boojum
Ignoble Miscreant
LOL, you might but to others it might be as helpful as reading machine code. I'd count myself in that group, can't understand either data set. I'm still confused by my 2CV owner's manual. ;o)
CCD vs CMOS, again
- Thread starter boojum
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 166
- Views 11K
LOL, you might but to others it might be as helpful as reading machine code. I'd count myself in that group, can't understand either data set. I'm still confused by my 2CV owner's manual. ;o)
boojum
Ignoble Miscreant
OK, I just ordered one from Amazon. Here Sunday.
willie_901
Veteran
For this to be true the tests have to be meaningful. A series of ad hoc tests is worse than an infinity of opinions because at least an infinity of opinions is harmless.
In science opinions are the seeds of solutions.
The history of quantum mechanics is just one of many examples where opinions fueled significant advances. One example that changed history is the Schrödinger wave equation[1]. Schrödinger was appalled at the non-deterministic aspects of QM. He (and many others) initially refused to accept a theory that was incompatible with human common sense. In their opinion QM had to be an incomplete representation of the empirical results that spawned QM. When Schrödinger complained about the current state of QM to a colleague, the colleague challenged him to come up with a better solution. So, Schrödinger spent Christmas in 1925 at an alpine resort in Arosa, Switzerland working on how to formulate a deterministic theory for QM. The result was the Schrödinger wave equation. To Schrödinger's profound disappointment the wave equation supported the exact opposite of Schrödinger's opinion.[2] Yet, he published these results - which resulted in a Nobel Prize. During an interview Schrödinger responded to question about the success of his wave equation by saying "I don't like it, and I'm sorry I ever had anything to do with it."
1/ Schrodinger found the the energy of quantum states were mathematically described by three-dimensional, standing waves (scalar waves) instead of vector waves (i.e. electromagnetic waves). Vector waves describe a direction of force, while scalar waves describe wave amplitudes. This means an electron energy function includes time and position. The position of an election in an atom (or chemical bond) can only be described as a probability. The location is non-deterministic. It is disturbing to state a helium atom electron in a party ballon you hold in your hand has an extremely low, but non-zero, probability of being found on the surface of the moon at some point in time. It may not be located at a non sensical location for trillions of years, but there is nothing stopping it from eventually being in such a location. This precisely what the Schrödinger wave equation predicts.
2/ The non-deterministic nature of electrons in a hydrogen atom was empirically confirmed in 2013.
boojum
Ignoble Miscreant
I do not want to get mired in this petty swamp. Opinions are not by nature harmless. They can be quite evil. I need not call up a list of historical examples.
I find "In science opinions are the seeds of solutions." a bit strong. Perhaps "can be" is better than "are".
Regardless I still hold that espousing an unsupported opinion without demonstration of its accuracy is of little value. I base this on my experience of working in data processing. I based my analogy on this and still do. There opinions were rarely true but tests always were. Rather than quantum mechanics I am simply trying to see which sensor gives what image and which is preferable. Much simpler than the study of cats.
I took the photos, I posted the photos, I outlined the conditions under which they were taken and offered them for perusal and evaluation. It has nothing to do with quantum mechanics but thanks for the info.
I find "In science opinions are the seeds of solutions." a bit strong. Perhaps "can be" is better than "are".
Regardless I still hold that espousing an unsupported opinion without demonstration of its accuracy is of little value. I base this on my experience of working in data processing. I based my analogy on this and still do. There opinions were rarely true but tests always were. Rather than quantum mechanics I am simply trying to see which sensor gives what image and which is preferable. Much simpler than the study of cats.
I took the photos, I posted the photos, I outlined the conditions under which they were taken and offered them for perusal and evaluation. It has nothing to do with quantum mechanics but thanks for the info.
Peter_S
Peter_S
- Local time
- 12:44 PM
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2010
- Messages
- 872
I have a slightly different theory on this. Would a user of a CCD M8/M9 not be more likely to use older or “classic” lenses than the user of a newer generation CMOS model? I would expect more new and costly lenses on an M10/M11 than a on an M8. Could perceived differences thus also be (also) related to lens designs commonly used than the sensors? Just thinking…
On the last statement- I have converted a number of Sonnar lenses to Leica mount for M10 users. Skyllaney offers this service, and many end up on the newest cameras.
Unfortunately, the manufacturers of the CMOS sensors used in the M240, M10, M0R, M10M, and M11 have not published the long data sheets. Kodak did publish the long data sheet for the KAF-10500 and KAF-18500. I can look at the spectral response and know to use a UV filter to cut fringing and know why it is required. I can look at the collection efficiency versus angle of incidence and understand what is going on in the corners of a wide-angle lens. I can look at data sheets of other CMOS sensors and understand that they do not do as well as CCD sensors collecting light from the same lens. Until the manufacturers publish the details, you are left with making some measurements.
One online reviewer puts up reviews of lenses including vignetting numbers made on a Sony camera. My measurement of the 50/1.1 7Artisans Sonnar formula lens on my M Monochrom showed 1 F-Stop less vignetting than the Sony.
At this point in the evolution of digital cameras: no one makes large area CCD sensors anymore. OnSemi and Dalsa stopped production. The M9 and M Monochrom cameras with the KAF-18500 with BG-55 cover glass are the last you can get.
Unfortunately, the manufacturers of the CMOS sensors used in the M240, M10, M0R, M10M, and M11 have not published the long data sheets. Kodak did publish the long data sheet for the KAF-10500 and KAF-18500. I can look at the spectral response and know to use a UV filter to cut fringing and know why it is required. I can look at the collection efficiency versus angle of incidence and understand what is going on in the corners of a wide-angle lens. I can look at data sheets of other CMOS sensors and understand that they do not do as well as CCD sensors collecting light from the same lens. Until the manufacturers publish the details, you are left with making some measurements.
One online reviewer puts up reviews of lenses including vignetting numbers made on a Sony camera. My measurement of the 50/1.1 7Artisans Sonnar formula lens on my M Monochrom showed 1 F-Stop less vignetting than the Sony.
At this point in the evolution of digital cameras: no one makes large area CCD sensors anymore. OnSemi and Dalsa stopped production. The M9 and M Monochrom cameras with the KAF-18500 with BG-55 cover glass are the last you can get.
boojum
Ignoble Miscreant
This could be. OTOH, the DNG's I posted using older lenses were used on both CCD and CMOS. I have used new CV's on the M9 and while the color and definition are just great they are just a bit too great. Lenses make a difference but in direct comparisons between the two sensors what difference could there be? Wouldn't the same lens on different sensors show a sensor difference?
Similar threads
- Article
- Article
