# *UPDATE* 1Ds Mark IV Feature



## Canon Rumors Guy (Oct 19, 2010)

```
<strong>Update
<span style="font-weight: normal;">A contributor has had this to say about the AA filter rumor and that itâ€™s unlikely Canon will remove it from the 1Ds Mark IV.</span></strong></p>
<blockquote><p>MF camera makers deleted AA filters primarily for reasons of cost, not image quality, as aliasing is very destructive. Yes, they do use software to â€œcorrectâ€ this, but it does a terrible job. Itâ€™s an insoluble problem, because itâ€™s a â€œmany to oneâ€ issue for the software.</p>
<p>Large AA filters are very expensive to manufacture, particularly at MF quantities. A Pentax representative even stated flat out that cost was the sole reason they didnâ€™t include one in the 645D.</p>
<p>Canon will delete the AA filter once resolutions get high enough that diffraction is the limiting factor.</p></blockquote>
<p><em>Thanks Steve</em></p>
<p><strong>From <a href="http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/cameras/Canon_1DS_MkIV.html">NL</a></strong></p>
<p><strong> </strong></p>
<blockquote><p><strong> </strong><strong><span style="font-weight: normal;">The â€˜next 1Dsâ€™ was delayed for some bigger jumps in technology and to hold itâ€™s â€˜top cameraâ€™ spot for longer. DigicV will allow for handling of binning, better video and â€˜software removalâ€™ of the need for an AA filter at 35+MP. The camera might not ship until later next year.</span></strong></p></blockquote>
<p><strong><span style="font-weight: normal;">I asked around to find out if software could correct what the lack of an AA filter could bring about. MostÃ‚ notably; moire. The general consensous was it was possible. A regular contributor pointed out medium format cameras do not have an AA filter and combat moire in software (<em>thanks Kurtis</em>).</span></strong></p>
<p><strong><span style="font-weight: normal;">For those that donâ€™t know, the lack of an AA filter would produce sharper images right at the sensor. However, Canon has a lot of lenses that would need to be upgraded to resolve a sharper 35+ mp sensor.</span></strong></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong>
```


----------



## scalesusa (Oct 19, 2010)

*Re: 1Ds Mark IV Feature*

A 35MP FF sensor is about the equivalent of a 13.6 MP APS C sensor. I'm pretty sure there is no problem with almost all, if not all resolving a sensor like this.


----------



## x-vision (Oct 19, 2010)

*Re: 1Ds Mark IV Feature*

Aah. Somebody's been wet-dreaming again. 

Pixel-binning and weak/missing AA filter are technical characteristics that have no appeal for real photographers - just for the techno geeks that came up with this lame rumor. 

FAIL.


----------



## x-vision (Oct 19, 2010)

*Re: 1Ds Mark IV Feature*

Also note that Canon publicly said in a 2008 interview that they have no plans to remove the AA filters from their cameras:



> Would you ever consider removing the anti alias (low pass) filter - or using a lighter one - on high end, high resolution models such as the EOS 1Ds Mark III, to improve pixel level sharpness, removing any moirÃ© in software (like medium format cameras)?
> 
> We believe the potential for false color moirÃ© effects would be a disadvantage for the customer, so no.



Full text of the interview a here:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0810/08100302_canoninterview.asp


----------



## Rocky (Oct 19, 2010)

*Re: 1Ds Mark IV Feature*



dilbert said:


> x-vision said:
> 
> 
> > Aah. Somebody's been wet-dreaming again.
> ...


M9 got better picture is due to the combination of the following three factors (in order of importance): 1. Much better lens than Canon, Nikon or Sony. 2. Better DSP. 3. Removal of AA filter ( with the potential of Moir under certain condition)
As for Leica being used by professionals, this can be a very interesting situation. Leica is being used mainly by high end enthusiast with a deep pocket. A very small percentage of professional will use it. the reason is due to high price for the body and the lenses. Also even it can be used up to 135mm focal length, it is already a pain in the butt, due to small frame in the view finder. So the usable focal length is from 21mm to 90mm. You cannot use it for closeup, period. How many professional can live with these limitations???


----------



## tzalmagor (Oct 19, 2010)

*Re: 1Ds Mark IV Feature*

35MP is good enough to print A2 size @ 300DPI, which is really disappointing. After Canon announced the 120MP APS-H sensor, I hoped their next FF camera would have the 200MP required to print B0 size @ 300DPI. This is very disappointing.


----------



## Rocky (Oct 19, 2010)

*Re: 1Ds Mark IV Feature*



scalesusa said:


> A 35MP FF sensor is about the equivalent of a 13.6 MP APS C sensor. I'm pretty sure there is no problem with almost all, if not all resolving a sensor like this.


Almost all consumer grade lens from Canon will run into problem at FF with 35MP. Remember, with APS-C sensor, we are only using the middle of the image field (best performance area)of the lens. With FF we are using the full frame (image field) of the lens. Even some L zoom lens will get into trouble for that. just look into lens test reports from slrgears.com. Some lens with very good result in APS-C sensor becomes unacceptable in the FF sensor.


----------



## richy (Oct 19, 2010)

*Re: 1Ds Mark IV Feature*

Thanks man, I needed a laugh. Pixel binning may not be of huge benefit to many but if you had worked with medium format digital you would understand the significance of the AA filter, and what it means to work without one.

I can see the sense in delaying and 30-35 mp would be the upper end of what I would want to see. Remember the 7d would be 45mp ish if it were full frame. Canon lenses aren't well known for being sharp in the corners anyway, for me thats not a huge issue, for some it is. I would hope people dropping nearly 10k on a camera wouldn't be using a rebel kit lens on it anyway, and L glass can mostly keep up with that kind of pixel density (the 100-400 probably stands out as one that wouldn't). I wish canon would keep the MP count under 30 though, if people need more then there is medium format which wouldn't sacrifice quality to get to 80mp. 

Binning is useful in low light for sure, and in video. The big thing is the AA filter, if they do get rid of the AA filter it will make for a big change in the way we work with the files, closer to medium format. No real need for USM anymore, but careful shooting to avoid moire inducing patterns as much as possible and careful post to reduce or remove what is there. 

I'm not sure on the whole waiting for a big jump thing, if they release next year that means the camera is going to be near finalized now anyway and be in the hands of folks being tested in the wild or at least very close to that stage.


----------



## Master_of_the_Universe (Oct 19, 2010)

*Re: 1Ds Mark IV Feature*

Proper pixel binning has huge ramifications for video.

Also huge for stills, especially with a high pixel count sensor.

It means massive sensitivity (ISO) at low noise.


----------



## Flake (Oct 19, 2010)

*Re: 1Ds Mark IV Feature*

After typing a huge post I lost it after I had to force the browser into compatibility mode because the site is too old to work with the latest software! Time to upgrade the site !!


----------



## jouster (Oct 19, 2010)

*Re: 1Ds Mark IV Feature*



x-vision said:


> Aah. Somebody's been wet-dreaming again.
> 
> Pixel-binning and weak/missing AA filter are technical characteristics that have no appeal for real photographers - just for the techno geeks that came up with this lame rumor.
> 
> FAIL.



Ah, those "real" photographers again! Jeez, I remember back in the day when they wouldn't even use digital cameras! Or built-in metering or autofocus or zooms or or or...

There's *always* someone - usually many someones - looking for certain features, and they're just as "real" as you or me or the next guy.


----------



## Rocky (Oct 19, 2010)

*Re: 1Ds Mark IV Feature*



Master_of_the_Universe said:


> Proper pixel binning has huge ramifications for video.
> 
> Also huge for stills, especially with a high pixel count sensor.
> 
> It means massive sensitivity (ISO) at low noise.


PIXEL BINNING is not possible to be done at "raw" level for Bayer sensor. No camera maker dare to mention "pixel binning" except Sigma(they are using Foveon sensor). Bayer sensor is 2 green, 1 red and 1 blue as a group. How can you bin 3 color in 4 pixels ??? People tends to confuse down sizing with pixel binning.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 19, 2010)

*Re: 1Ds Mark IV Feature*



jouster said:


> Ah, those "real" photographers again! Jeez, I remember back in the day when they wouldn't even use digital cameras! Or built-in metering or autofocus or zooms or or or...



Yeah - just what the hell is a 'real' photographer, anyway? If you give a 3 year old a beat-up Brownie, I think the kid is a real photographer!

But I guess it makes sense to divide 'us' into three camps - amateurs, pros, and artists. Of those three, only the amateurs _really_ care about the gear. The pros care how much it costs relative to the desired output (and they are running a business, so they want the cheapest gear that can deliver the necessary results). The artists care about the output, only. So, while you might find amateurs with deep pockets using a Leica, and the occasional artist (of the non-starving variety), I doubt you'll find many 'pros' using Leica due to the relatively higher cost (and the proportionately lower return on investment). I say not many, because I'm sure there are some (after all, even though pro photographers are business people, it doesn't mean they are _good_ business people - a fact that frequently helps those who buy used gear from studios going under).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 19, 2010)

*Re: 1Ds Mark IV Feature*



Rocky said:


> Bayer sensor is 2 green, 1 red and 1 blue as a group. How can you bin 3 color in 4 pixels ??? People tends to confuse down sizing with pixel binning.



Simple - you average the output of the two green pixels.


----------



## Rocky (Oct 19, 2010)

*Re: 1Ds Mark IV Feature*



neuroanatomist said:


> Rocky said:
> 
> 
> > Bayer sensor is 2 green, 1 red and 1 blue as a group. How can you bin 3 color in 4 pixels ??? People tends to confuse down sizing with pixel binning.
> ...


How about the red and the blue?? you cannot just average one color without doing anything to the other 2 color.


----------



## Osiris30 (Oct 19, 2010)

*Re: 1Ds Mark IV Feature*



x-vision said:


> Aah. Somebody's been wet-dreaming again.
> 
> Pixel-binning and weak/missing AA filter are technical characteristics that have no appeal for real photographers - just for the techno geeks that came up with this lame rumor.
> 
> FAIL.




People who write posts with "FAIL" are doing the same themselves. Pixel binning can be used to reduce noise. A 4:1 binning on a 36MP would yield a very clean 9MP image. Also lack of an AA filter would be beneficial for some types of photography (landscape for example). Neither of the above statements is an endorsement that Canon will do either, but to say these characteristics won't matter to photographers demonstrates your ignorance.


----------



## x-vision (Oct 19, 2010)

Canon Rumors said:


> Update: A contributor has had this to say about the AA filter rumor and that itâ€™s unlikely Canon will remove it from the 1Ds Mark IV.
> 
> MF camera makers deleted AA filters primarily for reasons of cost, not image quality, as aliasing is very destructive. Yes, they do use software to â€œcorrectâ€ this, but it does a terrible job. Itâ€™s an insoluble problem, because itâ€™s a â€œmany to oneâ€ issue for the software.
> Large AA filters are very expensive to manufacture, particularly at MF quantities. A Pentax representative even stated flat out that cost was the sole reason they didnâ€™t include one in the 645D.
> Canon will delete the AA filter once resolutions get high enough that diffraction is the limiting factor.



Aha. So, somebody has been wet dreaming after all. 

  

Dear Canon Rumors, 
Please add a special rating of CR-0 to the rating system for rumors like this one (or maybe CR-wet-dreaming or CR-just-kidding).
With a rating like this, we will still enjoy these rumors. But at least the credibility of this site will not suffer and certain pointless arguments will be avoided.

Bets regards and keep the good work


----------



## Osiris30 (Oct 19, 2010)

*Re: 1Ds Mark IV Feature*



Rocky said:


> Master_of_the_Universe said:
> 
> 
> > Proper pixel binning has huge ramifications for video.
> ...



You bin across and down the Bayer pattern, not adjacent pixels.


----------



## traveller (Oct 19, 2010)

If the 1Ds Mk4 is really being delayed, as more and more rumours are suggesting, what does this mean for the 5D Mk 3? The 5D Mk2 came out a year after the 1Ds Mk3; does this mean that the 5D Mk3 won't be released until 2012? Would Canon risk releasing a high resolution 5D line camera just a few months after a 1Ds line successor? 

Are we going to start seeing divergence between the two product lines? The 1Ds Mk3 and 5D Mk2 had different processors (twin Digic 3s vs. single Digic 4), so with both lines presumably to use a new Digic 5 chip, would a 5D mk3 be able to maintain even a reasonable frame rate with half the 'horsepower', assuming the rumours that the 1Ds Mk4 will stay at 5 fps are correct (and that the reason for this is processing power -not necessarily a correct assumption, I know)? Even then, would 5 fps vs. 3.5 - 4 fps be enough of a differentiation for most potential buyers if the 5D Mk3's af system was upgraded to even 7D levels? 

So, either the 1Ds Mk4 will be higher frame rate, have some new 'killer' features, will be cheaper relative to the 1Ds Mk3's price; or the 5D Mk3 will have a differnet sensor and target market. The problem with believing the latter, is that if Canon were to keep the 21 MP sensor and improve the AF and shooting speed, the 5D Mk3 would look very attractive compared to the 1D Mk4! 

Just thinking out loud...


----------



## kubelik (Oct 19, 2010)

by the way, x-vision, you'll note that CRguy did not assign any CR value to this post ... which is basically the CR[0] designation you're talking about


----------



## macfly (Oct 19, 2010)

Two things of note in this thread...

"Remember the 7d would be 45mp ish if it were full frame." Is that for real? I ask because I have no idea, but that could well make sense, meaning the MkIV at 45PM and the 5D MkIII at 28MP. That would be a clear enough differentiation to separate them, and also aim the MkIV squarely at the MF market. I'll be buying both regardless.

The other thing is all this f'ing pathetic crap about "real photographers". Listen, if we're here we love the art, craft, gear and lore of photography, and we are all real. It is just pathetic to be be putting people down because they don't match up to whatever you think is your expectation of real. And I can say that as someone with 35 years experience as a working photographer, so x-vision, seriously, take a running jump. (www.macfly.com)


----------



## unfocused (Oct 19, 2010)

> The other thing is all this f'ing pathetic crap about "real photographers".



Perfect. I don't think I've ever seen an "unreal" photographer. Would Clint Eastwood in the "Bridges of Madison County" count? David Hemmings in "Blow Up"? Maybe we should have a contest: Who is your favorite unreal photographer?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 19, 2010)

*Re: 1Ds Mark IV Feature*



Rocky said:


> How about the red and the blue?? you cannot just average one color without doing anything to the other 2 color.



Kodak makes a 4/3 CCD with a Bayer mask that bins up to 4x4. Check out the specs. It's not averaging, per se, but a progressive scan.


----------



## macfly (Oct 19, 2010)

Unfocused, now thats a great call! 

Pretty hard to beat David Hemmings in Blow-up! but maybe I'd add Faye Dunaway for Eyes of Laura Mars (based on Rebecca Blake and her pictures) and also or those of you of a certain age I always thought that Alexander Enberg's portral of Chris von Wagenheim in Gia was pretty great. However, those were both real photographers, like my granny with her Olympus happy snapper, and my 4 year old niece with Powershot. We are at sea in a world of photographers, and I think finding an unreal one may be quite a persuit, could even be harder than finding the real details of the upcoming MkIV!


----------



## unexposure (Oct 19, 2010)

unfocused said:


> Maybe we should have a contest: Who is your favorite unreal photographer?



SPIDERMAN!


ok... something more serious...

a typical bayer pattern would look like this:






so binning for a Bayer sensor would mean, binning pixel-clusters of 2x2 resulting in 4x4 binned-clusters rather than real pixel-binning which would only be possible in similar-to-foveon-type-sensors.


----------



## Osiris30 (Oct 19, 2010)

unexposure said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe we should have a contest: Who is your favorite unreal photographer?
> ...



Correct.. which is what I keep calling (rightly or wrongly) 4:1 binning. A 36MP sensor would bin down to 9MP. This is why I don't *not* believe the binning. 9MP in very low light would probably be sufficient detail if it was super clean. Now that the MP count is high enough to support 4:1 I think it's a viable technology.


----------



## Grendel (Oct 19, 2010)

macfly said:


> "Remember the 7d would be 45mp ish if it were full frame." Is that for real? I ask because I have no idea, but that could well make sense, meaning the MkIV at 45PM and the 5D MkIII at 28MP.



Yes: 18MP / (22.3 x 14.9 mm) * (36.0 x 24.0 mm) = 46.8MP


----------



## c.d.embrey (Oct 19, 2010)

Theory is nice , but reality is better.

Phase One is shipping the P 65+ (8984 x 6732, Full res. 60.5mp 50-800 ISO and sensor+ 15.0mp and 200-3200 ISO) and the P 40+ (7320 x 5484, Full res. 40mp 50-800 ISO and Sensor+ 10mp 200-3200 ISO). http://www.phaseone.com/en/Digital-Backs/P65/P65-Tech-Specs.aspx

The big question is will Canon ever do something like these Phase One cameras?


----------



## unexposure (Oct 19, 2010)

c.d.embrey said:


> The big question is will Canon ever do something like these Phase One cameras?


considering, that by having a 1:4 cluster-binning for those p1 models that results in four times the highest iso level, imagine what this would be in a potential 1ds mk4 (102.400 high-iso non-binned?) ... ISO 409.600 ?! 
What exactly would that be usefull for?


----------



## Ivar (Oct 19, 2010)

You seem to miss Leaf 80MP beast ;-)

http://www.leaf-photography.com/products_aptus212.asp



c.d.embrey said:


> Theory is nice , but reality is better.
> 
> Phase One is shipping the P 65+ (8984 x 6732, Full res. 60.5mp 50-800 ISO and sensor+ 15.0mp and 200-3200 ISO) and the P 40+ (7320 x 5484, Full res. 40mp 50-800 ISO and Sensor+ 10mp 200-3200 ISO). http://www.phaseone.com/en/Digital-Backs/P65/P65-Tech-Specs.aspx
> 
> The big question is will Canon ever do something like these Phase One cameras?


----------



## Ivar (Oct 19, 2010)

btw, because of business optimization, the 1Ds4 will give a nice hint for the next 1D model when a new 1Ds is released with the Digic 5. 45MP promises something like 22MP camera, which I suppose is in FF format this time, the king of high iso.


----------



## Osiris30 (Oct 19, 2010)

c.d.embrey said:


> Theory is nice , but reality is better.
> 
> Phase One is shipping the P 65+ (8984 x 6732, Full res. 60.5mp 50-800 ISO and sensor+ 15.0mp and 200-3200 ISO) and the P 40+ (7320 x 5484, Full res. 40mp 50-800 ISO and Sensor+ 10mp 200-3200 ISO). http://www.phaseone.com/en/Digital-Backs/P65/P65-Tech-Specs.aspx
> 
> The big question is will Canon ever do something like these Phase One cameras?



Congrats... everyone just found out what will differentiate the new 5D from the 1Ds... Canon simply won't do pixel binning on the 5D. This gives them room to improve the 5D line and a *key* feature to differentiate the 1Ds. Pixel binning would be huge is potential advantage for low-light and/or extreme high quality work.


----------



## unfocused (Oct 19, 2010)

> I always thought that Alexander Enberg's portral of Chris von Wagenheim in Gia was pretty great.



You mean there was a guy in "Gia?" For some reason I never noticed.


----------



## epsiloneri (Oct 20, 2010)

Osiris30 said:


> This gives them room to improve the 5D line and a *key* feature to differentiate the 1Ds. Pixel binning would be huge is potential advantage for low-light and/or extreme high quality work.



Why is that? The only advantage I see with in-camera binning is size of files/speed (which is nice, but I don't see the huge potential). One might also save some readout noise, but I doubt that's significant in most situations.


----------



## jouster (Oct 20, 2010)

c.d.embrey said:


> Theory is nice , but reality is better.
> 
> Phase One is shipping the P 65+ (8984 x 6732, Full res. 60.5mp 50-800 ISO and sensor+ 15.0mp and 200-3200 ISO) and the P 40+ (7320 x 5484, Full res. 40mp 50-800 ISO and Sensor+ 10mp 200-3200 ISO). http://www.phaseone.com/en/Digital-Backs/P65/P65-Tech-Specs.aspx
> 
> The big question is will Canon ever do something like these Phase One cameras?



My guess would be yes in megapixels; probably not in sensor size. The biggest of the sensors you link is substantially larger than a FF from Canon and that isn't including the 80 MP linked above. Canon would need to change its lenses completely for those sensor sizes to be viable.


----------



## Osiris30 (Oct 20, 2010)

epsiloneri said:


> Osiris30 said:
> 
> 
> > This gives them room to improve the 5D line and a *key* feature to differentiate the 1Ds. Pixel binning would be huge is potential advantage for low-light and/or extreme high quality work.
> ...



Actually noise performance could be improved non-trivially in a binned environment. Basically you are working with 4 times the number of data sources, so the random variance because 1/4 as strong. I'm definitely not using the right terminology right now (you'll have to forgive me, it's been a *very* long day at the office), but I did want to respond with a general direction of what I'm thinking. I'll respond later tonight or tomorrow in more detail if you would like, but long story made very short, you have 4x the signal to 1x the noise in a 4:1 (2x2) bin. That is significant.


----------



## epsiloneri (Oct 20, 2010)

Osiris30 said:


> Actually noise performance could be improved non-trivially in a binned environment. Basically you are working with 4 times the number of data sources, so the random variance because 1/4 as strong. I'm definitely not using the right terminology right now (you'll have to forgive me, it's been a *very* long day at the office), but I did want to respond with a general direction of what I'm thinking. I'll respond later tonight or tomorrow in more detail if you would like, but long story made very short, you have 4x the signal to 1x the noise in a 4:1 (2x2) bin. That is significant.



I understand that binning increases the signal/noise per pixel, but my point is that the binning doesn't need to be in camera. You can later bin the full resolution raw image in software with the same noise improvement. But perhaps you were referring to some other advantage?

(the S/N will improve 2x for 2x2 binning: the signal increases 4x but the noise only 2x because of the tendency of random noise to "cancel out" when you add it up - that's why adding up 4 noisy pixels only gives twice the noise as a single pixel)


----------



## Rocky (Oct 20, 2010)

Osiris30 said:


> unexposure said:
> 
> 
> > unfocused said:
> ...


If you bin the 4 pixel from the same color,you will have a big effect on the sharpness. because the binned pixel will be over lapping the other 2 color. You will end up a blurry picture. Let us face it, if the binning is so easy, All camera manufacturer could have done it. Just remember that 3 MP is good for 8X10. Up to 15 years ago, "professional "digital camera is only 2 MP. So If binning is that easy, they could have given us a 2 stop extra sensitivity and less noise picture at 4.5 MP from a 18 Mp sensor. If it was true. I would take it anytime for the low light situation.


----------



## c.d.embrey (Oct 20, 2010)

Ivar said:


> *You seem to miss Leaf 80MP beast ;-)*
> 
> http://www.leaf-photography.com/products_aptus212.asp
> 
> ...



*You seem to have missed the point!* The discussion isn't about the highest MP available, it's about variable image sensors like the P 65+ shooting at *60.5 MP ISO 50-800* and also the sensor+ setting that gives *15 MP at 200-3200 ISO.* This is a feature that many posters seem want on the 1Ds IV.


----------



## unexposure (Oct 20, 2010)

Rocky said:


> If you bin the 4 pixel from the same color,you will have a big effect on the sharpness. because the binned pixel will be over lapping the other 2 color. You will end up a blurry picture. *Let us face it, if the binning is so easy,* All camera manufacturer could have done it.


That's the point. Binning isn't as easy as one might imagine, due to the mechanism how bayer sensors work. For Foveon-Type-Sensors it's pretty simple. Basically it's like this: Take the information from the pixels that are designated for binning, add their values and divorce by the number of binned pixels to get your result.
Bayer is more complicated even without binning, since in a microcluster you have 2 green, 1 blue and 1 red sensitive pixel (due to the different bandwidth of light that arrives at pixel level). But rather than those four pixels beeing "smashed" together to result in one final pixel color (which would also result in some kind of binning) the pixels itself influence each other in values. So for example a blue pixel can deliver yellow color if blue light is none, but the green an the red pixels next to the blue one deliver high values. 

Now you might have to options to work with: 
a) "Glueing together" the microcluster (2x2) to result in one larger pixel. This however would be the easy way to achieve what is considered more sensivity per pixel, but on the other hand, you don't really increase dynamic range and only poorly increase color sensivity due to the way, the pixels influence each other already at the current state of technics in bayer sensors. 
b) Clustering the microclusters (2x2 clusters of 2x2). This is pretty hard to imagine, since "sticking together" the clusters would result in variant a) but that's not the goal. The thing how this works out is to have 4 times the information of green, 4 times the information of red and 4 times the information of blue (so a cluster would have 8 green, 4 red, 4 blue pixels) to interact with each other, rather than really reducing it to four single sources of information. let's take the picture i posted before to have a look at it: Pick a single blue pixel - for casual bayer calculation, based on this layout, your information-giving neighbor-pixels are the green on top, the green on left, the red on upper left. In a binned enviroment you would consider the 4 inner pixels as your "binned pixels" from which surround arranged pixels you get that information needed to produce the color. For example, take the upper left blue one: Information for Red is four times available from upper right, lower right, upper left, lower left - now these values are added up and divided by four to achieve the value for red. for green these would be the upper and the left one, the upper and the right one, the lower and the right one and the lower and the left one, resulting in 8 pixels ginving information for green, divided by 4 to achieve the resulting value. same goes for all other pixels in this 2x2-center of the cluster. the reduced overall pixels are due to line interleaving of the outer pxiels, which are only used as interferring pixels.
the result is, you get a slightly less good signal-noise ratio than in variant a) but an impressivly improved color-sensivity and also an sligthly increased dynamic range in higher iso-modes.

however neither of the options I described is, what binning would practically work like in bayer sensors since it's a whole lot more complicated. but it should give you an example for why it's not implemented in current "low cost" cameras, since the processors just cant provide enough calculation-ressources to do the job for variant b). Variant a) on the other hand is just the same you could achieve bei scaling the image on your computer down to 25%, taking an algorithm that respecs the medium color values for each pixel that is combined. as i stated earlier, for foveon-type sensors, this method really works out well, since every pixel already has all the information provided on it's own. For bayer-type, this might result in some kind of blurry thing.


----------



## unexposure (Oct 20, 2010)

I have to add something to my post:

Phase One does it this way (pdf). They practically do an option c) which is: separating green from red and blue into two overlapping "layers" to reduce the gaps in pixel density and as a result can use method a slightly different method a) to bin the pixels. Considering, that the pixel-density of a fullframe-sensor at 45mp would be at least double as high as on a medium-format p45+ sensor, so it might even be possible to use this method whithout rotating the green-layer.

Another Example of how it could be done is shown by fuji's exr technics. Here it's basically another arrangement of the color-array to do 1:2 binning called pixel fusion. The article linked explains it very well.

I guess at the end, the only one who can give a real answer on this issue is canon itself - but even regarding registered patents by canon does not really deliver any clear answer at the current time.


----------



## blufox (Oct 20, 2010)

One thing I do not understand is that how can Canon move to high MP sensor which require new lenses altogether?

Think for a while 
- My 3000$(maybe 6000+$ for some) worth of lenses suddenly will become useless on such a camera instantly. 
Woah!... that would be some pretty retarded move by Canon to piss off a lot of people who value glass over body. 

I doubt it will be something which requires altogether new lenses. 

If not, what did I miss?

I for one, hate MP race. All I need is some good innovation in current 21MP sensor on a 5d MkII. 

PS:- I still shoot with a basic 1000D but with a L glass, so I can be safely presumed as a newbie .


----------



## kubelik (Oct 20, 2010)

to be honest, its not as disturbing as you may think, blufox. as some have pointed out, the pixel density on the current APS-C cameras is already up in the 45 MP equivalent range for a FF sensor.

current L glass isn't "useless" on the 7D, so there's no reason once a 35 MP FF camera comes out that you wouldn't be able to put current L glass on it and get great photos.

it's just a matter of updating and refreshing lenses for the future, in terms of image quality, feature set, and build quality.

from using the new 100 L Macro, and seeing what's soon to come in terms of the revised 300 and 400, I think overall it's a good thing, and nothing to get freaked out over


----------



## Osiris30 (Oct 20, 2010)

epsiloneri said:


> Osiris30 said:
> 
> 
> > Actually noise performance could be improved non-trivially in a binned environment. Basically you are working with 4 times the number of data sources, so the random variance because 1/4 as strong. I'm definitely not using the right terminology right now (you'll have to forgive me, it's been a *very* long day at the office), but I did want to respond with a general direction of what I'm thinking. I'll respond later tonight or tomorrow in more detail if you would like, but long story made very short, you have 4x the signal to 1x the noise in a 4:1 (2x2) bin. That is significant.
> ...



If you bin on chip you cut the readout noise out of the problem. That's the difference between on chip binning (done right) and post production binning. Readout and amp noise can be a non-trivial factor of noise. That's what I was referring to the 4:1 SnR change. On a sensel level the noise is more around 2x, you're correct (I've seen 2.5 used a lot as well). Point in all the is, the earlier in the pixel pipeline you can move the binning, the less 'secondary' or 'system' noise you'll be subjecting those pixels too. Every step (as I'm sure you're aware) exposes the signal to potential degradation.


----------



## Osiris30 (Oct 20, 2010)

Rocky said:


> Osiris30 said:
> 
> 
> > unexposure said:
> ...



Rocky:

Your logic is flawed on many levels. First of all, some P&S do have various forms of binning and have for years.. so ya, it's doable. Problem is the SLR market place is a different beast. Most magazines, stock photo places and clients will not accept a 4.5MP image in this day and age. It just doesn't have what they need in terms of workable resolution. IMHO 9MP is enough. 

Also I'm not sure what you mean overlapping the other two color...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 20, 2010)

kubelik said:


> ...seeing what's soon to come in terms of the revised 300 and 400, I think overall it's a good thing, and nothing to get freaked out over



Well, to be completely honest, the $11,000 suggested retail price of the new 400mm f/2.8L IS II does sort of freak me out...


----------



## Rocky (Oct 20, 2010)

Osiris30 said:


> Your logic is flawed on many levels. First of all, some P&S do have various forms of binning and have for years.. so ya, it's doable. Problem is the SLR market place is a different beast. Most magazines, stock photo places and clients will not accept a 4.5MP image in this day and age. It just doesn't have what they need in terms of workable resolution. IMHO 9MP is enough.
> 
> Also I'm not sure what you mean overlapping the other two color...



Can you name a P&S that have pixel binning? (I am not talking about down sizing after DSP). It should be a big deal for the P&S. I am surprised that Nobody ever advertised it. If you pick 4 pixel with the same color, there are other 2 color in between the 4 pixels. So if you bin the 4 into one. The other color also will be binned. so all the 4 pixel of the same color square are over lapping each other.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 20, 2010)

Rocky said:


> Can you name a P&S that have pixel binning?



Several recent PowerShots, cameras from Fuji, Panasonic, etc., all do pixel binning (for the 'low-light' mode). On the other end of the spectrum, Phase One does it, too, in the P65+. One notable difference - all of the sensors with Bayer masks which are capable of binning are CCD, not CMOS.


----------



## kubelik (Oct 20, 2010)

neuroanatomist said:


> kubelik said:
> 
> 
> > ...seeing what's soon to come in terms of the revised 300 and 400, I think overall it's a good thing, and nothing to get freaked out over
> ...



that's true, I can't say I'm ecstatic about the price tag ... but I think there's enough existing 300s and 400s out there to keep people happy for now. maybe canon thinks we're all going to get huge raises over the next few years. or that sports PJ agencies will suddenly start turning huge profits.

maybe they feel that, since Sigma is going "high-end" all of a sudden, canon needs to be "even higher-end" and more expensive/exclusive


----------



## epsiloneri (Oct 20, 2010)

Osiris30 said:


> If you bin on chip you cut the readout noise out of the problem.



If readout noise is indeed significant, then yes, it would be advantageous. But is it? Usually readout noise becomes important for very low S/N in an image, i.e. underexposed parts such as deep shadows, and limits the dynamic range available. I wonder at what exposure level the readout noise becomes comparable to the photon noise.


----------



## AJ (Oct 20, 2010)

_I asked around to find out if software could correct what the lack of an AA filter could bring about. Most notably; moire. The general consensous was it was possible. _

I don't think it's possible. Once you get spatial aliasing (moire) the signal is irreparably damaged. Trying to reconstruct the original signal is a non-unique mathematical problem. It's been tried in other signal processing applications where aliasing is much more of a problem. The solution is to keep the AA filter, and to design a filter with cutoffs as sharp as possible right at Nyquist.

For comparison, seismic recordings are always made with an analog AA filter up front. That said, moire is not nearly as extensive a problem as aliasing in seismic recordings.


----------



## lightsabre (Oct 21, 2010)

My opinion is that while it could be possible to remove moirÃ© artifacts through software algorithms, the process could remove some details as well. My guess is that, to a certain extend, moirÃ© removal has a similar effect to noise removal.

So designers could be faced with two options:

1) Not use an AA filter, leave all the details and moirÃ© but lose some of these details when moirÃ© artifacts are removed by the software
2) Use a light AA filter and lose some details during image capture but get raw images which are mostly free of moirÃ© artifacts

If we look at a similar problem when deciding on Noise Reduction strategy, most would agree that we prefer the camera to leave all the noise in the picture and allow the photographer to decide how much details to sacrifice later during post processing. Software NR allow us to fine tune our personal preferred balance to noise vs details.

Therefore the omission of the AA filter and leaving everything to the software AA algorithm would mean that photographers would be able to decide for themselves the balance between fine details vs moirÃ©. Also, raw files can be reprocessed at a later date with newer and more efficient moirÃ© filters thus squeezing more details out of the image while removing moirÃ© artifacts.

My only question is whether moirÃ© artifacts from a sensor without an AA filter can destroy the details of an image to an extend that cause it to contain less details than a sensor with an optimum AA filter? If this is the case, then my reasoning might not be valid anymore


----------



## roger (Oct 21, 2010)

Interesting ideas.

But I doubt Canon will do something that revolutionary with 1Ds4. Just doesn't sound like Canon. They always try new technologies on some lower-end cameras instead of taking risks on their flagship models.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 22, 2010)

dilbert said:


> I sometimes wonder if magazines set minimum MP limits so that they automatically exclude pictures taken from compact cameras...
> 
> Doing a quick google on this subject reveals that some stock agencies will not accept less than 12MP - I'm sure that will jump as soon as all of the pro Nikon gear has more MP.



Try google sometime, yourself... 

http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=&q=14-megapixel+camera

Among the search results, which include many makes of P&S cameras, you'll even find a cell phone with a 14 MP camera!


----------



## c.d.embrey (Oct 23, 2010)

dilbert said:


> [quote
> 
> I sometimes wonder if magazines set minimum MP limits so that they automatically exclude pictures taken from compact cameras...
> 
> Doing a quick google on this subject reveals that some stock agencies will not accept less than 12MP - I'm sure that will jump as soon as all of the pro Nikon gear has more MP.



I don't do *stock photography*, I do *advertising*. Ads are turned in as 300 dpi PDFs, if the photo in the ad fits that criteria it doesn't matter what it was shot with. A ten megapixel camera will give you in excess of 300 dpi as an 8x10. 

From fashion photographer *Benjamin Kanarek's* blog http://www.benjaminkanarekblog.com/2009/06/18/pixel-peeping-anal-about-number-pixels/

*"In fact my last shoot I did with the Pentax K20D was over kill considering the size of the support i.e. about 8Ã—10 inches. In fact I had to reduce the image size to get down to 300 dpi for Pre Press. I would have been quite comfortable with a 8-10 mega pixel DSLR. The only grain I see when published with a 10 mega pixel camera in double page landscape format is the â€œtramâ€ grain of the printing press of around 133 dpi."*


----------



## Rocky (Nov 1, 2010)

unexposure said:


> I have to add something to my post:
> 
> Phase One does it this way (pdf). They practically do an option c) which is: separating green from red and blue into two overlapping "layers" to reduce the gaps in pixel density and as a result can use method a slightly different method a) to bin the pixels. Considering, that the pixel-density of a fullframe-sensor at 45mp would be at least double as high as on a medium-format p45+ sensor, so it might even be possible to use this method whithout rotating the green-layer.
> 
> ...



Thanks. These are the best information that I have ever run into. So far only Fuji and Phase one officially claim the pixel binning. The Panansonic webcam is a totally different animal. the phase one article brings out some very interesting point. when doing a 4 to one pixel binning,the resolution actually decreased to by a factor of 16, due to the over lapping of the binned super pixel. Phase one does not claim the resolution factor. It just says better than 16. From my point of view. Fuji sensor is deigned to be pixel binning. Phase one is kind of a stop-gap. The other point and shoot low light setting may be nothing more than the downsizing of the picture to average out the noise for the pixel peeper to make the picture looks good. Let us face the fact. Pixel binning is a BIG deal. I doubt that Canon or any other camera maker will hind such a BIG selling point from the public.


----------

