.
Although, IMHO, it is better to compare in sunny weather and a different plot.
It also seems to me that with D40 the colors are purer or something. The rest have some shades
D700 1/125
D7000 1/60
At least you could post it in horizontal orientation)))
I don't know what the reason is. On cameras, auto-rotate is enabled. Displays correctly on all devices.
)))