Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

CCD versus CMOS

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 4:47:41 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

I think the support electronics and software has helped
CMOS achieve what it has in consumer cameras.

From http://www.dalsa.com/markets/ccd_vs_cmos.asp

CCDs offer superior image performance (as measured in quantum
efficiency and noise), and flexibility at the expense of system size.
They continue to rule in the applications that demand the highest
image quality, such as most industrial, scientific, and medical
applications.

CMOS imagers offer more integration (more functions on the chip),
lower power dissipation (at the chip level), and smaller system size
at the expense of image quality and flexibility. They are well-suited
to high-volume, space-constrained applications where image quality is
not paramount, such as security cameras, PC peripherals, toys, fax
machines, and some automotive applications.

More about : ccd versus cmos

May 12, 2005 6:04:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Sure glad Canon uses Cmos as the pictures are so noisy at High ISO.



"RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:l22781h96q3i55lgnmhe63kad8pk09rc65@4ax.com...
>I think the support electronics and software has helped
> CMOS achieve what it has in consumer cameras.
>
> From http://www.dalsa.com/markets/ccd_vs_cmos.asp
>
> CCDs offer superior image performance (as measured in quantum
> efficiency and noise), and flexibility at the expense of system size.
> They continue to rule in the applications that demand the highest
> image quality, such as most industrial, scientific, and medical
> applications.
>
> CMOS imagers offer more integration (more functions on the chip),
> lower power dissipation (at the chip level), and smaller system size
> at the expense of image quality and flexibility. They are well-suited
> to high-volume, space-constrained applications where image quality is
> not paramount, such as security cameras, PC peripherals, toys, fax
> machines, and some automotive applications.
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 11:51:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"John" <JF@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:QJ-dnQTJL5JUNR7fRVn-3Q@comcast.com...
> Sure glad Canon uses Cmos as the pictures are so noisy at High ISO.

That's either a very old article or the company whose web site it's on
hasn't mastered the intricacies of CMOS sensors.

Canon came up with quite a few advances to solve the problems of CMOS
sensors, including matching the on-chip amplifiers, having an A/D converter
at each pixel location, and improving the microlenses. They also do
subtraction of the fixed pattern noise from the image noise, to cancel out
the noise.

Eliminating the drawbacks of CMOS sensors, while keeping the advantages of
much higher speed, and less blooming and smearing, is what has moved CMOS
ahead of CCD, at least in the case of Canon. From what we've seen of some
other CMOS sensors from Sony, not all CMOS sensors are created equal.
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 11:51:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Thu, 12 May 2005 19:51:25 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf"
<scharf.steven@linkearth.net> wrote:

>"John" <JF@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:QJ-dnQTJL5JUNR7fRVn-3Q@comcast.com...
>> Sure glad Canon uses Cmos as the pictures are so noisy at High ISO.
>
>That's either a very old article or the company whose web site it's on
>hasn't mastered the intricacies of CMOS sensors.
>
>Canon came up with quite a few advances to solve the problems of CMOS
>sensors, including matching the on-chip amplifiers, having an A/D converter
>at each pixel location, and improving the microlenses. They also do
>subtraction of the fixed pattern noise from the image noise, to cancel out
>the noise.
>
>Eliminating the drawbacks of CMOS sensors, while keeping the advantages of
>much higher speed, and less blooming and smearing, is what has moved CMOS
>ahead of CCD, at least in the case of Canon. From what we've seen of some
>other CMOS sensors from Sony, not all CMOS sensors are created equal.
>

They do have something you might recognize;

http://www.dalsa.com/pi/products/productdetails.asp?Pro...
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 11:51:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Thu, 12 May 2005 19:51:25 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf"
<scharf.steven@linkearth.net> wrote:

>"John" <JF@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:QJ-dnQTJL5JUNR7fRVn-3Q@comcast.com...
>> Sure glad Canon uses Cmos as the pictures are so noisy at High ISO.
>
>That's either a very old article or the company whose web site it's on
>hasn't mastered the intricacies of CMOS sensors.
>
>Canon came up with quite a few advances to solve the problems of CMOS
>sensors, including matching the on-chip amplifiers, having an A/D converter
>at each pixel location, and improving the microlenses. They also do
>subtraction of the fixed pattern noise from the image noise, to cancel out
>the noise.
>
>Eliminating the drawbacks of CMOS sensors, while keeping the advantages of
>much higher speed, and less blooming and smearing, is what has moved CMOS
>ahead of CCD, at least in the case of Canon. From what we've seen of some
>other CMOS sensors from Sony, not all CMOS sensors are created equal.
>

I wonder what this kit goes for?
Apparently, a frightening enough price so you
have to call them to find out.

http://tinyurl.com/buyzc
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 11:51:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

RichA wrote:

> On Thu, 12 May 2005 19:51:25 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf"
> <scharf.steven@linkearth.net> wrote:
>
>
>>"John" <JF@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>news:QJ-dnQTJL5JUNR7fRVn-3Q@comcast.com...
>>
>>>Sure glad Canon uses Cmos as the pictures are so noisy at High ISO.
>>
>>That's either a very old article or the company whose web site it's on
>>hasn't mastered the intricacies of CMOS sensors.
>>
>>Canon came up with quite a few advances to solve the problems of CMOS
>>sensors, including matching the on-chip amplifiers, having an A/D converter
>>at each pixel location, and improving the microlenses. They also do
>>subtraction of the fixed pattern noise from the image noise, to cancel out
>>the noise.
>>
>>Eliminating the drawbacks of CMOS sensors, while keeping the advantages of
>>much higher speed, and less blooming and smearing, is what has moved CMOS
>>ahead of CCD, at least in the case of Canon. From what we've seen of some
>>other CMOS sensors from Sony, not all CMOS sensors are created equal.
>>
>
>
> They do have something you might recognize;
>
> http://www.dalsa.com/pi/products/productdetails.asp?Pro...


FTF4052C 22-Megapixel Color CCD
What is that used in?


--
Paul Furman
http://www.edgehill.net/1
san francisco native plants
May 13, 2005 12:59:22 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

RichA <none@none.com> wrote in news:l22781h96q3i55lgnmhe63kad8pk09rc65@
4ax.com:

> I think the support electronics and software has helped
> CMOS achieve what it has in consumer cameras.
>
> From http://www.dalsa.com/markets/ccd_vs_cmos.asp
>
> CCDs offer superior image performance (as measured in quantum
> efficiency and noise), and flexibility at the expense of system size.
> They continue to rule in the applications that demand the highest
> image quality, such as most industrial, scientific, and medical
> applications.
>
> CMOS imagers offer more integration (more functions on the chip),
> lower power dissipation (at the chip level), and smaller system size
> at the expense of image quality and flexibility. They are well-suited
> to high-volume, space-constrained applications where image quality is
> not paramount, such as security cameras, PC peripherals, toys, fax
> machines, and some automotive applications.

Did you check the link to a pdf with more info? The info comes from an
article that appeared in the magazine "Photonics Spectra" in January 2001.
The info was probably fairly correct when the article was written nearly
4.5 years ago.



--
Mark Heyes (New Zealand)
See my pics at www.gigatech.co.nz (last updated 3-May-05)
"There are 10 types of people, those that
understand binary and those that don't"
Anonymous
May 13, 2005 2:03:53 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Thu, 12 May 2005 20:59:22 GMT, MarkH <markat@atdot.dot.dot> wrote:

>RichA <none@none.com> wrote in news:l22781h96q3i55lgnmhe63kad8pk09rc65@
>4ax.com:
>
>> I think the support electronics and software has helped
>> CMOS achieve what it has in consumer cameras.
>>
>> From http://www.dalsa.com/markets/ccd_vs_cmos.asp
>>
>> CCDs offer superior image performance (as measured in quantum
>> efficiency and noise), and flexibility at the expense of system size.
>> They continue to rule in the applications that demand the highest
>> image quality, such as most industrial, scientific, and medical
>> applications.
>>
>> CMOS imagers offer more integration (more functions on the chip),
>> lower power dissipation (at the chip level), and smaller system size
>> at the expense of image quality and flexibility. They are well-suited
>> to high-volume, space-constrained applications where image quality is
>> not paramount, such as security cameras, PC peripherals, toys, fax
>> machines, and some automotive applications.
>
>Did you check the link to a pdf with more info? The info comes from an
>article that appeared in the magazine "Photonics Spectra" in January 2001.
>The info was probably fairly correct when the article was written nearly
>4.5 years ago.

Dalsa is one of the premier suppliers of top end sensors.
They should probably pull the article themselves if it's
no longer current. What part of it is incorrect now
as opposed to 4 years back?
-Rich
Anonymous
May 13, 2005 2:06:06 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Paul Furman wrote:

> FTF4052C 22-Megapixel Color CCD
> What is that used in?

Specifically, not sure, but:

Could be Mamiya ZD Back and Mamiya ZD camera.
http://www.mamiya.com/cameras.asp?id=1&id2=2127 (mentions DALSA)

Creo / (Leaf) (who supply Mamiya for some digital imaging may also use
it in other products).
http://www.creo.com/global/products/digital_photography...
Mentions DALSA

But Kodak is in the midst of acquiring Creo, so the Mamiya future source
is not certain. OTOH, Kodak would probably happily supply Mamiya.

The H1 (Hasselblad) Imacon sensor is little bit larger (1mm each dim),
but Creo / Leaf also make a back for the H1 (I'm not sure about sensor
dimensions, however)

Cheers,
Alan



--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
May 13, 2005 5:14:28 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

It would have to be one of the medium format bodies ... image size is
36.1mm x 48.1mm.




Description

DALSA's FTF4052C 22-Megapixel sensor raises the performance bar once more.
As the world's first commercially available 22-Megapixel sensor, the
FTF4052C provides the highest possible image quality, with lower dark
current, lower noise, and higher dynamic range than any competitor. And
with up to four outputs delivering up to 3.6 frames per second, it provides
industry-leading frame rates. High resolution, high speed, high dynamic
range, robust antiblooming, low noise, and the best, most stable color
performance available--the FTF4052C combines these features in the world's
best 22-Megapixel sensor.
FTF4052C Specifications

Specification Value

Resolution: 4008(H) x 5344(V), 21418752 pixels
Pixel Size: 9µm x 9µm
Active Area: 36.1mm x 48.1mm
Dynamic Range: >72dB linear
# Outputs: 4
Max. Frame Rate: 3.6fps
Total Data Rate: 100MHz
Anonymous
May 13, 2005 5:14:29 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

RSD99 wrote:

> It would have to be one of the medium format bodies ... image size is
> 36.1mm x 48.1mm.
>
>
>
>
> Description
>
> DALSA's FTF4052C 22-Megapixel sensor raises the performance bar once more.
> As the world's first commercially available 22-Megapixel sensor, the
> FTF4052C provides the highest possible image quality, with lower dark
> current, lower noise, and higher dynamic range than any competitor. And
> with up to four outputs delivering up to 3.6 frames per second, it provides
> industry-leading frame rates. High resolution, high speed, high dynamic
> range, robust antiblooming, low noise, and the best, most stable color
> performance available--the FTF4052C combines these features in the world's
> best 22-Megapixel sensor.
> FTF4052C Specifications
>
> Specification Value
>
> Resolution: 4008(H) x 5344(V), 21418752 pixels
> Pixel Size: 9µm x 9µm
> Active Area: 36.1mm x 48.1mm
> Dynamic Range: >72dB linear
> # Outputs: 4
> Max. Frame Rate: 3.6fps
> Total Data Rate: 100MHz


Surely not anything I can afford down here on planet earth <grin>.


--
Paul Furman
http://www.edgehill.net/1
san francisco native plants
May 13, 2005 5:14:29 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

But, doesn't the FTF4027C look tempting? 11 Megapixels for a full frame
35mm sized sensor would suit me just fine...

"RSD99" <rsdwla.NOSPAM@gte.net> wrote in message
news:UbTge.21522$Fn1.293@trnddc03...
> It would have to be one of the medium format bodies ... image size is
> 36.1mm x 48.1mm.
>
>
>
>
> Description
>
> DALSA's FTF4052C 22-Megapixel sensor raises the performance bar once more.
> As the world's first commercially available 22-Megapixel sensor, the
> FTF4052C provides the highest possible image quality, with lower dark
> current, lower noise, and higher dynamic range than any competitor. And
> with up to four outputs delivering up to 3.6 frames per second, it
> provides
> industry-leading frame rates. High resolution, high speed, high dynamic
> range, robust antiblooming, low noise, and the best, most stable color
> performance available--the FTF4052C combines these features in the world's
> best 22-Megapixel sensor.
> FTF4052C Specifications
>
> Specification Value
>
> Resolution: 4008(H) x 5344(V), 21418752 pixels
> Pixel Size: 9µm x 9µm
> Active Area: 36.1mm x 48.1mm
> Dynamic Range: >72dB linear
> # Outputs: 4
> Max. Frame Rate: 3.6fps
> Total Data Rate: 100MHz
>
>
>
Anonymous
May 13, 2005 5:14:30 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

george wrote:

> But, doesn't the FTF4027C look tempting? 11 Megapixels for a full frame
> 35mm sized sensor would suit me just fine...


And what is that used in?
<clasping wallet with sweaty hands>




>
> "RSD99" <rsdwla.NOSPAM@gte.net> wrote in message
> news:UbTge.21522$Fn1.293@trnddc03...
>
>>It would have to be one of the medium format bodies ... image size is
>>36.1mm x 48.1mm.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Description
>>
>>DALSA's FTF4052C 22-Megapixel sensor raises the performance bar once more.
>>As the world's first commercially available 22-Megapixel sensor, the
>>FTF4052C provides the highest possible image quality, with lower dark
>>current, lower noise, and higher dynamic range than any competitor. And
>>with up to four outputs delivering up to 3.6 frames per second, it
>>provides
>>industry-leading frame rates. High resolution, high speed, high dynamic
>>range, robust antiblooming, low noise, and the best, most stable color
>>performance available--the FTF4052C combines these features in the world's
>>best 22-Megapixel sensor.
>>FTF4052C Specifications
>>
>>Specification Value
>>
>>Resolution: 4008(H) x 5344(V), 21418752 pixels
>>Pixel Size: 9µm x 9µm
>>Active Area: 36.1mm x 48.1mm
>>Dynamic Range: >72dB linear
>># Outputs: 4
>>Max. Frame Rate: 3.6fps
>>Total Data Rate: 100MHz
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

--
Paul Furman
http://www.edgehill.net/1
san francisco native plants
May 13, 2005 6:27:13 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <xISdnc6VVtV_YB7fRVn-3Q@speakeasy.net>,
Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote:

>FTF4052C 22-Megapixel Color CCD
>What is that used in?

Mamiya
May 13, 2005 8:07:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:l22781h96q3i55lgnmhe63kad8pk09rc65@4ax.com...
> I think the support electronics and software has helped
> CMOS achieve what it has in consumer cameras.
>
> From http://www.dalsa.com/markets/ccd_vs_cmos.asp
>
> CCDs offer superior image performance (as measured in quantum
> efficiency and noise), and flexibility at the expense of system size.
> They continue to rule in the applications that demand the highest
> image quality, such as most industrial, scientific, and medical
> applications.
>
> CMOS imagers offer more integration (more functions on the chip),
> lower power dissipation (at the chip level), and smaller system size
> at the expense of image quality and flexibility. They are well-suited
> to high-volume, space-constrained applications where image quality is
> not paramount, such as security cameras, PC peripherals, toys, fax
> machines, and some automotive applications.

Yeah, I guess the Canon 1D, 1Ds MkII etc are not high-quality image
applications. It must be that "support electronics" of which you speak.

Keep up the quality posts though....

Musty.
May 13, 2005 8:27:47 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

RichA <none@none.com> wrote in
news:sm2881lbsblj721hu0om7ndsfi9d141kvp@4ax.com:

> What part of it is incorrect now
> as opposed to 4 years back?

Are you serious?

Quote:
"CMOS imagers offer more integration (more functions on the chip), lower
power dissipation (at the chip level), and smaller system size at the
expense of image quality and flexibility. They are well-suited to high-
volume, space-constrained applications where image quality is not
paramount, such as security cameras, PC peripherals, toys, fax machines,
and some automotive applications."

I know few people that would consider the Canon 1DsMkII to be a security
camera, PC peripheral or toy.

Quote:
"the money and attention concentrated on CMOS imagers means that their
performance will continue to improve, eventually blurring the line
between CCD and CMOS image quality. But for the forseeable future, CCDs
and CMOS will remain complementary."

The eventual blurring of the line between CCD and CMOS image quality is
already here. The Canon 350D, 20D, 1DMkII and 1DsMkII all use CMOS
sensors and all compete well against the Nikon, Minolta and Pentax
rivals. The Canon cameras offer better high-ISO performance with lower
noise. The Canon 1DsMkII at 16MPix is a very high resolution camera, in
fact it offers the highest resolution out of all 35mm format cameras.

The feature and performance comparison chart at the bottom of the page
lists many out-of-date comparisons that Canon have since blown away.

4 Years ago there were how many top quality digital cameras using CMOS
sensors? It seems the Canon D30 announced in May of 2000 was the first
camera to show how good a CMOS sensor could be.

In October of 2000 Phil Askey wrote:
"CMOS has for a long time been seen as the future of imager devices,
however until now they've been very low resolution, had poor image
quality and have been difficult to manufacture. Somehow Canon have
managed to produce a CMOS sensor which not only has the pixel count but
is big enough (APS sized) to be used practically in an SLR."

I don't know exactly when the Dalsa article was written or whether they
knew anything about the Canon D30 at the time. But by the end of 2000
the article was out of date and Canon had conclusively proven that it
was possible to use CMOS sensors for high quality photography.


--
Mark Heyes (New Zealand)
See my pics at www.gigatech.co.nz (last updated 3-May-05)
"There are 10 types of people, those that
understand binary and those that don't"
Anonymous
May 13, 2005 4:29:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Fri, 13 May 2005 04:27:47 GMT, MarkH <markat@atdot.dot.dot> wrote:

>RichA <none@none.com> wrote in
>news:sm2881lbsblj721hu0om7ndsfi9d141kvp@4ax.com:
>
>> What part of it is incorrect now
>> as opposed to 4 years back?
>
>Are you serious?
>
>Quote:
>"CMOS imagers offer more integration (more functions on the chip), lower
>power dissipation (at the chip level), and smaller system size at the
>expense of image quality and flexibility. They are well-suited to high-
>volume, space-constrained applications where image quality is not
>paramount, such as security cameras, PC peripherals, toys, fax machines,
>and some automotive applications."
>
>I know few people that would consider the Canon 1DsMkII to be a security
>camera, PC peripheral or toy.
>
>Quote:
>"the money and attention concentrated on CMOS imagers means that their
>performance will continue to improve, eventually blurring the line
>between CCD and CMOS image quality. But for the forseeable future, CCDs
>and CMOS will remain complementary."
>
>The eventual blurring of the line between CCD and CMOS image quality is
>already here. The Canon 350D, 20D, 1DMkII and 1DsMkII all use CMOS
>sensors and all compete well against the Nikon, Minolta and Pentax
>rivals. The Canon cameras offer better high-ISO performance with lower
>noise. The Canon 1DsMkII at 16MPix is a very high resolution camera, in
>fact it offers the highest resolution out of all 35mm format cameras.
>
>The feature and performance comparison chart at the bottom of the page
>lists many out-of-date comparisons that Canon have since blown away.
>
>4 Years ago there were how many top quality digital cameras using CMOS
>sensors? It seems the Canon D30 announced in May of 2000 was the first
>camera to show how good a CMOS sensor could be.
>
>In October of 2000 Phil Askey wrote:
>"CMOS has for a long time been seen as the future of imager devices,
>however until now they've been very low resolution, had poor image
>quality and have been difficult to manufacture. Somehow Canon have
>managed to produce a CMOS sensor which not only has the pixel count but
>is big enough (APS sized) to be used practically in an SLR."
>
>I don't know exactly when the Dalsa article was written or whether they
>knew anything about the Canon D30 at the time. But by the end of 2000
>the article was out of date and Canon had conclusively proven that it
>was possible to use CMOS sensors for high quality photography.

Well, I know Kodak recently "bought into" CMOS technology
so maybe they've seen the light?
-Rich
Anonymous
May 13, 2005 4:58:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Steven M. Scharf" <scharf.steven@linkearth.net> writes:

> "John" <JF@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:QJ-dnQTJL5JUNR7fRVn-3Q@comcast.com...
> > Sure glad Canon uses Cmos as the pictures are so noisy at High ISO.
>
> That's either a very old article or the company whose web site it's on
> hasn't mastered the intricacies of CMOS sensors.
>
> Canon came up with quite a few advances to solve the problems of CMOS
> sensors, including matching the on-chip amplifiers, having an A/D converter
> at each pixel location,

Really? Doesn't that just kill the fill factor? How do they get all
those bits off the chip? For, say, an EOS 1D Mark II, that would be
about 70MHz.

> and improving the microlenses. They also do
> subtraction of the fixed pattern noise from the image noise, to cancel out
> the noise.

As does everyone else. You can't get an acceptable image without it.

> Eliminating the drawbacks of CMOS sensors, while keeping the advantages of
> much higher speed,

I'm not so sure about that. Notice that the original Canon EOS 1D had
a CCD, which I believe was needed to meet its goal for
frames-per-second.

> and less blooming and smearing, is what has moved CMOS
> ahead of CCD, at least in the case of Canon. From what we've seen of some
> other CMOS sensors from Sony, not all CMOS sensors are created equal.

I think the real advantages of CMOS are cost, power consumption, and
the chance to integrate more functions in the imager.

--
-Stephen H. Westin
Any information or opinions in this message are mine: they do not
represent the position of Cornell University or any of its sponsors.
Anonymous
May 13, 2005 5:04:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> writes:

> Paul Furman wrote:
>
> > FTF4052C 22-Megapixel Color CCD
> > What is that used in?
>
> Specifically, not sure, but:
>
> Could be Mamiya ZD Back and Mamiya ZD camera.
> http://www.mamiya.com/cameras.asp?id=1&id2=2127 (mentions DALSA)
>
> Creo / (Leaf) (who supply Mamiya for some digital imaging may also use
> it in other products).
> http://www.creo.com/global/products/digital_photography...
> Mentions DALSA
>
> But Kodak is in the midst of acquiring Creo, so the Mamiya future
> source is not certain. OTOH, Kodak would probably happily supply
> Mamiya.

....with their own 22MP CCD.
<http://www.kodak.com/global/en/digital/ccd/products/ful...;

> The H1 (Hasselblad) Imacon sensor is little bit larger (1mm each dim),
> but Creo / Leaf also make a back for the H1 (I'm not sure about sensor
> dimensions, however)

38.8mm (H) x 50.0mm (V), perhaps? That's the size of the Kodak
KAF-22000CE. 4080 x 5440 active sensels, compared to the 4008 x 5344
of the Dalsa chip.

--
-Stephen H. Westin
Any information or opinions in this message are mine: they do not
represent the position of Cornell University or any of its sponsors.
Anonymous
May 13, 2005 6:35:02 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

westin@graphics.cornell.nospam.edu wrote:

> Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> writes:
>
>>Could be Mamiya ZD Back and Mamiya ZD camera.
>>http://www.mamiya.com/cameras.asp?id=1&id2=2127 (mentions DALSA)
>>
>>Creo / (Leaf) (who supply Mamiya for some digital imaging may also use
>>it in other products).
>>http://www.creo.com/global/products/digital_photography...
>>Mentions DALSA
>>
>>But Kodak is in the midst of acquiring Creo, so the Mamiya future
>>source is not certain. OTOH, Kodak would probably happily supply
>>Mamiya.
>
>
> ...with their own 22MP CCD.
> <http://www.kodak.com/global/en/digital/ccd/products/ful...;

Kudos for digging deeper. Having said that, in designing around a Creo
/ Leaf sensor, Mamiya would certainly have an agreement with them for
supply. Such agreements are always worded to protect in the instance of
a supplier being acquired. The supplier must continue to supply per the
agreement under reasonable conditions.

Kodak, in buying Creo, would review all supply agreements to determine
liabilities as part of due dilligence.


>
>>The H1 (Hasselblad) Imacon sensor is little bit larger (1mm each dim),
>>but Creo / Leaf also make a back for the H1 (I'm not sure about sensor
>>dimensions, however)
>
>
> 38.8mm (H) x 50.0mm (V), perhaps? That's the size of the Kodak
> KAF-22000CE. 4080 x 5440 active sensels, compared to the 4008 x 5344
> of the Dalsa chip.

No idea where Imacon get the sensor.

Cheers,
Alan.



--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
May 14, 2005 7:03:52 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

RichA <none@none.com> wrote in news:ael9819kja8tgjismv6u9vg08rusqdgu4q@
4ax.com:

> Well, I know Kodak recently "bought into" CMOS technology
> so maybe they've seen the light?
> -Rich

They most likely know what Canon has achieved with CMOS sensors and
therefore know what is possible. Whether they achieve similar or better
results is yet to be seen.



--
Mark Heyes (New Zealand)
See my pics at www.gigatech.co.nz (last updated 3-May-05)
"There are 10 types of people, those that
understand binary and those that don't"
Anonymous
May 14, 2005 7:03:53 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Sat, 14 May 2005 03:03:52 GMT, MarkH <markat@atdot.dot.dot> wrote:

>RichA <none@none.com> wrote in news:ael9819kja8tgjismv6u9vg08rusqdgu4q@
>4ax.com:
>
>> Well, I know Kodak recently "bought into" CMOS technology
>> so maybe they've seen the light?
>> -Rich
>
>They most likely know what Canon has achieved with CMOS sensors and
>therefore know what is possible. Whether they achieve similar or better
>results is yet to be seen.

I don't know. How many sensors has Canon put on space probes?
-Rich
May 14, 2005 7:11:48 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

westin@graphics.cornell.nospam.edu wrote in
news:s0wtq3ysf4.fsf@diesel.graphics.cornell.edu:

> "Steven M. Scharf" <scharf.steven@linkearth.net> writes:
>
>> Eliminating the drawbacks of CMOS sensors, while keeping the
>> advantages of much higher speed,
>
> I'm not so sure about that. Notice that the original Canon EOS 1D had
> a CCD, which I believe was needed to meet its goal for
> frames-per-second.

But the 1DMkII can beat the original 1D while taking 8MPix images.

Also Canon had problems getting the speed they wanted with the 1D and had
to divide the sensor down the middle with a sensor readout on each side
reading out half the sensor.

As far as I can work out Canon used a 3rd party CCD sensor for the 1D so
they could make it, after that they worked hard at the problem and
developed their own CMOS sensor that could take images at 8.5 fps while
providing twice the resolution of the old CCD in the 1D.

What CCD sensors are available today that can transfer the data as fast as
the Canon 1DMkII or 1DsMkII (both about the same speed - 8MPix at 8fps is
the same rate of transfer as 16MPix at 4fps)?

--
Mark Heyes (New Zealand)
See my pics at www.gigatech.co.nz (last updated 3-May-05)
"There are 10 types of people, those that
understand binary and those that don't"
May 14, 2005 12:05:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

RichA <none@none.com> wrote in news:D ota811k6hq2mcc1ec855hh7kh1hjjf75k@
4ax.com:

> I don't know. How many sensors has Canon put on space probes?
> -Rich

I don't know. Is Canon in the business of putting sensors on space probes?

Are you saying that if Canon had the contract to put sensors on space
probes, they could not do it?

If Canon are incapable of putting sensors on space probes, what effect
would that have on digital SLR systems?

Are you saying that putting sensors on space probes is relevant to this
group?

Can you show anywhere in the charter for rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
where the space probes are mentioned as being relevant to the discussions?

Would you be willing to concede that you space probe question has no place
in this discussion?

If you have no relevant point to make then why did you bother posting?


Just some questions for you to think about.


--
Mark Heyes (New Zealand)
See my pics at www.gigatech.co.nz (last updated 3-May-05)
"There are 10 types of people, those that
understand binary and those that don't"
Anonymous
May 14, 2005 12:05:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Sat, 14 May 2005 08:05:26 GMT, MarkH <markat@atdot.dot.dot> wrote:

>RichA <none@none.com> wrote in news:D ota811k6hq2mcc1ec855hh7kh1hjjf75k@
>4ax.com:
>
>> I don't know. How many sensors has Canon put on space probes?
>> -Rich
>
>I don't know. Is Canon in the business of putting sensors on space probes?
>
>Are you saying that if Canon had the contract to put sensors on space
>probes, they could not do it?
>
>If Canon are incapable of putting sensors on space probes, what effect
>would that have on digital SLR systems?
>
>Are you saying that putting sensors on space probes is relevant to this
>group?
>
>Can you show anywhere in the charter for rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
>where the space probes are mentioned as being relevant to the discussions?
>
>Would you be willing to concede that you space probe question has no place
>in this discussion?
>
>If you have no relevant point to make then why did you bother posting?
>
>
>Just some questions for you to think about.

Simple; Any company that can produce sensors considered the best on
the planet in terms of quality, etc, has the right to offer an opinion
on sensors in general.
-Rich
May 14, 2005 1:07:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <iteb815tm6853rkevegls8brob54bueauq@4ax.com>,
RichA <none@none.com> wrote:

>>Just some questions for you to think about.
>
>Simple; Any company that can produce sensors considered the best on
>the planet in terms of quality, etc, has the right to offer an opinion
>on sensors in general.

Just because a component makes it into an aerospace engineering project,
doesn't mean it's absolutely the best thing available in its category.
It just means it offers the best performance to the budget, and will
function at or above the tolerances for which it is specified.

I don't know if Canon plays in that marketplace or not, but if they
don't compete there, it could be for any number of reasons, and most of
them have less to do with quality and more to do with positioning in the
marketplace and how agressively they pursue the contracts.

If you can get by without doing defense or aerospace, it's not
inconceivable that you'd be better off.
Anonymous
May 14, 2005 2:43:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

MarkH <markat@atdot.dot.dot> wrote:

>As far as I can work out Canon used a 3rd party CCD sensor for the 1D so
>they could make it, after that they worked hard at the problem and
>developed their own CMOS sensor that could take images at 8.5 fps while
>providing twice the resolution of the old CCD in the 1D.


Twice the resolution?

If you double the pixel count it increases resolution by 1.41 times,
1.41 being the square root of two. If you want to double the
resolution, you need to increase the pixel count by a factor of 4,
meaning that you need to go from 4 million to 16 million pixels.
May 14, 2005 3:02:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Tony Polson <tp@nospam.net> wrote in
news:6thb81995t8pnmdidrfvib5hm850lgtb82@4ax.com:

> MarkH <markat@atdot.dot.dot> wrote:
>
>>As far as I can work out Canon used a 3rd party CCD sensor for the 1D so
>>they could make it, after that they worked hard at the problem and
>>developed their own CMOS sensor that could take images at 8.5 fps while
>>providing twice the resolution of the old CCD in the 1D.
>
>
> Twice the resolution?
>
> If you double the pixel count it increases resolution by 1.41 times,
> 1.41 being the square root of two. If you want to double the
> resolution, you need to increase the pixel count by a factor of 4,
> meaning that you need to go from 4 million to 16 million pixels.

Sorry, I meant twice the areal resolution, which is of course only 1.41x
the linear resolution. Although an extra 40% linear resolution is not
insignificant.

But my point was that Canon managed to make an 8MPix CMOS sensor that was
faster than the previous 4MPix CCD sensor.


--
Mark Heyes (New Zealand)
See my pics at www.gigatech.co.nz (last updated 3-May-05)
"There are 10 types of people, those that
understand binary and those that don't"
Anonymous
May 14, 2005 4:57:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

MarkH <markat@atdot.dot.dot> wrote:
>Tony Polson wrote;
>
>> Twice the resolution?
>>
>> If you double the pixel count it increases resolution by 1.41 times,
>> 1.41 being the square root of two. If you want to double the
>> resolution, you need to increase the pixel count by a factor of 4,
>> meaning that you need to go from 4 million to 16 million pixels.
>
>Sorry, I meant twice the areal resolution, which is of course only 1.41x
>the linear resolution. Although an extra 40% linear resolution is not
>insignificant.

Not insignificant, agreed. Just not double.

>But my point was that Canon managed to make an 8MPix CMOS sensor that was
>faster than the previous 4MPix CCD sensor.

Moore's Law, as applied to DSLRs.

As the market leader, Canon will continue to produce something "twice
as good" every couple of years, and everyone else will eventually
follow. Evolution is not revolution.

We should not be amazed unless someone does something radically better
than that.
May 14, 2005 5:24:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Tony Polson <tp@nospam.net> wrote in
news:llpb819k513op18kv31umh3p3hcu5nh3i8@4ax.com:

> MarkH <markat@atdot.dot.dot> wrote:
>>Tony Polson wrote;
>>
>>> Twice the resolution?
>>>
>>> If you double the pixel count it increases resolution by 1.41 times,
>>> 1.41 being the square root of two. If you want to double the
>>> resolution, you need to increase the pixel count by a factor of 4,
>>> meaning that you need to go from 4 million to 16 million pixels.
>>
>>Sorry, I meant twice the areal resolution, which is of course only
>>1.41x the linear resolution. Although an extra 40% linear resolution
>>is not insignificant.
>
> Not insignificant, agreed. Just not double.
>
>>But my point was that Canon managed to make an 8MPix CMOS sensor that
>>was faster than the previous 4MPix CCD sensor.
>
> Moore's Law, as applied to DSLRs.
>
> As the market leader, Canon will continue to produce something "twice
> as good" every couple of years, and everyone else will eventually
> follow. Evolution is not revolution.
>
> We should not be amazed unless someone does something radically better
> than that.

This is all fine, except that my point was made in response to a post about
the fast sensor in the 1D being a CCD rather than a CMOS, which was in
reply to a post suggesting that the CMOS sensors were faster.

My point is that the CCD sensors don't seem to be faster when you consider
that the 1DMkII with its CMOS sensor achieves such a good speed at twice
the amount of data captured compared to the 1D with its CCD sensor.


--
Mark Heyes (New Zealand)
See my pics at www.gigatech.co.nz (last updated 3-May-05)
"There are 10 types of people, those that
understand binary and those that don't"
Anonymous
May 14, 2005 7:19:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Sat, 14 May 2005 09:07:05 GMT, fishbowl@conservatory.com (james)
wrote:

>In article <iteb815tm6853rkevegls8brob54bueauq@4ax.com>,
>RichA <none@none.com> wrote:
>
>>>Just some questions for you to think about.
>>
>>Simple; Any company that can produce sensors considered the best on
>>the planet in terms of quality, etc, has the right to offer an opinion
>>on sensors in general.
>
>Just because a component makes it into an aerospace engineering project,
>doesn't mean it's absolutely the best thing available in its category.
>It just means it offers the best performance to the budget, and will
>function at or above the tolerances for which it is specified.

Uh, somehow when designing the $700m Mars Rover project I don't think
they looked at two CCDs and said, "This one's $10,000 and this one is
$5,000, lets go with the cheaper one."

>
>I don't know if Canon plays in that marketplace or not, but if they
>don't compete there, it could be for any number of reasons, and most of
>them have less to do with quality and more to do with positioning in the
>marketplace and how agressively they pursue the contracts.
>

Texas instruments used to have specifications for different grades of
CCDs. It's pretty simple; The best grades could not be included in
consumer goods, they are just too expensive. A 1k x 1k medical grade
CCD probably still costs $5000-$10000, so, all consumer goods
get lower grade products. I'm sure Canon could make better sensors
with whatever technology they use, but you won't find them in their
cameras. Maybe in their broadcasting cameras though.
-Rich
Anonymous
May 15, 2005 3:33:32 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <ghjc811ghuamq5r1b13u7o0edknq6dilco@4ax.com>,
RichA <none@none.com> wrote:
>I'm sure Canon could make better sensors
>with whatever technology they use, but you won't find them in their
>cameras. Maybe in their broadcasting cameras though.

Yeah right, a 16 Mpixel sensor that only does 4 frames/s in a broadcast
camera.


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
Anonymous
May 15, 2005 7:21:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Sat, 14 May 2005 15:19:39 -0400, RichA <none@none.com> wrote:

>Uh, somehow when designing the $700m Mars Rover project I don't think
>they looked at two CCDs and said, "This one's $10,000 and this one is
>$5,000, lets go with the cheaper one."

This is, in fact, _exactly_ what they do. As long as both CCD:s meet
the specifications, that is.

Jan Böhme
Korrekta personuppgifter är att betrakta som journalistik.
Felaktigheter utgör naturligtvis skönlitteratur.
Anonymous
May 15, 2005 7:21:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Sun, 15 May 2005 15:21:48 +0200, Jan Böhme
<jan.bohme@cut.this.out.bredband.net> wrote:

>On Sat, 14 May 2005 15:19:39 -0400, RichA <none@none.com> wrote:
>
>>Uh, somehow when designing the $700m Mars Rover project I don't think
>>they looked at two CCDs and said, "This one's $10,000 and this one is
>>$5,000, lets go with the cheaper one."
>
>This is, in fact, _exactly_ what they do. As long as both CCD:s meet
>the specifications, that is.
>

Trouble is, they don't. CCDs are graded just like CPUs, or diamonds,
in terms of response linearity and flaws.
-Rich
May 16, 2005 1:21:19 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message
news:keednf38Zf9VgxnfRVn-jA@speakeasy.net...
> george wrote:
>
>> But, doesn't the FTF4027C look tempting? 11 Megapixels for a full frame
>> 35mm sized sensor would suit me just fine...
>
>
> And what is that used in?
> <clasping wallet with sweaty hands>
>
>
>
>
I wish I knew... Not anything with a Nikon lens mount.
May 16, 2005 2:32:14 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

RichA <none@none.com> wrote in news:ak4f81dvcmmemtj5fr8dfbajv14uef0sff@
4ax.com:

> On Sun, 15 May 2005 15:21:48 +0200, Jan Böhme
><jan.bohme@cut.this.out.bredband.net> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 14 May 2005 15:19:39 -0400, RichA <none@none.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Uh, somehow when designing the $700m Mars Rover project I don't think
>>>they looked at two CCDs and said, "This one's $10,000 and this one is
>>>$5,000, lets go with the cheaper one."
>>
>>This is, in fact, _exactly_ what they do. As long as both CCD:s meet
>>the specifications, that is.
>>
>
> Trouble is, they don't. CCDs are graded just like CPUs, or diamonds,
> in terms of response linearity and flaws.
> -Rich

Surely you are saying the same thing? Or did you not understand the
sentence: "As long as both CCDs meet the specifications, that is.

Or do you not understand that response linearity and flaws can be specified
(i.e. in the specifications).


--
Mark Heyes (New Zealand)
See my pics at www.gigatech.co.nz (last updated 3-May-05)
"There are 10 types of people, those that
understand binary and those that don't"
Anonymous
May 16, 2005 7:18:30 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

RichA <none@none.com> wrote:

> Trouble is, they don't. CCDs are graded just like CPUs, or diamonds,
> in terms of response linearity and flaws.

He said if both meet the specifications.

You understand that the specified requirements for a sensor on a Mars
probe are completely different from those for inclusion in a consumer
digital camera, right? The CCDs on the Mars probes are 1 megapixel
monochrome sensors, sensitive to a wider range than the visible
spectrum -- that had to survive being launched into space, re-entry
on Mars, the crash-landing, and the cold nights once there and
operational. You wouldn't *want* them in your camera.

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com
Anonymous
May 16, 2005 7:18:31 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Mon, 16 May 2005 03:18:30 -0000, Jeremy Nixon <jeremy@exit109.com>
wrote:

>RichA <none@none.com> wrote:
>
>> Trouble is, they don't. CCDs are graded just like CPUs, or diamonds,
>> in terms of response linearity and flaws.
>
>He said if both meet the specifications.
>
>You understand that the specified requirements for a sensor on a Mars
>probe are completely different from those for inclusion in a consumer
>digital camera, right? The CCDs on the Mars probes are 1 megapixel
>monochrome sensors, sensitive to a wider range than the visible
>spectrum -- that had to survive being launched into space, re-entry
>on Mars, the crash-landing, and the cold nights once there and
>operational. You wouldn't *want* them in your camera.

No, you're right, and they are packaged much differently to,
hardened against radiation. But they won't go looking for
Canon's consumer-grade CCDs when they spec one in.
As a matter of fact, they are so paranoid about performance
they won't use anything higher than an Intel 486 cpu because
they simply do not know enough about the higher level cpus
to guarantee unfettered performance once they get into space.

As an example; If Canon used the very best available 16 meg
CCD in their top camera, the body alone would cost over $30,000.
They don't. They use a commercial grade CCD that can be produced
in relatively large numbers and meet their middle-road spec.
But you "could" spec-in a much higher performance CCD in the Canon if
you wanted to. You could spec in a back-lit, thinned CCD that could
go to ISO 5000 without noise, if you wanted to.
I can't relate using a digital Canon camera in space because I don't
know if they do, but they did use Hasselblads and they were not the
ones you get when you buy one as a consumer.
-Rich
Anonymous
May 16, 2005 2:10:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <1s7g811v9f6n7m5ciqesjohi0de6bpm2nf@4ax.com>,
RichA <none@none.com> wrote:
>As an example; If Canon used the very best available 16 meg
>CCD in their top camera, the body alone would cost over $30,000.
>They don't. They use a commercial grade CCD that can be produced
>in relatively large numbers and meet their middle-road spec.
>But you "could" spec-in a much higher performance CCD in the Canon if
>you wanted to. You could spec in a back-lit, thinned CCD that could
>go to ISO 5000 without noise, if you wanted to.

Wow, for $30000 you can get the laws of physics changed. That is quite cheap
actually.


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
Anonymous
May 16, 2005 2:36:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

RichA wrote:

> No, you're right, and they are packaged much differently to,
> hardened against radiation.

You need a clue. Radiation is a known problem that has inexpensive
solutions. The Clementine spacecraft, as an example, was largely
commercial grade electronics.

> But they won't go looking for
> Canon's consumer-grade CCDs when they spec one in.
> As a matter of fact, they are so paranoid about performance
> they won't use anything higher than an Intel 486 cpu because
> they simply do not know enough about the higher level cpus
> to guarantee unfettered performance once they get into space.

You need a clue. The huge cost of space probes is more related to
political pork barrelling than actual engineering difficulty.

http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.space.policy/msg/93c0...

> As an example; If Canon used the very best available 16 meg
> CCD in their top camera, the body alone would cost over $30,000.
> They don't. They use a commercial grade CCD that can be produced
> in relatively large numbers and meet their middle-road spec.
> But you "could" spec-in a much higher performance CCD in the Canon if
> you wanted to. You could spec in a back-lit, thinned CCD that could
> go to ISO 5000 without noise, if you wanted to.

"Without noise" you say? You are technobabbling now.

> I can't relate using a digital Canon camera in space because I don't
> know if they do, but they did use Hasselblads and they were not the
> ones you get when you buy one as a consumer.

Are we supposed to be impressed with this gibberish?
Anonymous
May 16, 2005 5:59:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Jeremy Nixon" <jeremy@exit109.com> wrote in message
news:118g486gp0ajcef@corp.supernews.com...
> RichA <none@none.com> wrote:

> He said if both meet the specifications.
>
> You understand that the specified requirements for a sensor on a Mars
> probe are completely different from those for inclusion in a consumer
> digital camera, right? The CCDs on the Mars probes are 1 megapixel
> monochrome sensors, sensitive to a wider range than the visible
> spectrum -- that had to survive being launched into space, re-entry
> on Mars, the crash-landing, and the cold nights once there and
> operational. You wouldn't *want* them in your camera.

FWIW, the Mars Pathfinder crash-landing was engineered to a maximum
between 25 Gs. The Mars Express Lander (Beagle2) was designed to 50Gs.
Many armored cameras and handheld devices are rated in the thousands of Gs.
Like another poster suggested, mostly minor tweaks are necessary to ensure
it survives the temperature extremes and quality requirements.

Dave
Anonymous
May 16, 2005 6:04:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message
>
> No, you're right, and they are packaged much differently to,
> hardened against radiation. But they won't go looking for
> Canon's consumer-grade CCDs when they spec one in.

Why should they bother? They generate a specification (or many sets),
and find out what the manufacturers can provide. In most cases, the
'better' option performance-wise uses more power or weighs more, or is too
new to be well-debugged. Whether Canon quotes a stock CCD, a modified
version, or a completely custom setup is not of their concern.

> As a matter of fact, they are so paranoid about performance
> they won't use anything higher than an Intel 486 cpu because
> they simply do not know enough about the higher level cpus
> to guarantee unfettered performance once they get into space.

It's not about performance, it's about software bugs. The cpus in use
in space are partially chosen based on the amount of years the programs have
been in use and debugged. To use anything newer than a 486 would present
too great of a risk for introducing a software bug, or use too much power.

The space thing is an interesting discussion, but not useful here.

Dave
Anonymous
May 16, 2005 6:06:02 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:1s7g811v9f6n7m5ciqesjohi0de6bpm2nf@4ax.com...

> As an example; If Canon used the very best available 16 meg
> CCD in their top camera, the body alone would cost over $30,000.
> They don't. They use a commercial grade CCD that can be produced
> in relatively large numbers and meet their middle-road spec.
> But you "could" spec-in a much higher performance CCD in the Canon if
> you wanted to. You could spec in a back-lit, thinned CCD that could
> go to ISO 5000 without noise, if you wanted to.
> I can't relate using a digital Canon camera in space because I don't
> know if they do, but they did use Hasselblads and they were not the
> ones you get when you buy one as a consumer.
> -Rich

I don't think they would want to deal with the bandwidth/storage/memory
requirements of 16MP pictures. The fact that NASA works so hard on
compression codes is further evidence.

Dave
Anonymous
May 16, 2005 6:28:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On 16 May 2005 10:36:55 -0700, "eawckyegcy@yahoo.com"
<eawckyegcy@yahoo.com> wrote:

>RichA wrote:
>
>> No, you're right, and they are packaged much differently to,
>> hardened against radiation.
>
>You need a clue. Radiation is a known problem that has inexpensive
>solutions. The Clementine spacecraft, as an example, was largely
>commercial grade electronics.
>
What grade? Commercial, industrial, military. Commercial CMOS
and TTL chips are now as reliable as the other two. Differences
can include plastic versus ceramic encapsulants.
>> But they won't go looking for
>> Canon's consumer-grade CCDs when they spec one in.
>> As a matter of fact, they are so paranoid about performance
>> they won't use anything higher than an Intel 486 cpu because
>> they simply do not know enough about the higher level cpus
>> to guarantee unfettered performance once they get into space.
>
>You need a clue. The huge cost of space probes is more related to
>political pork barrelling than actual engineering difficulty.
>
>http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.space.policy/msg/93c0...
>
>> As an example; If Canon used the very best available 16 meg
>> CCD in their top camera, the body alone would cost over $30,000.
>> They don't. They use a commercial grade CCD that can be produced
>> in relatively large numbers and meet their middle-road spec.
>> But you "could" spec-in a much higher performance CCD in the Canon if
>> you wanted to. You could spec in a back-lit, thinned CCD that could
>> go to ISO 5000 without noise, if you wanted to.
>
>"Without noise" you say? You are technobabbling now.
>
>> I can't relate using a digital Canon camera in space because I don't
>> know if they do, but they did use Hasselblads and they were not the
>> ones you get when you buy one as a consumer.
>
>Are we supposed to be impressed with this gibberish?

Check it out.
-Rich
Anonymous
May 16, 2005 6:29:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

<eawckyegcy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1116265015.658559.106310@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> RichA wrote:
>
> You need a clue. The huge cost of space probes is more related to
> political pork barrelling than actual engineering difficulty.
>
> http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.space.policy/msg/93c0...
>

What IS nauseating about the cost of space and military development
programs is the fact that the money comes and goes so quickly. When
senators or reps leaves office, the successor usually cuts off any programs
sponsored by the predecessor. So even if you're $100k away from finishing
development of a $10m project, it's gone - all boxed away and stored in a
warehouse in New Mexico, I'm told. Then next week, another new program
comes in and dumps millions all over again. It was a little disappointing
at times to dump all your effort into a project that could (and often did)
disappear instantly to be forgotten forever.
Plus, the cost of quality is very high. The cost is mostly not in the
parts themselves, but the effort and time put into the selection and testing
of the parts. Like another poster said, when a project depends on hundreds
of components, and there is no chance or very little chance of repair, the
engineering requirements become very, very substantial.

Dave
Anonymous
May 16, 2005 8:21:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Mon, 16 May 2005 14:06:02 -0400, "David Geesaman"
<dgeesamannospam@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>"RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message
>news:1s7g811v9f6n7m5ciqesjohi0de6bpm2nf@4ax.com...
>
>> As an example; If Canon used the very best available 16 meg
>> CCD in their top camera, the body alone would cost over $30,000.
>> They don't. They use a commercial grade CCD that can be produced
>> in relatively large numbers and meet their middle-road spec.
>> But you "could" spec-in a much higher performance CCD in the Canon if
>> you wanted to. You could spec in a back-lit, thinned CCD that could
>> go to ISO 5000 without noise, if you wanted to.
>> I can't relate using a digital Canon camera in space because I don't
>> know if they do, but they did use Hasselblads and they were not the
>> ones you get when you buy one as a consumer.
>> -Rich
>
>I don't think they would want to deal with the bandwidth/storage/memory
>requirements of 16MP pictures. The fact that NASA works so hard on
>compression codes is further evidence.
>
>Dave
>

As a side issue, they are again talking about sending the data back
via "line of sight" optically instead of via radio waves. In that
way, they can send huge amounts of data in a fraction of the time
it now takes. Should help them to use bigger sensors.
-Rich
Anonymous
May 16, 2005 11:16:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Sun, 15 May 2005 14:19:45 -0400, RichA <none@none.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 15 May 2005 15:21:48 +0200, Jan Böhme
><jan.bohme@cut.this.out.bredband.net> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 14 May 2005 15:19:39 -0400, RichA <none@none.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Uh, somehow when designing the $700m Mars Rover project I don't think
>>>they looked at two CCDs and said, "This one's $10,000 and this one is
>>>$5,000, lets go with the cheaper one."
>>
>>This is, in fact, _exactly_ what they do. As long as both CCD:s meet
>>the specifications, that is.
>
>Trouble is, they don't. CCDs are graded just like CPUs, or diamonds,
>in terms of response linearity and flaws.

I don't understand what you mean to say here. Are you suggesting that
two CCD:s with different performance parameters can't both fit to the
same set of specifications?

Of course they can. Even supposing that price is completely correlated
to performance, the more expensive CCD may _overperform_ according to
one or the other of the specifications for the equipment.

Besides, I'd imagine that image quality is only one out of a truckload
of different specifications that would be fixed för a CCD for use on a
roaming planetary probe.

Jan Böhme
Korrekta personuppgifter är att betrakta som journalistik.
Felaktigheter utgör naturligtvis skönlitteratur.
Anonymous
May 16, 2005 11:16:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Jan Böhme wrote:

> Besides, I'd imagine that image quality is only one out of a truckload
> of different specifications that would be fixed för a CCD for use on a
> roaming planetary probe.

This has been a funny thread.

A lot of spacebound hardware is commercial hardware that has been
screened for temperature range (and possibly other characteristics),
then integrated with outher components and mounted in ruggedized systems
to protect them from shock / vibration (launch, landing), thermal shock
and sometimes radiation if the mission is long enough.

In this way a part bought for $1000 can go way up in value by the time
it's been integrated.

Specialty mission sensors are developed per spec, so the same ends are
achieved directly by the engineering firm (or university) building it.
the prices for these can be a mere $500K and go into the many millions.

Cheers,
Alan


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
May 16, 2005 11:33:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <1116265015.658559.106310@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
eawckyegcy@yahoo.com <eawckyegcy@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Are we supposed to be impressed with this gibberish?

We're having a private laugh here. One member of my household is a
researcher who actually works on NASA stuff. Very un-sexy stuff
(finding efficient ways to kill bacteria that survive in ultra-pure
water and removing their dead cells from the process), but the
experience is very enlightening. Specifically, learning how much of
space manufacturing *isn't* rocket science.

I get the impression that people *really want* every aspect of aerospace
to be some intractable thing that mere mortals cannot understand or be
involved in. I leaned that way until I started interfacing with mars
mission people and realized they were human, not tremendously higher
educated than me, and working within shoestring budgets.

I've also hung around folks that are responsible for the CCD's in the
Lowell and Kitt Peak observatories. They have such completely different
goals than what you want for a camera, there's no sense at all in
comparing CCD's.
Anonymous
May 16, 2005 11:33:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"james" <fishbowl@conservatory.com> wrote in message
news:tA6ie.43654$_K.29797@fed1read03...
> In article <1116265015.658559.106310@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> eawckyegcy@yahoo.com <eawckyegcy@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Are we supposed to be impressed with this gibberish?
>
> We're having a private laugh here. One member of my household is a
> researcher who actually works on NASA stuff. Very un-sexy stuff
> (finding efficient ways to kill bacteria that survive in ultra-pure
> water and removing their dead cells from the process), but the
> experience is very enlightening. Specifically, learning how much of
> space manufacturing *isn't* rocket science.

That's a funny and good point. I worked on the landing airbags for the
Mars Express Beagle2 lander, which was developed in parallel by my company
at the time which also did the Pathfinder and MER landing airbags.
How did they really get developed? We just slingshotted the inflated
airbags against a platform with a bunch of razor-sharp volcanic rocks bolted
to it. When the airbags tore, we stitched it back together with extra
layers of fabric and reinforcement. Rinse and repeat as necessary.
To keep the fabric coating from sticking to itself, - common baby
powder.
Welcome to rocket science :o )

Although I do have a friend who studied vehicle/aircraft dynamics at
MIT - he had a t-shirt that said "Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist". I
takes someone with a special character to pull that off without being a
nerd - fortunately he was that guy.

Dave
!