CCD vs CMOS

[Pieter12]

Curiously, I just came across an ad—or should I say it came to me—for a Photoshop plug-in to emulate the Leica Monochrom CCD look!

 

[Nikon 2]

Curiously, I just came across an ad—or should I say it came to me—for a Photoshop plug-in to emulate the Leica Monochrom CCD look!

…

 

[George Mann]

I think the way to figure it out for yourself is try, say a Nikon D200 CCD and Nikon D300 CMOS and see which like. You can buy from KEH and return the one you don't like.

Or you could by a D2x from a more reputable seller like Roberts, and acheive greater color accuracy and realism, and the highest resolution from a 12mpx sensor.

 

[Rockaway Studios]

Curiously, I just came across an ad—or should I say it came to me—for a Photoshop plug-in to emulate the Leica Monochrom CCD look!

I saw the same ad, and had to ask the snarky question if they could please emulate the fungus spots to make it more authentic.

maybe I’m in a weird situation, but since I use interchangeable backs, I can shoot either, and own both CCD and CMOS sensors for the same camera. My opinion:

1. CCD is a pain in the butt on a technical camera. slider adapters to overcome lack of live view is the big sticking point.

2. concentrating on just the sensor at all is as nonsensical as concentrating on a film type and ignoring the chemistry used to process it. The analogy is actually pretty close.

In my case, my raw processors are Phocus (for Hasselblad) and capture 1 (for everything else including Phase One, Leaf, and Canon). I am always reading hate on Hasselblad because you cannot use Capture One for raw process with those files. I personally would rather have the ability to use Phocus for raw processing *everything* because to get great , pleasing skin tones etc just seems to *happen* with Phocus, whereas Capture One always seems to want color massaging whether the source raw files are from a CMOS or CCD sensor.

i attribute this to the Hasselblad Color Science that can be traced right back to Kodak via the Imacon acquisition. phase One/Capture One had a similar heritage from Leaf via the Scitex acquisition. Both are good technology but very different implementations.

this is also why, even though Fuji and Hasselblad have the same sensors, and Phase One basically has the same technology but a bigger wafer, the files look very different from the three platforms.

of course, once you do the initial raw processing, you can export either .Tif or .psd for more advanced editing than Phocus is practical for - so you can use C1 or Photoshop or The GIMP or whatever.

 

[Nikon 2]

I saw the same ad, and had to ask the snarky question if they could please emulate the fungus spots to make it more authentic.

maybe I’m in a weird situation, but since I use interchangeable backs, I can shoot either, and own both CCD and CMOS sensors for the same camera. My opinion:

1. CCD is a pain in the butt on a technical camera. slider adapters to overcome lack of live view is the big sticking point.

2. concentrating on just the sensor at all is as nonsensical as concentrating on a film type and ignoring the chemistry used to process it. The analogy is actually pretty close.

In my case, my raw processors are Phocus (for Hasselblad) and capture 1 (for everything else including Phase One, Leaf, and Canon). I am always reading hate on Hasselblad because you cannot use Capture One for raw process with those files. I personally would rather have the ability to use Phocus for raw processing *everything* because to get great , pleasing skin tones etc just seems to *happen* with Phocus, whereas Capture One always seems to want color massaging whether the source raw files are from a CMOS or CCD sensor.

i attribute this to the Hasselblad Color Science that can be traced right back to Kodak via the Imacon acquisition. phase One/Capture One had a similar heritage from Leaf via the Scitex acquisition. Both are good technology but very different implementations.

this is also why, even though Fuji and Hasselblad have the same sensors, and Phase One basically has the same technology but a bigger wafer, the files look very different from the three platforms.

of course, once you do the initial raw processing, you can export either .Tif or .psd for more advanced editing than Phocus is practical for - so you can use C1 or Photoshop or The GIMP or whatever.

That’s keeping it going…

 

[Pieter12]

This just showed up in my inbox:

https://www.mpb.com/en-us/content/kit-guides/learn-differences-between-ccd-and-cmos-sensors?xnpe_tifc=4IopbDUL4DL.4.Vdx.18xjp.EM4ladJsVsiWhF6pOIzZ4.YZrkYJbIb7xFoJxFB.OFYpOFnT&utm_source=bloomreach&utm_campaign=Mon%3A%20Nov%20%7C%20Mar%3A%20US%20%7C%20Cam%3A%20Content%20%7C%20Dat%3A%202024-11-17&utm_medium=email&utm_content=en-us

 

[Nikon 2]

This just showed up in my inbox:

https://www.mpb.com/en-us/content/kit-guides/learn-differences-between-ccd-and-cmos-sensors?xnpe_tifc=4IopbDUL4DL.4.Vdx.18xjp.EM4ladJsVsiWhF6pOIzZ4.YZrkYJbIb7xFoJxFB.OFYpOFnT&utm_source=bloomreach&utm_campaign=Mon%3A%20Nov%20%7C%20Mar%3A%20US%20%7C%20Cam%3A%20Content%20%7C%20Dat%3A%202024-11-17&utm_medium=email&utm_content=en-us

You’re being watched…!

 

[Sirius Glass]

I feel the need to shoot more file while I make up my mind whether CCD or CMOS is better for me. Or maybe I will use my Nikon Z7ii while I ponder. So many choices . . .

 

[Pieter12]

I feel the need to shoot more file while I make up my mind whether CCD or CMOS is better for me. Or maybe I will use my Nikon Z7ii while I ponder. So many choices . . .

Not that many. CCD is old technology in older cameras and backs, not as common as CMOS today. Your Nikon is CMOS.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I feel the need to shoot more file while I make up my mind whether CCD or CMOS is better for me. Or maybe I will use my Nikon Z7ii while I ponder. So many choices . . .

Not that many. CCD is old technology in older cameras and backs, not as common as CMOS today. Your Nikon is CMOS.

That does simplify things for me. Thank you.

 

[Nikon 2]

That does simplify things for me. Thank you.

This can make it simpler…

 

[Sirius Glass]

This can make it simpler…

That video reflects my knowledge and experience.

 

[Nikon 2]

That video reflects my knowledge and experience.

Good to know…

 

[Mr Bill]

This can make it simpler

When I see, on the video, "Color Science makes me laugh," I immediately think, ah... a guy who doesn't know what color Science really is. I'm not sure if he really does, but I would say that anything to do with digital cameras is really more about color ENGINEERING than Science.

I don't really argue too much about the other things he says in the video although some can be a little misleading. He likes to emphasize that photo colors should be what you "like," which is probably mostly true (at least within the limits of what you can do). But what one "likes" can sometimes have qualifications to it.

Some people on this site know that I've spent a lot of years involved with technical type work in a large portrait chain operation. Literally thousands of portrait studios operating 7 days a week. With a 100% satisfaction guarantee. There would be a number of customers who have specially picked the color of clothing for some event or holiday. And they want their photos to reasonably reflect those colors. So back to the video's "colors you like." Sure, but sometimes the colors you "like" are the same as the colors of the actual fabrics. (I should say that this "same" can be a whole can of worms, depending...). But in a simplistic sort of way, in limited conditions, we can do this.

In our operation, which was primarily in the world of color prints (RA-4 process), we did PLENTY of critical testing of whatever color films and papers we were using. It was pretty normal, if shooting studio lighting setups on Portra 160 film optically printed onto professional color papers, that various color targets and selected fabrics were nearly a dead match when viewed indoors under substantially "full-spectrum" lighting of about 4,000 K to 5,000 K CCT (correlated color temperature). In our studio operations it was fairly rare for someone to return their portraits (100% satisfaction guarantee) because the colors weren't "right." (As a note people in this sort of business know that there is a certain number of "customers" who will purchase a portrait package, have copies made, and then return the originals for a refund. They kinda decide they "don't like them" after all.)

FWIW in later years we were able to do pretty much the same thing with digital cameras, with images being printed onto color paper. Note that I'm specifically avoiding the issues of digital displays - a substantially different can of worms.

I suspect the guy making the video is more of an advanced software guy than a photographer, with limited experience in the photography business.

 

[Nikon 2]

When I see, on the video, "Color Science makes me laugh," I immediately think, ah... a guy who doesn't know what color Science really is. I'm not sure if he really does, but I would say that anything to do with digital cameras is really more about color ENGINEERING than Science.

I don't really argue too much about the other things he says in the video although some can be a little misleading. He likes to emphasize that photo colors should be what you "like," which is probably mostly true (at least within the limits of what you can do). But what one "likes" can sometimes have qualifications to it.

Some people on this site know that I've spent a lot of years involved with technical type work in a large portrait chain operation. Literally thousands of portrait studios operating 7 days a week. With a 100% satisfaction guarantee. There would be a number of customers who have specially picked the color of clothing for some event or holiday. And they want their photos to reasonably reflect those colors. So back to the video's "colors you like." Sure, but sometimes the colors you "like" are the same as the colors of the actual fabrics. (I should say that this "same" can be a whole can of worms, depending...). But in a simplistic sort of way, in limited conditions, we can do this.

In our operation, which was primarily in the world of color prints (RA-4 process), we did PLENTY of critical testing of whatever color films and papers we were using. It was pretty normal, if shooting studio lighting setups on Portra 160 film optically printed onto professional color papers, that various color targets and selected fabrics were nearly a dead match when viewed indoors under substantially "full-spectrum" lighting of about 4,000 K to 5,000 K CCT (correlated color temperature). In our studio operations it was fairly rare for someone to return their portraits (100% satisfaction guarantee) because the colors weren't "right." (As a note people in this sort of business know that there is a certain number of "customers" who will purchase a portrait package, have copies made, and then return the originals for a refund. They kinda decide they "don't like them" after all.)

FWIW in later years we were able to do pretty much the same thing with digital cameras, with images being printed onto color paper. Note that I'm specifically avoiding the issues of digital displays - a substantially different can of worms.

I suspect the guy making the video is more of an advanced software guy than a photographer, with limited experience in the photography business.

That complicates the issue…

 

[Mr Bill]

That complicates the issue…

Well, a lot of things can be about as simple or as complicated as one wants to make them. It mostly depends on how close one wants to look.

 

[Nikon 2]

Well, a lot of things can be about as simple or as complicated as one wants to make them. It mostly depends on how close one wants to look.

I’ll look, pun intended, into that…

 

[koraks]

That video reflects my knowledge and experience.

Also that guy's knowledge and experience, which is why he so bluntly denies the existence of 'color science', while in reality everything he argues goes down to either of two things:
* Fundamental phenomena in the physical world around us, but also psychological phenomena inside our brains and minds
* Application of the scientific method in understanding and exploiting these phenomena, and in determining things like 'the best compromise for our users' etc.
It's *everything* to do with science. I do agree that the phrase "this or that camera has better color science" is a meaningless linguistic monstrosity. And also that appreciation of color rendition involves personal preference and aesthetic decisions. None of that removes any of the science underlying the topic - which is very wide, and very deep indeed.

 

[Nikon 2]

Also that guy's knowledge and experience, which is why he so bluntly denies the existence of 'color science', while in reality everything he argues goes down to either of two things:
* Fundamental phenomena in the physical world around us, but also psychological phenomena inside our brains and minds
* Application of the scientific method in understanding and exploiting these phenomena, and in determining things like 'the best compromise for our users' etc.
It's *everything* to do with science. I do agree that the phrase "this or that camera has better color science" is a meaningless linguistic monstrosity. And also that appreciation of color rendition involves personal preference and aesthetic decisions. None of that removes any of the science underlying the topic - which is very wide, and very deep indeed.

Well, I’m fortunate at least to be very satisfied with the color of the MD 262. Good job Leica…

 

[koraks]

One wonders if they did any of that darn science stuff or they, like, just winged it.

 

[Mr Bill]

Also that guy's knowledge and experience, which is why he so bluntly denies the existence of 'color science', while in reality everything he argues goes down to either of two things:
* Fundamental phenomena in the physical world around us, but also psychological phenomena inside our brains and minds
* Application of the scientific method in understanding and exploiting these phenomena, and in determining things like 'the best compromise for our users' etc.
It's *everything* to do with science. I do agree that the phrase "this or that camera has better color science" is a meaningless linguistic monstrosity. And also that appreciation of color rendition involves personal preference and aesthetic decisions. None of that removes any of the science underlying the topic - which is very wide, and very deep indeed.

Just as a point of reference about what is currently being published regarding color science/engineering, one could look at the Color Symposiums sponsored by the IS&T, the Society for Imaging Science and Technology.

This link is a couple years outdated, but it gives an idea of how things go. https://www.imaging.org/IST/Confere...b55f-98ed886aba94&8a93a38c6b0c=2#8a93a38c6b0c

Back 25 years ago some of the key topics would have been regarding the structure and use of ICC color profiles, fairly new in those days. Also, studies related to what they call "color appearance models," related to how humans perceive colors under various environmental conditions. These could be pertinent to digital cameras, etc., but I would judge that these things have matured enough to become more of engineering disciplines than science. But I've not had much involvement for the past 15 years or so, so really can't say for sure.

 

[Nikon 2]

Just as a point of reference about what is currently being published regarding color science/engineering, one could look at the Color Symposiums sponsored by the IS&T, the Society for Imaging Science and Technology.

This link is a couple years outdated, but it gives an idea of how things go. https://www.imaging.org/IST/Confere...b55f-98ed886aba94&8a93a38c6b0c=2#8a93a38c6b0c

Back 25 years ago some of the key topics would have been regarding the structure and use of ICC color profiles, fairly new in those days. Also, studies related to what they call "color appearance models," related to how humans perceive colors under various environmental conditions. These could be pertinent to digital cameras, etc., but I would judge that these things have matured enough to become more of engineering disciplines than science. But I've not had much involvement for the past 15 years or so, so really can't say for sure.

The problem I “see” is the number of different manufacturers manufacturing digital cameras to leave the buyers taking a chance and hope the colors of their purchases satisfies their taste…

 

[koraks]

Isn't that in general how purchasing products works, especially whenever several options are available? Although with digital cameras more so than with anything else, there's a plethora of relevant information in the form of example images that can help one make up their mind.

 

[wiltw]

maybe I’m in a weird situation, but since I use interchangeable backs, I can shoot either, and own both CCD and CMOS sensors for the same camera. My opinion:

Just curious...about when was the changeover for medium format backs, switching to CMOS from the prior CCD sensors? What model numbers of Hassy are CMOS vs. those that are CCD?

 

[Nikon 2]

I saw the same ad, and had to ask the snarky question if they could please emulate the fungus spots to make it more authentic.

maybe I’m in a weird situation, but since I use interchangeable backs, I can shoot either, and own both CCD and CMOS sensors for the same camera. My opinion:

1. CCD is a pain in the butt on a technical camera. slider adapters to overcome lack of live view is the big sticking point.

2. concentrating on just the sensor at all is as nonsensical as concentrating on a film type and ignoring the chemistry used to process it. The analogy is actually pretty close.

In my case, my raw processors are Phocus (for Hasselblad) and capture 1 (for everything else including Phase One, Leaf, and Canon). I am always reading hate on Hasselblad because you cannot use Capture One for raw process with those files. I personally would rather have the ability to use Phocus for raw processing *everything* because to get great , pleasing skin tones etc just seems to *happen* with Phocus, whereas Capture One always seems to want color massaging whether the source raw files are from a CMOS or CCD sensor.

i attribute this to the Hasselblad Color Science that can be traced right back to Kodak via the Imacon acquisition. phase One/Capture One had a similar heritage from Leaf via the Scitex acquisition. Both are good technology but very different implementations.

this is also why, even though Fuji and Hasselblad have the same sensors, and Phase One basically has the same technology but a bigger wafer, the files look very different from the three platforms.

of course, once you do the initial raw processing, you can export either .Tif or .psd for more advanced editing than Phocus is practical for - so you can use C1 or Photoshop or The GIMP or whatever.

Your situation is not weird but advantageous…