Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Misc Forums > New Technology

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Feb 11, 2005, 3:32 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 162
Default

Granted, a 2/3 type FFT CCD isn't going to hold a candle to the larger format sensors found in dSLR's, but it would certainly offer better dynamic range and lower noise than the current generation of interline CCD's. I would gladly give up video capability (don't use it anyway) in exchange for the improved performance.

Sadly, since the major manufacturers have evidently convinced consumers that megapixels = image quality, I somehow doubt we'll see FFT CCD's offered in prosumer models anytime soon,if ever.
jkusmier is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Feb 11, 2005, 7:24 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
BillDrew's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Hay River Township, WI
Posts: 2,512
Default

I'd be very surprised if that happened. Look at the history of chemical cameras: from 8x10" (or larger) glass plates to 4x5" sheet film to 640/120/70mm roll film to 35mm sprocketed film to the disk camera (oops-to small) to APS (oops-here comes digital). Very few chemical "prosumers" use medium format cameras even though there have been some very good ones made at compeititive prices - most folks go for the bells & whistles of 35mm.

So manufacturers are going to put their developemnt money into advertising, bell&whistles, marketing, kool kolored base plates, advertising, BIG X numbers, sales brochures, ... and maybe image quality.
BillDrew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 26, 2005, 12:01 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 824
Default

jkusmier wrote:
Quote:
Granted, a 2/3 type FFT CCD isn't going to hold a candle to the larger format sensors found in dSLR's, but it would certainly offer better dynamic range and lower noise than the current generation of interline CCD's. . . I somehow doubt we'll see FFT CCD's offered in prosumer models anytime soon, if ever.
What about the TTF CCD in the Olympus evolt e-300? Besides being 8MP, it sounds like quite a step up from the interlines. Certainly sounds tempting to me.

Norm in Fujino is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 28, 2005, 11:04 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 162
Default

But that's a dSLR - entry-level, but still a dSLR. Sorry, by "prosumer" I meant a non-dSLRw/ an optical viewfinder.


jkusmier is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 6, 2005, 6:28 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
terry@softreq.com's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,538
Default

The only requirement to have "full frame" in a digicam would be to ensure that a 35mm camera lens would work on a Digicam with no conversion factor.

Therefore, a full frame sensor would be of interest to a professional who has a significant investment in a specific brand's lenses, and would like to see those lenses work on a D-SLR with no conversion factor.

I don't think "full frame" would have much significance for a prosumer camera unless it had detachable lens capability.

I would say the average non-professional has little need for a sensor greater than6-8 megs, as that resolution provides excellent 8x10 quality prints. For myself, I've taken over 5000 digital images and have printed fewer than a handful of 8x10's.

Rather than higher resolution, we might see a shift to better sensing technologythat provides better contrast and dynamic range. So, rather than "bigger", we might see "better" coming down the pipe.

-- Terry


terry@softreq.com is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 7, 2005, 10:43 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 162
Default

When I say Full-Frame Transfer I'm not referring to sensor size; I'm talking about chip design (full-frame transfer CCDs are designed specifically for still image capture; the interline CCD's found in most prosumer's were designed for video capture). Full-frame transfer CCD's offer much lower noise and better dynamic range.






jkusmier is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 10, 2005, 10:32 AM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,803
Default

Terry, I agree that better dynamic range and contrast would be great. Contrast you can do without too much trouble on the computer, but extra dynamic range is not easy (ya, with RAW and multiple conversions you can do it but it isn't "easy" and it certainly isn't a replacement for doing it in the camera!)

Another thing that would be great would be just faster acting cameras. Reduce shutter lag would be great. That was (not long ago) the number-1 repeat question here in the Newbie Help section here.

Two reason for bigger sensors in non-DLSRs (maybe not full-frame, but full-frame would be nice) is a smaller DOF (which at times is a great advantage, and others a pain in the rear) and less noise.

The problem is cost. The larger the sensor the more expensive it is to make and the more expensive it is to throw away. Both are not good things to manufacturing companies. I wouldn't expect to see it until a new sensor technology comes along which makes them easier to make or a new process to make CCD/CMOS comes along that achieves the same thing.

Eric
eric s is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 3:28 AM.