CMOS vs CCD and res. of 35mm film

I know that Nikon employs CCD sensors and Canon CMOS but most of what I know, the CCD sensor is superior with the exception of the consumption of energy. The CCD has a very low noise compared to the CMOS and is very sensitive to photon particles (light waves). Why did Canon use the CMOS sensor instead of the CCD?

One more thing, it is true that for a digital camera to have the same resolution of that of a traditional film, the resolution must be at least 21Mega Pixels? That seems like a lot and if true then all prosumer and most professional DSLR can not match it (I believe one of the 1D series matches a 35 MM film resolution at 21Mega Pixels

CMOS has less noise than CCD as far as I know.

Film has much more resolving power than sensors. I don't know what is equivalent to it. Regardless, megapixels are just one factor. The more dense the pixels are packed onto a sensor, the worse image quality gets. Honestly, I'd rather have a relatively sparse pixel placement on a large sensor with lower resolution.

Nikon's latest offerings (D3, D300, D700) all employ CMOS sensors...

why? ccd uses a different amplification system than cmos, and therefor *can* be less noisy. a nitrogen cooled ccd sensor (like hubble's ) will have less noise, but in a standard camera cmos will usually have the advantage. without microlenses, ccd can provide a better image quality, but ever since they perfected making microlenses cmos now has the same potential. due to the different amplification system though, cmos sensors can be amplified more while getting less noise, which means better high-iso performance.

as for film vs 21mp, it's a myth. low iso fine grain film can have luma density equivalent to up to 30MP (in certain conditions), but chroma density is usually much lower, 18 or less. when you hit iso 400 though, the density drops to the equivalent of about 9-15MP depending on the film and shooting conditions. At 1600, film is no match for even a rebel. however, film and sensors don't work the same, so you can't directly compare. sensors work generally via bayer filters, which is just a pattern of green, blue, green, red, sensitive photodiodes, and interpolating data from that gets you a pixel (in other words, the image is entirely fake, an accurate approximation rather than exact copy of what the lens projects). in film, grains of photosensitive chemicals are splattered throughout a base layer, meaning the pieces are not only sensitive to exactly one color in an exact pattern. there's more randomness, and there's an ability to record something other than just green, red, and blue values. also, grains tend to overlap in many places, so there is really no "pixel" anywhere, and theoretically the resolution is limited by the scanner not the film (though film does limit the useful information. generally a pixel for film scan at max resolution is the size of one film grain, hence the drastic drop in resolution as film speed increases)

1. As pointed out already, CMOS has less noise. This is the reason that Nikon switch to CMOS from CCD. Canon made that switch LONG TIME ago.

2. Color film resolution at ISO 100 is something like 6-8 MP for 35mm film. At ISO 400, the film resolution is something like 3 MP. So digital cameras easily beat film cameras in resolution, especially at high ISO.

Start here: http://clarkvision.com​/imagedetail/index.htm​l

Seriously, the best in-depth, honest coverage of this subject.\
BTW, the guy is literally a rocket scientist, working for nasa, digital imaging of space stuff.

Why are after all these years from James Maxwell, a Scottish inventor who photographed the first colour picture in the mid 19th century (I believe it was like the 1860s) are industries still employing the RGB guns for displaying colours? I know that those three do not faithfully reproduce all the different spectrum of light that humans are able to visualise. I believe there is a CMYK colour spectrum that is more accurate (CMYK = cyan, magenta, yellow and black) but do not know the ability to establish this on a main stream consumer basis.

About 100 ISO equalising 21MP, you mentioned that this is a myth? Why it is so many professionals attest to the superior IQ of a film based photograph as opposed to that of a digital one? I believe that light, being an analog substance, loses some of its data and integrity when converted from an analog to a digital format via a translator (in this case the ADC). For the most part, any conversion of something from a native state to a “foreign” state will result in “artifacts” if light was a binary form, it would be a different matter.

I did not know that Nikon’s flagship DSLR are employing a CMOS sensor, I am shocked at that to be honest.

The only camera that doesn't change what we see is a camera obscura. Since that doesn't record images, we can rule out that any camera will provide a 100% accurate picture. As for RGB vs CMYK, it's simply addition vs subtraction. RGB works by adding light so it overlaps and produces 100% of the spectrum, CMYK works by removing reflections, to produce 100% of the spectrum. RGB based systems have a hard time displaying darker colors, CMYK systems have a harder time displaying whiter colors. Why? Addition vs subtraction. Really easy to overshoot either operation, and when that happens, either black turns to gray or white turns to gray. Because of how modern displays work (producing light), they are RGB systems. Because printed objects can only reflect light, not produce it, they are CMYK systems. Both systems though are larger than we can currently replicate. RGB displays do not have to be made from just red green and black though, look at any samsung DLP tv and you'll see they use a 7 or more color wheel to add together light sources. It's just easier to program and manufacture for just red green and blue though.

What you get confused about is color spaces vs display formats. SRGB, ARGB, printer outputs, that sort of stuff. The key is, don't worry about it. A 14bit raw will have more data than your eyes could ever handle while actually focusing on something. When the human eye focuses on something, dynamic range and color perception go down to the 10 bit level or lower. Some estimate it's in the 100 to 200:1 range (7 to 8 bit). When not focusing on something, that increases to an equivalent of around 30 bit (according to some).

Key is, stop fretting about it and go shoot something. Thinking too much about this will only ruin your photography.

Having both lines (No not D3), I can close my eyes and say the picture in dark with much less noise is from Canon... Sorry Nik.

bond007 wrote in post #5875957
About 100 ISO equalising 21MP, you mentioned that this is a myth? Why it is so many professionals attest to the superior IQ of a film based photograph as opposed to that of a digital one? I believe that light, being an analog substance, loses some of its data and integrity when converted from an analog to a digital format via a translator (in this case the ADC). For the most part, any conversion of something from a native state to a “foreign” state will result in “artifacts” if light was a binary form, it would be a different matter.

The 'professionals' you cite are usually (almost always) lauding MF film. The better quality comes primarily from the fact that less enlargement is required for a given print size. Moreover, the quality gap is not seen until the print is seriously big. Also, a large negative can be easily printed to a wet-developed, silver based paper, a print format that does indeed have a magic smoothness of tonal transitions, rich blacks and sparkling whites that can't be acheived by dye or toner based mediums. Nevertheless, very many film photographers elect to scan their negatives, thus turning them into "foreign" digital images.

The short answer between the CCD and the CMOS was cost and production reliability. Also the CMOS offered more in way of software programming.

MP to match 35mm film ~~ some say 6mp is enough in usability factors. Perfectionist will state that theoretically one needs 50MP to match a 35mm Bronica slide.

But somewhere around 21MP is being considered both a practical and serviceable compromise.

A scanned 35mm slide can be some 300MP though.

bond007 wrote in post #5875957
photograph as opposed to that of a digital one? I believe that light, being an analog substance, loses some of its data and integrity when converted from an analog to a digital format via a translator (in this case the ADC). For the most part, any conversion of something from a native state to a “foreign” state will result in “artifacts” if light was a binary form, it would be a different matter.
.

I disagree, light is better thought of as being digital, as opposed to analogue. There is a photon, or there is not. The photons band gap is fairly well known. The problem is, that the sensor doesn't record every pixel.

Ever heard of wave - particle duality? Light is certainly not an 'analogue substance'. It is comprised of individual photons and is therefore digital in nature. Of course these photons can exhibit wave like properties ( as the famous double slit experiment shows ) but light is digital.

Digital has been outresolving film for quite a while. Digital is outresolving some of the best lenses right now, too.

I was under the impression with the D3 and D300, Nikon had moved to a CMOS sensor.
Yep, I was right...

http://www.dpreview.co​m/reviews/NikonD3/page​2.asp

So, what's the discussion?

ChrisSearle wrote in post #5878032
Ever heard of wave - particle duality? Light is certainly not an 'analogue substance'. It is comprised of individual photons and is therefore digital in nature. Of course these photons can exhibit wave like properties ( as the famous double slit experiment shows ) but light is digital.

If light was purely a digital or binary form, it would not need any "translator" to translate the energy from one state to another. Sound is another analog form of matter as well, a physical representation. A digital recorder records sound and digitises it into a binary state. Case is translator is needed.

Back in Edison's time, his phonographs recorded the physical attribute of sound BUT did not digitised it but recorded it as its native analogical state. Same with LPs, tape tracks and such. Photons, like all other energy manifestations within the electrical - magnetic spectrum including electricity travels via waves and has more than a binary energy signature and as such are clearly analog in nature, not digital. Photons are NOT binary codes nor does it travel in binary form. A great example is what happens after a rain in an area in which water vapour is still in the area and the sun's energy (photons) penetrate this barrier causing..... Rainbows. Light actually is the inclusion of all the spectrums of colours we know and some we can not even see (ultra violet). A prism that captures the sun will separate the colours of the sun similar to that of water vapours causing a rainbow. Clearly this indicates that photons consists of more then binary energy and more than two (2) different energy signatures.

Verizon FIOS with its different spectrum of light is another example. Verizon is employing three right now but there are many more than Verizon is filtering including purple, the most data packed spectrum (blue ray has nothing on purple-ray). Red rays has the least amount of discrete packets.