Canon to anounce "smart chip" (the future of DSLR'

[timmyquest]

No, not yet...i was just thinking.

Todays sensors act just like photography film. Great right?!

Wrong.

How many time shave you taken a great spur of hte moment shot of a your son in front of a window. Everything is tack sharp, faced exposed perfectly, except the window is so over exposed it makes the photo useless.

Couldnt they in theory create a sensor that can "turn off" portions of the sensor that are exposing say a lamp, or the moon, or a window...


Discuss :-D

[Osmium]

Sounds good. In theory, you should be able to create each pixel as part of a neural network. Then knowing the dynamic range of the sensor elements, have the net compress the dynamic range over various parts of the image - perhaps even down to the pixel level. Record the exposure and level of compression per pixel and then, when you load the image onto your computer, have software to decompress the image back to its original dynamic range. (or just do that in camera).

Perhaps we do away with mechanical shutters altogether and have the neural net decide the sensitivity of each element based on your required exposure duration, the lens aperture and the intensity of the light...

Let's see... 10 years away? Maybe less?

[mttmrphy]

Timmy, call the copyright office... quick!

[ron chappel]

They can't turn off a bunch of pixels-that would make the window jet black.
They can adjust the sensititivity of each pixel slightly (as in assign a different ISO to each one.

They are allready doing stuff like that on cheap digicams.
The other option of course is to make chips with a wider dynamic range.Fuji have made some with pairs of a small pixel and large one next to each other to increase the light gathering range.The new S3 pro(?)uses that method.
Canon's new 1D II simply improves the brightness range by old fashioned methods-i.e normal pixels very well researched and made.It can capture just over 9 stops of range where the 300D/10D only do about 6 max

[timmyquest]

It would be the pattent office first of all. Second of all, having an idea is far from having something that works and thats the only way to actually get a patent, and even if you can do that it's hard to get anything from it. I've watched my dads idea of a laser microphone (where instead of using electrical pulses to detect the voice, a laser is used...if you'd like me to dig up the patent i'd be glad to) get him nowhere.

Anyways, it wouldnt just be turned off pixles, the part of the image where there are a higher consantration of photons would simply expose, and then when it reaches the point where it is obvious that there is too much light it would take what it had already recorded and place that in the memory and when the entire image is complete it would simply place the "window" back into the picture properly exposed.

[defordphoto]

Ewwwwww....24 shot limit per cartridge? I could never go back to that. I was however, thing the other day that interchangeable sensors might be kinda cool. We all buy the same basic camera and you can can have 1.6, 1.3 or FF sensor. Want 6.5mp? Get this sensor. Want 22mp? Get this other sensor. All in the same body...

Hmmmm....

[CoolToolGuy]

Maybe it will take a collaboration between Adobe and Canon - Photoshop in the camera :!: :wink:

Of course, Canon would have to resolve the LCD-as-viewfinder issue... :shock:

[evilenglishman]

i remember around 4-5 years ago a guy had invented a very nice device.
It looked identical to a roll of 35mm film, it was however a digital cartridge that you could put inside any 35mm camera, thus converting any camera into a digital camera.

It was either bought by a camera or film company and disappeared overnight.

[Canuck]

The3 idea for it to be smart enough to see blown out bits/underexposed pits might be a much better idea, especially as I found shooting the Cliffs of Moher in Ireland. This might improve an otherwise hopeless high contrast scene like this one where the sun was just off to the right. Yes, I coulda shot 2 separate pics with the correct exposure for the sky, then for the cliffs. Sometimes that is a pain and when on coach tour it is kinda rushed anyway. By the way, these cliffs don't look that big but they are huge! Here's the pic: http://images.fotopic.net/?id=3613335&outx=760&oq=0&original=1&noresize=1&no stamp=1

[Ferdinand]

Canuck you can always create another layer, desaturate, invert, and overlay it to bring out some lost details in the darker area. And you can then darkening the sky separately. Hope you dont mind I only work on the cliff, should work on the sky too but anyways, I am at work right now, so the cliff will have to do for now :p

http://mcauslan.force137.com/misc/Cliffs_of_Moher_3869a.jpg

Regards,
Ferdinand

[timmyquest]

Yes you can do that, but i still think it looks like crap, there is no replacement for a properly exposed photos.

[Canuck]

Ferdinand,
I don't mind people showing me the better way at all, I appreciate the imput...thanks! I am still learning the ways of the photoshop.

[Ferdinand]

Yes you can do that, but i still think it looks like crap, there is no replacement for a properly exposed photos.
Totally agree with you Timmy, this should only be use as a last ditch efford, like when you are not going back to the same spot any time soon kinda thing. But again sometimes you cannot control mother nature, you either wait around for the light to be right or take 2 different shots exposing once for the sky and another for the cliff in this case and merge em later, or PS it :) For everything else, there is MasterCard.

Regards,
Ferdinand

[4walls]

This is what Fuji is trying to do with their Super CCD right? Basically two sensors, one that records normal and one that records less exposure (to recover blown out highlights).
No, not yet...i was just thinking.

Todays sensors act just like photography film. Great right?!

Wrong.

How many time shave you taken a great spur of hte moment shot of a your son in front of a window. Everything is tack sharp, faced exposed perfectly, except the window is so over exposed it makes the photo useless.

Couldnt they in theory create a sensor that can "turn off" portions of the sensor that are exposing say a lamp, or the moon, or a window...


Discuss :-D

[evilenglishman]

here's my crappy contribution :D

http://www.electricvenus.com/Cliffs.jpg

[cgratti]

Ewwwwww....24 shot limit per cartridge? I could never go back to that. I was however, thing the other day that interchangeable sensors might be kinda cool. We all buy the same basic camera and you can can have 1.6, 1.3 or FF sensor. Want 6.5mp? Get this sensor. Want 22mp? Get this other sensor. All in the same body...

Hmmmm....

Great idea, but then they wold sell alot less cameras... dont think they would go for it... if they did the sensors would be astronomical in price...

[drisley]

Canon's new 1D II simply improves the brightness range by old fashioned methods-i.e normal pixels very well researched and made.It can capture just over 9 stops of range where the 300D/10D only do about 6 max

Actually, the 10D and 300D have a dynamic range of between 8-9 stops.

This is according to Chuck Westfall, a very reputable, knowledgeable Canon rep.
http://www.robgalbraith.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=206686&page=0&view=collap sed&sb=5&o=&fpart=33&vc=1#213986

In addition, other users have done tests to verify this.

The 6 stops DR for the 300d/10d was a bit of a myth/rumour.

[paul162brown]

In relation to the shots of the cliffs, can I suggest you consider using filters. I know a lot of DSLR users who do not want to use filters thinking they can achive similar effects in PS, but that is not always true. In that picture of the cliffs, a graduated netrual density filter in either a Cokin or Lee holder, will only cut the light levels on the covered section of sky, reducing the amount of exposure difference between the sky and the cliffs, resulting in a well exposed quality shot, as opposed to one which has obviously been tampered with in PS (no offence to the EvilEnglishman, who done a good job in partially recovering the shot).

A P series (big enough for an SLR lens) Cokin filter holder, lens adapter ring and a ND Grad filter will set you back about 20-25 quid.

Whilst we all wait for the technology in relation to dynamic range etc to catch up with our needs, we should not forget some of the "old fashioned" techniques.

Almost every great landscape shot that you will have ever seen, will have used filters in some way, most likely including graduated and polarising filters in the least, normally to hold back the light levels and retain detail in the sky, whilst still exposing the forground properly.

For me, it is much better to get the shot right first time when it is recorded in the camera/onto film, rather than have to spend hours messing around on a PC trying to recover it.

:)

Paul


London

[evilenglishman]

(no offence to the EvilEnglishman, who done a good job in partially recovering the shot).


:shock: Traitor! Burn him! :wink:

[paul162brown]

(no offence to the EvilEnglishman, who done a good job in partially recovering the shot).


:shock: Traitor! Burn him! :wink:


I think within my last post I incorrectly stated that my location was London. This is obviously a mistake, I think I am long long way away from wherever the EvilEnglishMan lives (who is, by the way, very skilled in the art of PS shot recovery!).

Cheers

:wink:
Paul


Miles away