Filter 'promises' crisp images in low light...

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Blue Velvet, Jun 14, 2007.

  1. Blue Velvet Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    #1


    http://news.wired.com/dynamic/stories/L/LOW_LIGHT_PHOTOS?SITE=WIRE&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT


    Just thought some of you might find this interesting... :)
     
  2. Westside guy macrumors 601

    Westside guy

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2003
    Location:
    The soggy side of the Pacific NW
    #2
    That looks quite interesting - I'd imagine it'll take much more than a year before we see it in our dSLRs though.
     
  3. Silentwave macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    May 26, 2006
    Location:
    Gainesville, FL
    #3
    DPReview says the trade-off is 1/4 the color resolution :(

    I'll believe it when I see it.

    1-2 stops is still not enough for a camera phone to get a good shot in most situations IMHO. Especially when the 'lens' is no more than a plastic disc.
     
  4. j/k/Andy macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2007
    #4
    Agreed, while a stop helps, it not that much. I think improvements will come with cheaper fast lenses (f/2.8) and most importantly lower noise, high ISO sensors.
     
  5. LethalWolfe macrumors G3

    LethalWolfe

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #5
    I just saw this on another forum and agree w/some of the people there that this will most likely end up in consumer gear where you are dealing w/smaller sensors (the article specifically talks about cell phones) and situations where the reduction in color accurately is acceptable.


    Lethal
     
  6. stcanard macrumors 65816

    stcanard

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2003
    Location:
    Vancouver
    #6
    What got me was the example showing how hard it is to get a clear image at 1/60s

    http://www.dpreview.com/news/0706/kodakiss_CoffeeShop.jpg

    Judging by the subject matter I assume they aren't using a long focal length, maybe the photographer should worry less about technology and more about how to hold a camera...
     
  7. Butthead macrumors 6502

    Butthead

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2006
    #7
    Just goes to show you how valuable image stabilization technology is, Ken Rockwell gets sharp images from a compact digicam @ 1/4th sec(but not 100% of the time).

    Holding a camera super steady isn't always an option...think, top of the line digicam, big lens, fast moving subject at night, arms extened to aim camera over the heads of other Paps...Paps chasing down Paris :0

    This is great news!
     
  8. stcanard macrumors 65816

    stcanard

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2003
    Location:
    Vancouver
    #8
    Sure, in the situation you describe. But not their example -- small lens, decent shutter speed and light, stationary subjects...
     
  9. Butthead macrumors 6502

    Butthead

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2006
    #9
    http://www.dpreview.com/news/0706/07061401kodakhighsens.asp
    .

    Yes, engineering samples to be sent out in 2008, means at least 2009 before they hit the retail markets. Only then when it goes into actual production will we find out how it compares as if the color resolution is improved by then, and/or if this is that significant in terms of overall performance.

    Take a look the 1st photo comparison, 2nd one at 1/10th ISO1000 with low noise, and more importantly, far greater dynamic range, you can see clearly items in shadow/darker areas that are almost completely gone in the upper photo. Very impressive, IMHO.
     
  10. Butthead macrumors 6502

    Butthead

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2006
    #10
    How small is the lens, doesn't say. Do you consider 1/1000th a 'decent' shutter speed? I've botched more than I want to count both digital and 35mm shots at that 'decent' speed shown for comparison. Ken Rockwell is correct, even @1/1000 you will not get 100% sharp images, very high percentage, but not 100%. Anything that can improve upon picture taking, raise the percentage to a higher level, makes it more fool proof and is to be commended.
     
  11. Butthead macrumors 6502

    Butthead

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2006
    #11
    Umm, hello, this Kodak technology allows for both of those, did you not read?

    Sure it allows for smaller pixels to get 1/2 way decent (probably even better than Fuji's Super CCD, but then again, in another year Fuji may have their own revised sensor that costs less to manufactuer, or someone else may in that time) high MP sensor in compact digicams or even smaller cellphone cams. But the technology could also be used to produced either 33MP sensors for dSLR's or 144MP medium format Hasseblads that have the equivalent resolution of 4x5 large format film cameras, all at high ISO's...insanely great!

    Comparing the ISO1000 shot, not only is the noise level (if this was shot with a compact pocket sized digicam sensor) looking like that of a dSLR, the dynamic range there is the most impressive part of that image, it looks phenominal compared to the image above, which is what you'd typically get with small pocketable digicams. Outstanding.

    The Canon TX1 with this sensor would take insanely great 2k HD resolution video, not just noisy 720p. 5yrs down the line when flash mem gets cheap and into TB capacities, 4k resolution video (well Samsung's already got a silly, super noisy, completely useless in all but bright light, 10MP cellphone cam out in Korea) in a hybrid pocket sized digicam...w00t!
     
  12. stcanard macrumors 65816

    stcanard

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2003
    Location:
    Vancouver
    #12
    Looking at the image I linked, I'm going to assume the picture is not from a stalker or paparazzi so we can assume for that image they are using something with < 70mm focal length. Probably half that.

    If you cannot get a reasonably decent image on that size lens at 1/60s you would be better served practising your shooting, rather than investing in new technology. Yes, you will botch some but handheld at that focal length at 1/60s you should get passably sharp. Especially considering the price you pay in colour resolution with those sensors, the tradeoff would not be worth it _in that situation_

    It is quite possible that this technology will be useful, my point was that their choice of test image was awfully unrealistic.

    I am one of those who is of the opinion that 90% of Ken Rockwell's opinions aren't worth the paper (or pixels) they are written on, so I will avoid even discussing that.
     
  13. cube macrumors G4

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    #13
    This is not restricted to Kodak sensors. Anyone can use (license?) this basic tech.
     

Share This Page