P&S vs DSLR - Does this argument make sense?

In article <46AB3A50.4020904.RemoveThis@qwest.net>, Roger N. Clark (change username
to rnclark) says...

> LCD preview is NOT real time: it is delayed time.

But the delay is minimal - in the 20-30 ms range, small enough not to
matter.

Hint: the frame rate is 30-60 frames per second. From that you can
calculate how much delay there is.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 7070, 8080, E3X0, E4X0 and E5X0 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
 >> Stay informed about: P&S vs DSLR - Does this argument make sense? 

On Jul 28, 2:07 pm, Michael J Davis <?...@trustsof.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Noons <wizofo... RemoveThis @yahoo.com.au> observed>On Jul 27, 11:30 am, acl <achilleaslazari... RemoveThis @yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>
> >Simple: I don't take photos of atoms.
>
> I do, billions of them!
>
> Of course, what I really take is mostly the light bouncing off 'em.
> In fact, there's little in my photos that isn't atoms joined together as
> molecules.
>

Well the point I was (maybe too subtly) trying to make earlier is that
it's not bounced off the atoms, it is absorbed and re-emitted by them.
If (if!) one ponders this for a while, one hopefully concludes that a
photon may in fact be "detected" by something smaller than its
wavelength... Otherwise, eg anything thinner than 400nm would be
transparent, etc...
 >> Stay informed about: P&S vs DSLR - Does this argument make sense? 

"DHB" <yoda2k DeleteThis @verizon.net> wrote in message
news:797ia3h27l9qasq80bbaodiflaos1a8sfh@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 20:12:04 GMT, Clive <clive DeleteThis @cs.com> wrote:
>
>>I have a Canon S3 IS and a Pentax K100D - both 6mp cameras. Some time
>>ago I did some comparison shots (of the same subject). Very little to
>>choose at the same exposure when I printed A4, but when I printed the
>>same item at A3 - the K100D was visibly better.
>>
>>Same number of pixels, but bigger on the K100D - sensor size does make a
>>difference.
>>
>>Clive
>
> Clive,
> The age old question "Does size matter?" In terms of
> photographic sensors, it's not so much the physical size as it is "how
> many photos can it record per unit of time!"
>
Wrong. Recording speed has little (though potentially some) to do with
sensor size.
A larger sensor makes it easier to design the channels to read out the
sensor elements, but otherwise there's no inherent difference.

> So, does size matter? Yes & no. It's also important to take
> into consideration, things like "read noise" where in most newer
> sensors has decreased, helping to make reasonable results possible
> from very small sensors.
>
> Just my 2 cents but I think the "average consumer" is willing
> to tolerate a fairly high amount of noise or noise reduction artifacts
> if it provides them with the following:
>
Au contraire. The "average consumer" will go ape when confronted with the
slightest noise in a 100% blown up image, where the seasoned professional
knows that such views are useless and only looks at the printed result at
the size he wants and decides from that whether it's good enough.
That's because the seasoned pro knows that the marketing blurbs are
misleading to say the least and that looking at an image blown up 10 100% on
a computer screen is like looking at a football sized print of the image at
a few centimeters distance.
 >> Stay informed about: P&S vs DSLR - Does this argument make sense? 

"Alfred Molon" <a.TakeThisOut@b.c> wrote in message
news:MPG.21158f6877dab86e98b615@news.supernews.com...
> In article <46AB3A50.4020904.TakeThisOut@qwest.net>, Roger N. Clark (change username
> to rnclark) says...
>
>> LCD preview is NOT real time: it is delayed time.
>
> But the delay is minimal - in the 20-30 ms range, small enough not to
> matter.
>
> Hint: the frame rate is 30-60 frames per second. From that you can
> calculate how much delay there is.
> --
>
Not really. If it displays a scene at 30 frames per second a second after it
was recorded it's still 30 frames per second.
Or take the extreme case of television reruns of shows recorded in the
1940s. Those are 60 years old, yet shown at 25 or so frames per second.

At best you can calculate the minimum delay, never the maximum.
 >> Stay informed about: P&S vs DSLR - Does this argument make sense? 

On Jul 29, 9:48 pm, "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)"
<usern... RemoveThis @qwest.net> wrote:


> Second, the photosensitive area must be
> thick enough so that there is enough path length for the
> photon traveling through the material so it can be aborbed.
> In silicon, the 1/e depth is over 2 microns (see table below)
> at green wavelengths, so small photosensitive pixels will have lower
> quantum efficiency.
>
> Data below From:http://learn.hamamatsu.com/articles/quantumefficiency.html
>
> Wavele-
> ngth
> (Nano-
> meters) Penetration Depth
> (micrometers)
>
> 400 0.19 deep blue/violet
> 450 1.0
> 500 2.3 green (blue-green)
> 550 3.3
> 600 5.0 Red
> 650 7.6
> 700 8.5 ~upper limit of human vision
> 750 16
> 800 23
> 850 46
> 900 62
> 950 150
> 1000 470
> 1050 1500
> 1100 7600

In fact this dependence of the penetration depth on the wavelength is
used by foveon sensors for colour separation, see eg figs 4-7 in
http://www.foveon.com/files/CIC10_Lyon_Hubel_FINAL.pdf
 >> Stay informed about: P&S vs DSLR - Does this argument make sense? 

acl wrote:
> On Jul 28, 2:07 pm, Michael J Davis <?...@trustsof.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> Noons <wizofo....DeleteThis@yahoo.com.au> observed>On Jul 27, 11:30 am, acl <achilleaslazari....DeleteThis@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>> Simple: I don't take photos of atoms.
>> I do, billions of them!
>>
>> Of course, what I really take is mostly the light bouncing off 'em.
>> In fact, there's little in my photos that isn't atoms joined together as
>> molecules.
>
> Well the point I was (maybe too subtly) trying to make earlier is that
> it's not bounced off the atoms, it is absorbed and re-emitted by them.
> If (if!) one ponders this for a while, one hopefully concludes that a
> photon may in fact be "detected" by something smaller than its
> wavelength... Otherwise, eg anything thinner than 400nm would be
> transparent, etc...

All good points.

There are multiple issues with small pixels and detecting photons.
Remember that as a pixel becomes small, while photons may interact
with the photosensitive area, they also interact with the
surrounding material, which will also scatter (reflect) and
absorb them. As the photosensitive area becomes much smaller
than the wavelength, the chances of a photon being absorbed
by the photosensitive area and not the rest of the substrate
becomes very small. Second, the photosensitive area must be
thick enough so that there is enough path length for the
photon traveling through the material so it can be aborbed.
In silicon, the 1/e depth is over 2 microns (see table below)
at green wavelengths, so small photosensitive pixels will have lower
quantum efficiency.

Data below From:
http://learn.hamamatsu.com/articles/quantumefficiency.html

Wavele-
ngth
(Nano-
meters) Penetration Depth
(micrometers)

400 0.19 deep blue/violet
450 1.0
500 2.3 green (blue-green)
550 3.3
600 5.0 Red
650 7.6
700 8.5 ~upper limit of human vision
750 16
800 23
850 46
900 62
950 150
1000 470
1050 1500
1100 7600
 >> Stay informed about: P&S vs DSLR - Does this argument make sense? 

Alfred Molon wrote:
> In article <46AB3A50.4020904.TakeThisOut@qwest.net>, Roger N. Clark (change username
> to rnclark) says...
>
>> LCD preview is NOT real time: it is delayed time.
>
> But the delay is minimal - in the 20-30 ms range, small enough not to
> matter.
>
> Hint: the frame rate is 30-60 frames per second. From that you can
> calculate how much delay there is.

Try having someone bounce a ball in front of your
"live preview" camera and note where the ball appears
in the view by your eyes versus on the LCD.

Roger
 >> Stay informed about: P&S vs DSLR - Does this argument make sense? 

Jeroen Wenting wrote:
> "DHB" <yoda2k RemoveThis @verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:797ia3h27l9qasq80bbaodiflaos1a8sfh@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 20:12:04 GMT, Clive <clive RemoveThis @cs.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I have a Canon S3 IS and a Pentax K100D - both 6mp cameras. Some time
>>> ago I did some comparison shots (of the same subject). Very little to
>>> choose at the same exposure when I printed A4, but when I printed the
>>> same item at A3 - the K100D was visibly better.
>>>
>>> Same number of pixels, but bigger on the K100D - sensor size does make a
>>> difference.
>>>
>>> Clive
>> Clive,
>> The age old question "Does size matter?" In terms of
>> photographic sensors, it's not so much the physical size as it is "how
>> many photos can it record per unit of time!"
>>
> Wrong. Recording speed has little (though potentially some) to do with
> sensor size.
> A larger sensor makes it easier to design the channels to read out the
> sensor elements, but otherwise there's no inherent difference.

I believe what he might have meant to say was that size affects how many
photons (not photos) it can record per unit of time, which would be very
true.

Scott
 >> Stay informed about: P&S vs DSLR - Does this argument make sense? 

In article <1185734699.462046.288340.TakeThisOut@l70g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, acl
<achilleaslazarides.TakeThisOut@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> On Jul 29, 9:48 pm, "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)"
> <usern....TakeThisOut@qwest.net> wrote:
>
>
> > Second, the photosensitive area must be
> > thick enough so that there is enough path length for the
> > photon traveling through the material so it can be aborbed.
> > In silicon, the 1/e depth is over 2 microns (see table below)
> > at green wavelengths, so small photosensitive pixels will have lower
> > quantum efficiency.
> >
> > Data below From:http://learn.hamamatsu.com/articles/quantumefficiency.html

snip

> In fact this dependence of the penetration depth on the wavelength is
> used by foveon sensors for colour separation, see eg figs 4-7 in
> http://www.foveon.com/files/CIC10_Lyon_Hubel_FINAL.pdf

question for roger -

according to figure 5 (page 3), the thickness of the top layer is a
little more than 1/8th of the total depth. does that mean the photon
capacity is also about 1/8th as much? if so, would that explain why
the blue channel is incredibly noisy on foveon images, causing the
color blotching?
 >> Stay informed about: P&S vs DSLR - Does this argument make sense? 

Scott W wrote:

> Jeroen Wenting wrote:
>
>> "DHB" <yoda2k RemoveThis @verizon.net> wrote
>>
>>> Clive <clive RemoveThis @cs.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I have a Canon S3 IS and a Pentax K100D - both 6mp cameras. Some time
>>>> ago I did some comparison shots (of the same subject). Very little to
>>>> choose at the same exposure when I printed A4, but when I printed the
>>>> same item at A3 - the K100D was visibly better.
>>>>
>>>> Same number of pixels, but bigger on the K100D - sensor size does
>>>> make a
>>>> difference.
>>>
>>> Clive,
>>> The age old question "Does size matter?" In terms of
>>> photographic sensors, it's not so much the physical size as it is "how
>>> many photos can it record per unit of time!"
>>>
>> Wrong. Recording speed has little (though potentially some) to do with
>> sensor size.
>> A larger sensor makes it easier to design the channels to read out the
>> sensor elements, but otherwise there's no inherent difference.
>
>
> I believe what he might have meant to say was that size affects how many
> photons (not photos) it can record per unit of time, which would be very
> true.

Yes, I think that was a typo. However, note that it has more to do with
the size of the sensor than the size of the pixels. There is some
difference with dynamic range in smaller pixels but not that much if you
have more pixels in the same area.


--
Paul Furman Photography
http://edgehill.net
Bay Natives Nursery
http://www.baynatives.com
 >> Stay informed about: P&S vs DSLR - Does this argument make sense? 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: P&S vs DSLR - Does this argument make sense? 

TimothySimmers wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 11:51:14 -0600, "Roger N. Clark (change username to
> rnclark)" <username RemoveThis @qwest.net> wrote:
>> Try having someone bounce a ball in front of your
>> "live preview" camera and note where the ball appears
>> in the view by your eyes versus on the LCD.
>
> Yes, there's a very slight delay in my 8 year-old digicam. None in my two more
> recent point & shooters. I can wave my hand in front of my camera as fast as I
> want and it retransmits that image to the LCD and EVF in perfect sync, or at
> least faster than I'm able to see any difference with my own senses.

That's great. What models? I would like to get one for myself
if they are really that fast.

> The point
> you were trying to make, is what? That you like promoting misinformation based
> on some minor experience that you had with decade-old technology? Or that you
> only know how to parrot what you've read elsewhere? I can now see why people say
> what they do about you. It's all true.

Well, all the ones I own, my family owns, and all the models
I've tested in stores show pretty significant delay, so much
so that it is often frustrating trying to pan, especially with
any action happening (e.g. like people at a meeting, moving
at walking speeds; forget sports or wildlife action).
That includes current models on the market.

Please cite models that show no noticeable delay.

> You're nothing but a thinly veiled troll and spam-artist whose only intent is to
> get people to your web pages to sell your profanely mundane photography.
>
> <PLONK>

It seems you can't take the truth so you launch personal
attacks, as usual.

Roger
 >> Stay informed about: P&S vs DSLR - Does this argument make sense? 

On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 15:45:46 -0600, Roger N. Clark (change username
to rnclark) wrote:

>> You're nothing but a thinly veiled troll and spam-artist whose only intent is to
>> get people to your web pages to sell your profanely mundane photography.
>>
>> <PLONK>

Just an FYI, but while I hesitate to add TimothySimmers to the
Sock Puppet Troll list, his message header bears the hallmarks, as
well as the troll's typical habit of accusing others of being a
troll. Like the sock puppets, he is using a nym that just appeared
out of nowhere, his reply being its one and only appearance in this
newsgroup. Your generally pro-DSLR stance is obviously at odds with
the anti-DSLR views of the troll(s) and its sock puppets, so this
one was probably crafted just to add more credence to its attack,
which would have been considerably discounted had it posted under
the more familiar nyms Baumbadier, GoKiting, HokusPokus, RockyZ,
SelfImporantName or X-Man.
 >> Stay informed about: P&S vs DSLR - Does this argument make sense?