And yet Kodak's sensor (M8's) looks really good on paper...

Discussion in 'Kodak' started by RichA, Nov 22, 2006.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    RichA, Nov 22, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Is it made of plastic?
     
    Randall Ainsworth, Nov 22, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. RichA

    RichA Guest

    No, Sony tried using plastic (epoxy)as a base for CCDs and it failed,
    miserably. Hence last year's huge recall. The Kodak is ceramic.
     
    RichA, Nov 22, 2006
    #3
  4. Not to mention those plastic Sony batteries that burst into flames!
     
    Charles Schuler, Nov 23, 2006
    #4
  5. RichA

    Leica Guest

    So are the new (current) M8's free from the IR problem?

    Has Kodak in fact begun supplying different/non-problematic sensors to
    Leica?

    In essence then, are current M8's being shipped from Leica free of all known
    problems now?
     
    Leica, Dec 10, 2007
    #5
  6. RichA

    Rich Guest

    No idea, but apparently, they are selling. Kodak's sensors are
    probably better from a technical standpoint than any of the sensors in
    cameras from Canon, Nikon, etc, but better in spec from Kodak might
    please a scientific or industrial customer, but maybe not a camera
    consumer.
     
    Rich, Dec 11, 2007
    #6
  7. RichA

    John Smith Guest

    Huh????????? What in heaven's name do you mean by "better in spec from
    Kodak might please a scientific or industrial customer, but maybe not a
    camera consumer."?????

    Wouldn't Leica just perhaps qualify as an industrial customer?
     
    John Smith, Dec 11, 2007
    #7
  8. Are these sensors the ones with Kodak's new filter array instead of a
    Bayer array?
     
    Don Stauffer in Minnesota, Dec 11, 2007
    #8
  9. No. He means actual "industrial" use ... not taking photos.

    Some uses want no anti-aliasing at all, indeed, they want
    complete independence of pixels. I have had some such uses.

    Doug MCDonald
     
    Doug McDonald, Dec 11, 2007
    #9
  10. RichA

    John Smith Guest

    What other "industrial use" for a photo sensor made by Kodak would there be
    other that for taking photos?
     
    John Smith, Dec 11, 2007
    #10
  11. "Industrial" or "scientific" use usually implies that
    no person would look at the result. Only a computer.
    It could be, for example, a photo-like use, like
    computerized face recognition. Or it could be
    quite unlike a plain photo use, such as using it to
    measure dimensions and color of rocks passing down
    a conveyor at a mine.

    Or it could be character recognition.

    None of these need antialiasing.

    Doug McDonald
     
    Doug McDonald, Dec 11, 2007
    #11
  12. RichA

    acl Guest

    You mentioned that there are applications that need complete
    independence of pixels; what would those be? Measuring the intensity
    of light emission from small areas, or what? I'm curious.
     
    acl, Dec 11, 2007
    #12
  13. RichA

    RichA Guest

    No, most scientific work is done with monochrome sensors, filtered and
    used in tri-colour mode, three images are taken and combined.
    There are some Kodaks that have Bayer filters.
     
    RichA, Dec 12, 2007
    #13
  14. RichA

    RichA Guest

    More uniform pixel efficiency, fewer dead pixels, etc. Consumer
    cameras get whatever comes out of the fabs, one Canon won't likely
    match another, etc.
     
    RichA, Dec 12, 2007
    #14
  15. That's right. Many of these uses don't use color, but some do.

    For example, cell counting. You have a microscope slide
    with randomly placed cells on it, dyed to fluoresce.
    Each cell fluoresces the same amount. Hence by looking at the
    image on a computer you count cells in each pixel. If
    a cell overlaps two or four pixels, you can usually assign
    the center of it to one of the pixels. Having no
    anti-aliasing helps this. You could use color if you
    had two or three cell types, dyed to fluroresce red, green,
    or blue. There are very common dyes that actually do this.

    Doug McDonald
     
    Doug McDonald, Dec 12, 2007
    #15
  16. RichA

    acl Guest

    Thanks. I suspected it was something like that (or dna microarrays,
    you also have to measure intensity but the areas aren't that small).
     
    acl, Dec 12, 2007
    #16
  17. RichA

    Frank ess Guest

    I may have missed the discussion of Noiseware by Imagenomic Software.
    The "Community" (free) version has been recommended, and I wonder if
    it - or the pay-for versions - are worth the trouble of learning to
    use.

    http://www.imagenomic.com/download.aspx

    Not that I don't like (most) noise ... Just in case.
     
    Frank ess, Dec 12, 2007
    #17
  18. I have been using the commercial version of Noiseware and am completely
    satisfied. Using it as a plug-in with PSE 4.

    As far as the learning curve, there is a simple method available that
    requires no "learning".

    That said, there are several other applications that do the same thing
    which may be better or easier to use (though I doubt it).
     
    Ockham's Razor, Dec 13, 2007
    #18
  19. RichA

    nobody Guest


    I switched to Noise Ninja... Noiseware seemed to emphasise jpeg
    artifacts a bit more when I was using it with scanned 35mm film. NN
    as a Photoshop plugin is quite easy to use, especially if you simply
    profile each shot individually. Not much of a learning curve to be
    honest.

    Jim

    http://www.jamesphotography.ca
     
    nobody, Dec 18, 2007
    #19
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.