The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

If CCD rendering can be achieved with CMOS where are the examples?

ErikKaffehr

Well-known member
Hi,

Comparing CCD with CMOS, are you comparing MFD to MFD or MFD to 135?

Comparing Phase One CCD with Phase One CMOS or Lead CCD with Leaf CMOS will eliminate a lot of variables.

Best regards
Erik

The noise characteristics of CCD and CMOS are certainly quite different. My CCD files have a more "random" noise structure while the sony CMOS files have a very uniform noise pattern. I guess that uniformity does play a part in how plasticky and artificial those files look out of the box.

The other thing I have noticed is how CCD highlights "sparkle" in a way CMOS highlights don't. The latter often gives speculars that are spread out like light hitting on a sheet of cellophane.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Hi,

Comparing CCD with CMOS, are you comparing MFD to MFD or MFD to 135?

Comparing Phase One CCD with Phase One CMOS or Leaf CCD with Leaf CMOS will eliminate a lot of variables.

Best regards
Erik
I think this hits the nail on the head Erik.

While my own preference for CCD has been based on 35mm comparisons (Older CCD cameras like a Contax N digital verses older CMOS Cameras of a similar small meg count … up to recently my M9 verses M240 comparisons), I think MFD may be another matter altogether.

Had I not semi-retired from commercial studio work, I'd seriously be looking at the Hasselblad H5D/50C Multi-shot and comparing it to the H5D/50 CDD Multi-shot … and doing so with an open mind.

I recently opted for a Leica S(006) CCD over the upcoming S(007) CMOS because the CCD is a known entity while the CMOS version isn't … yet. Plus a new (006) was half the price;)

I've become more patient with these expensive items as of late (semi-retirement does that), I'll let others be the real world beta testers for the next few years and then … maybe.

- Marc
 

UHDR

New member
I don't really have much to say regarding directly the question of CCD vs. CMOS, but I find it interesting that someone suggested the difference perceived by some might be due to a different noise pattern. I work in the field of medical imaging myself and am involved in the use of many diagnostic scanners of different brands. The image quality varies quite a lot from one piece of equipment to the next one, often in a way that is hard to explain verbally. One particular CT scanner seems to have much more noise in its images with a comparable radiation dose ("exposure") and equivalent image processing settings than a scanner by another brand. We discussed the IQ aspect with our physicists and according to their physics-magic-super-analysis (which I fail to really understand), the images visually appearing to have more noise actually had less. So the processing from "RAW" data does actually affect the perceived noise pattern quite a bit and can give subjectively quite different results, measurable or not. I guess this applies to visible light imaging as well.
That's a good point. i think to certain extend this is a bit like looking at sigma DPxM files. because there is no colour filter, each pixels are capture all details regardless colour. while this is good for most situation, some times looking at more "busy" scene, e.g. a tree, bush, brick wall with rough texture, there are so much details in those area. Almost confusing the mind/brain where to look. i suspect there is certain limitation with the brain processing power as well.
 

ErikKaffehr

Well-known member
Hi,

There are some reasons for asking.

  • There are probably differences in CFA (Color Filtera Array) designs
  • IR and UV-filtering affect reproduction and tonal separation on vegetation
  • Kodak and DALSA sensor are said to differ in colour rendition
  • CCD has tendency to channel leak
  • DSLRs mostly used with a four way beam splitter to reduce colour aliasing
  • MFDBs are often used with makers software, it is feasible that the make would try to make these profiles as close as possible.

Camera profiles play a major role, but it is possible that they may not overcome CFA limitations.

One interesting case was the original Leica M8 that head a very thin IR filter, with the result that it had tendency to produce bad colour on dark textiles. It could be handled with additional IR filtering, but a quick remedy was a modified profile that reduced the issue a lot, perhaps giving up on something else.

Best regards
Erik


I think this hits the nail on the head Erik.

While my own preference for CCD has been based on 35mm comparisons (Older CCD cameras like a Contax N digital verses older CMOS Cameras of a similar small meg count … up to recently my M9 verses M240 comparisons), I think MFD may be another matter altogether.

Had I not semi-retired from commercial studio work, I'd seriously be looking at the Hasselblad H5D/50C Multi-shot and comparing it to the H5D/50 CDD Multi-shot … and doing so with an open mind.

I recently opted for a Leica S(006) CCD over the upcoming S(007) CMOS because the CCD is a known entity while the CMOS version isn't … yet. Plus a new (006) was half the price;)

I've become more patient with these expensive items as of late (semi-retirement does that), I'll let others be the real world beta testers for the next few years and then … maybe.

- Marc
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Have to say after reviewing the Credo 50 I still have question marks on differences . Now that can be entirely up to Phase and Leaf in there design and algorithms to look like there CCD counterparts. I put more faith in trying to keep there products as close as possible otherwise its a marketing nightmare to deal with for example this works best with this type of work and that works better with the other type of work but if you do both well than buy this one. That's very complicated for dealers to sell like that. Going through what I shot in the review of the Credo 50 those daylight type files looked very similar to what I got on all 5 CCD sensor backs that I owned. Of course there are differences but I would not be betting on comments like there is a huge difference type stuff. I'm far more comfortable with a comment like this. If you shoot them side by side than sure you will see slight differences, but let's be honest that's not real life we only shoot one back at least most of us do and we are not comparing backs but shooting single images for ourselves than with profiles, raw processing technics and such who really knows. That's a really hard test and or review to do. End of the day does it really matter. If they process nicely and color , tone , DR and look are good than really that's all that matters. All the science really gets thrown out the door when looking at the final image. From me I'm just not that quick to say there are obvious differences . And I always liked CCD medium format images over CMOS but CMOS has always been a format change too to 35mm. Now we have both in medium format and without a really good side by side test and I mean a really well done one, I'm not adept to call a difference worth noting. Outside Higher ISO type looks, I'm just not so dang sure like I once was when it was Medium Format vs CMOS 35mm. It's just not so clear anymore. I'm not discounting any science stuff at all but end of day from my experience its a coin flip.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Honestly I would leave out the 35mm vs Medium format comments out that's a format size change , it don't count anymore. Now we are dealing with strictly medium format because those differences are not like the former reviews and tests. This is another ball game in a different park to play in. Now if you gain things like live view, higher ISO values and the backs seem very close than that's the real question us end users want to figure out before dropping a lot of money on. For me after that review of the Credo, I'm looking squarely at CMOS backs because you gain much better functionality and files being so close than that's a huge bonus.

Those are the real questions to be asking. Frankly I think the CCD vs CMOS has become more trivial than real. Now I'm going by shooting CCD for a long time and recently trying the CMOS sensor out but not side by side comparisons, so I'm working on memory and experience which certainly have a question mark but more to the point! I'm really questioning anything worth noticing which I did not see. That's all I can go by for now without really doing a major hard comparison .

Regardless of all this the end comment is this we asked for higher ISO and we asked for Live view, this is the only way to get it. So now you have the choice which shooting digital only since 1990 those choices don't come around often enough. To me this is something to celebrate.
 

Jacob CHP

New member
One interesting case was the original Leica M8 that head a very thin IR filter, with the result that it had tendency to produce bad colour on dark textiles. It could be handled with additional IR filtering, but a quick remedy was a modified profile that reduced the issue a lot, perhaps giving up on something else.
I'm using a filter on my M8.2!

Detail of a thing hold by a rig covered with black fabric (no filter)
M8.2, Visoflex III, Elmar 3.5/65, Auto-WB, JPEG
 

jonoslack

Active member
Those are the real questions to be asking. Frankly I think the CCD vs CMOS has become more trivial than real. Now I'm going by shooting CCD for a long time and recently trying the CMOS sensor out but not side by side comparisons, so I'm working on memory and experience which certainly have a question mark but more to the point! I'm really questioning anything worth noticing which I did not see. That's all I can go by for now without really doing a major hard comparison .
I couldn't agree more
 

dhazeghi

New member
Are the differences really so much bigger than say between a Canon 18MP CMOS APS-C and a Sony 16MP CMOS APS-C sensor? Getting the same response from different sensors, let alone different manufacturers is something I've yet to see.
 

ErikKaffehr

Well-known member
Hi,

A reasonable example of CMOS vs CCD is comparing Pentax 645D with 645Z. Imaging Resource tested both of these cameras and both support DNG. The imaging resource web site contains a few images with a ColorChecker, so DNG profiles can be generated for both cameras.

The steps I took were

- Generate a DNG Colour Profile for both cameras
- Apply the DNG Colour Profile to a Still Life shot from each camera
- White balance on second grey step on the CC in the still life shot
- Adjust second grey step on colour checker to same exposure

P645Z (Sony CMOS)

P645D (Kodak CCD)


Best regards
Erik
 

Egor

Member
sorry, but I see no "serious" difference between them. I have a direct comparison going on for studio product and art repro work going on in my studio right now and the only difference we see is that the CMOS chip cameras from Phase/Leaf are more productive for our workflow.
I am looking at Erik's test above on a calibrated EIZO and don't see a lick of difference either. Maybe a little more DR in the CMOS Pentax and a little more contrast in the CCD (but that could be lens, post-proc..etc...I could match without difficulty)
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Not seeing much of a difference either. The one thing I noticed testing the Credo 50 was my highlight warnings seemed to come up a little faster than what I remember from my CCD. So in effect going to the right of the histo maybe a bad idea to a certain degree. Just need to watch out for it and maybe keep your histo from blowing. Although this happened it was easy to bring things back down. That was the most obvious thing I noticed. In the sample above if the recovery on the CMOS highlight was brought down a touch it would be equal.
 

ErikKaffehr

Well-known member
Hi,

As a general comment on the Pentax 645D vs 645Z samples that was the closest comparison I could find between CCD and CMOS based sensors.

I would say that there are subtle differences between the two samples. Some of those differences comes from processing and some from the sensors themselves.

This example doesn't say much about specific aspects like skin tone either.

Most of us don't have access to a wide range of equipment. For instance, i have a bunch of Sony cameras and a single sample of the Phase One P45+,
which I am pretty happy with. But, I cannot say anything about say Phase One P65+ as that camera has a very different sensor coming from DALSA.

Personally, I shoot mostly landscape, so I have little idea about skin tones. I have been shooting P45+ and Sony SLT99 in parallel, and I feel that both work well. With the P45+ there is a definite 39 to 24 MP advantage. The rest? I don't know, it is very hard to make conclusions once I am outside the lab.

Best regards
Erik




sorry, but I see no "serious" difference between them. I have a direct comparison going on for studio product and art repro work going on in my studio right now and the only difference we see is that the CMOS chip cameras from Phase/Leaf are more productive for our workflow.
I am looking at Erik's test above on a calibrated EIZO and don't see a lick of difference either. Maybe a little more DR in the CMOS Pentax and a little more contrast in the CCD (but that could be lens, post-proc..etc...I could match without difficulty)
 

vjbelle

Well-known member
I own both a Credo 50 and Phase IQ180. I shot a Digital Color Checker SG lit in a Graphlite Executive Work Station. Both backs shot at ISO 100 using a Schneider 150 Digitar at f11. Opened in C1 8.01 and after white balancing both using the same Gray color patch the differences are very subtle as viewed on my Calibrated NEC PA272W. The black levels and white levels differ a little (Credo having brighter white level and darker black level). All in all very similar.

Victor
 

Shashin

Well-known member
Now, you then have to throw in the lighting variables of place, time of day, season, color influences in the scene (not just in the frame), slight variation in exposure, how someone processes them, and a bunch of other stuff, and the slight perceived difference in those two Pentax cameras will disappear (or be emphasized (but not because of the sensor, but because of variability (hard enough to something right right once, but twice?))). I doubt if I made random image from these two camera (not comparison pairs, but unique images), the only way people could tell the difference is to guess (you may be right 50% of the time, but equally wrong).
 
Top