Unveiling of the Full Frame Prototype

philbaum · 06-11-2015, 10:20 AM

Some of the elephants in the room i see:
a. as some have mentioned, the 42mp sensor has been designed for silent shutter - something i would expect Pentax to implement - how cool if it works out

b. This talk about speed has been approached differently by mfr. Sony has chosen to deal with high mp levels and large files - by compressible RAW. Nikon makes compressible RAW optional - Sony not. It will be interesting to see if Sony allows non-compressible RAW in its latest A7. Compressible RAW probably allows smaller chips and smaller cases - such as the A7 series. Not to mention, more files in the buffer, faster processing time,less heat - etc.

c. If you look at the DXOmark measurements for DR for Nikon/Pentax, and Sony for the same sensors, typically, Sony cameras lag behind in DR measurements from Nikon and Pentax. What could be going on? I think, but don't know for sure, that its Sony's lossy compressible RAW is skewing DR measurements in favor of Pentax and Nikon. Is this a big deal - many Sony owners don't think so. In fact, its probably the compressible lossy RAW that allows Sony to put such a big sensor in such a small case. I still haven't made my mind up, don't like the lossy RAW, but on the other hand - like small form designs for camera case. If i'm right, we probably will see lossy RAW again in the A7RII camera. So what will Pentax settle on with regard to lossy RAW and small files; or full RAW and large files. Its all about trade-offs. Processing time, buffer size, heat production, case size - its al affected by these design decisions.

thibs · 06-11-2015, 10:57 AM

Originally posted by philbaum

c. If you look at the DXOmark measurements for DR for Nikon/Pentax, and Sony for the same sensors, typically, Sony cameras lag behind in DR measurements from Nikon and Pentax. What could be going on? I think, but don't know for sure, that its Sony's lossy compressible RAW is skewing DR measurements in favor of Pentax and Nikon. Is this a big deal - many Sony owners don't think so. In fact, its probably the compressible lossy RAW that allows Sony to put such a big sensor in such a small case. I still haven't made my mind up, don't like the lossy RAW, but on the other hand - like small form designs for camera case. If i'm right, we probably will see lossy RAW again in the A7RII camera. So what will Pentax settle on with regard to lossy RAW and small files; or full RAW and large files. Its all about trade-offs. Processing time, buffer size, heat production, case size - its al affected by these design decisions.

I don't agree. Lossy RAW means useless RAW. How can this be RAW if it is no RAW? No Thank you. RAW is already manipulated enough as it is.
sRAW though, combining pixels, saving space and computing power but, at least potentially, allowing better DR is a WAY better possibility IMO.

Lower res RAW is a nice option. Lossy RAW should be banned. Or renamed. This is no RAW.

aleonx3 · 06-11-2015, 11:17 AM

Originally posted by D1N0

The 36mp sensor first appeared in the Nikon D800 after that in the A7R. ....

This doesn't make sense, you mean Nikon (as a customer) has a first dip into Sony's new sensor before Sony put it in it's own A7R later?

Kunzite · 06-11-2015, 11:21 AM

Nikon announced the D800 in Feb 7, 2012, while Sony announced its A7r in Oct 16, 2013. That's an easily verifiable fact.
But the decision is way more complex than making a sensor available to a manufacturer or another. I'm sure Sony wasn't idling just because they were trying to play nice with one of their competitor.

Zygonyx · 06-11-2015, 11:22 AM

That's a fact.
Don't forget talking about sensors that resolutionwise, some of them share the same silicium/electronic matrix ; but that anything else can be or is always (btw manufacturers) different : microlenses design, filters number/properties, ... and regarding the data extraction part : analog/digital conversion & encoding process and components, derawtisation process and components...

D1N0 · 06-11-2015, 11:34 AM

Originally posted by Kunzite

Nikon announced the D800 in Feb 7, 2012, while Sony announced its A7r in Oct 16, 2013. That's an easily verifiable fact.
But the decision is way more complex than making a sensor available to a manufacturer or another. I'm sure Sony wasn't idling just because they were trying to play nice with one of their competitor.

Maybe Nikon custom ordered the 36mp sensor from Sony, and Sony decided to use it themselves once they had the A7 ready.

drougge · 06-11-2015, 01:23 PM

Originally posted by thibs

I don't agree. Lossy RAW means useless RAW. How can this be RAW if it is no RAW? No Thank you. RAW is already manipulated enough as it is.
sRAW though, combining pixels, saving space and computing power but, at least potentially, allowing better DR is a WAY better possibility IMO.

Lower res RAW is a nice option. Lossy RAW should be banned. Or renamed. This is no RAW.

As long as it's optional I can't see how anyone would be against it. And a scaled raw is going to be a less precise aproximation of the data that was read out from the sensor than some sensible type of lossy compression (without scaling). (Or, to be clear: Scaling is more lossy than reasonable compression.) Escpecially on bayer matrix data, which is what we're talking about here (you basically have to demosaic it to scale it).

I'd like to have both options even though I know how "untrue" they are. I don't want raw because I'm analysing the sensor, I want it so I don't have to worry about WB and similar when shooting.

falconeye · 06-11-2015, 01:55 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by aleonx3

This doesn't make sense, you mean Nikon (as a customer) has a first dip into Sony's new sensor before Sony put it in it's own A7R later?

That's a complete misunderstanding of Sony.

Sony camera business is a relatively unimportant department within Sony and shortlisted to be sold out.

OTOH, Sony semiconductor (with imaging sensors as their most important segment) was promoted to strategic role. They have more than 50% market share worldwide in imaging sensors and are a multi billion dollar business.

That's like thinking Intel not giving a chip to Apple because Intel may want to build a few computers themselves ...

The D800 sensor went to nikon years ahead of Sony using it (the D800 was delayed at least a year), The D810 sensor isn't used anywhere within the indistry elsewhere (and it is a much better sensor with almost twice the full well capacity).

And the new stacked image sensors will be sold too.

I assume one of the driving forces behind the new stacked sensors (which contains an embedded image processor) is to get an even bigger share of the camera components market. It will be more difficult to adopt for Nikon or Pentax because it requires substantial changes to their firmware. But given the significant advantages, they'll do so sooner or later.

It makes no sense whatsoever to assume that Sony poses any restrictions on sensor supply to camera vendors.

---------- Post added 11-06-15 at 22:06 ----------

Originally posted by thibs

I don't agree. Lossy RAW means useless RAW. How can this be RAW if it is no RAW? No Thank you. RAW is already manipulated enough as it is.
sRAW though, combining pixels, saving space and computing power but, at least potentially, allowing better DR is a WAY better possibility IMO.

I strongly disagree.

It is true that the compression scheme used by Sony is unfortunate. It can produce visible artefacts in post-processed images. However, it is reported that Sony management recognized the fact and promised to escalate the matter to engineering for a (possibly optional) solution. Not easy because it requires all raw converters to adapt.

On the other hand, most of the bits within a raw file are random for physical reasons. It can be proven mathematically that no information is lost if only their statistical properties rather than every bit are stored. And random bits be restored upon load.

It is possible although I am unaware of anybody actually doing it (maybe, I should publish a paper about it?).

But the religious beliefs that RAW must remain uncompressed (or lossless compressed) are lacking a real reason.

sRAW, on the other hand, are a complete mess and it is these formats which should be eliminated. Nikon sRAW esp. is a ridiculous format.

rawr · 06-11-2015, 02:07 PM

Originally posted by falconeye

It makes no sense whatsoever to assume that Sony poses any restrictions on sensor supply to camera vendors.

The only 'restriction' may be price.

Early runs of sensor production will probably be more expensive, but as production ramps up, unit prices come down. So if Ricoh wants to go to the head of the queue, it will probably cost them more per chip.

philbaum · 06-11-2015, 09:57 PM

Originally posted by thibs

I don't agree. Lossy RAW means useless RAW. How can this be RAW if it is no RAW? No Thank you. RAW is already manipulated enough as it is.
sRAW though, combining pixels, saving space and computing power but, at least potentially, allowing better DR is a WAY better possibility IMO.

Lower res RAW is a nice option. Lossy RAW should be banned. Or renamed. This is no RAW.

I'm sympathetic to your viewpoint. However when i looked at an example of the artifact produced by Sony RAW, it was only visible with difficulty at 100% at the Rawdigger site. Without today's pixel peeping technology, noone would know its there.

biz-engineer · 06-11-2015, 10:43 PM

Originally posted by falconeye

Sony camera business is a relatively unimportant department within Sony and shortlisted to be sold out.

Could you please provide evidence for this claim?

thibs · 06-11-2015, 11:35 PM

Originally posted by philbaum

I'm sympathetic to your viewpoint. However when i looked at an example of the artifact produced by Sony RAW, it was only visible with difficulty at 100% at the Rawdigger site. Without today's pixel peeping technology, noone would know its there.

Thanks. What's the point of getting massive amounts of (not always useful I'll agree) pixels/data if you throw part of it away. Even if it is@ 100%, I don't care.
Then we might use Jpeg as well.

Asahiflex · 06-12-2015, 01:06 AM

Originally posted by falconeye

It makes no sense whatsoever to assume that Sony poses any restrictions on sensor supply to camera vendors.

Unless those sensors contain technology patented by certain camera vendors...

falconeye · 06-12-2015, 01:52 AM

Originally posted by biz-engineer

Could you please provide evidence for this claim?

Yes, I could. Could you please google for one of the more recent Sony press releases on plans for restructuring?

Originally posted by Asahiflex

Unless those sensors contain technology patented by certain camera vendors...

Like in Intel selling processors using Intel patents?
Or do you mean that contract work isn't of course sold to others? Don't get it ...

Mistral75 · 06-12-2015, 02:58 AM

Originally posted by falconeye

(...)

Sony camera business is a relatively unimportant department within Sony and shortlisted to be sold out.

(...)

Originally posted by biz-engineer

Could you please provide evidence for this claim?

Originally posted by falconeye

Yes, I could. Could you please google for one of the more recent Sony press releases on plans for restructuring?

(...)

That Sony camera business is a relatively unimportant department within Sony or rather a department of lesser importance, in particular in size, is indeed obvious from figures and various reports. That it is shortlisted to be sold out, not so much, or you have found something I didn't see.

Could you please provide the corresponding link? I thank you in advance.

06-11-2015, 11:22 AM	#815
Zygonyx Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: Ile de France Posts: 4,033	That's a fact. Don't forget talking about sensors that resolutionwise, some of them share the same silicium/electronic matrix ; but that anything else can be or is always (btw manufacturers) different : microlenses design, filters number/properties, ... and regarding the data extraction part : analog/digital conversion & encoding process and components, derawtisation process and components... Last edited by Zygonyx; 06-11-2015 at 11:36 AM.

06-12-2015, 01:52 AM	#824
falconeye Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Munich, Alps, Germany Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,871	Originally posted by biz-engineer Could you please provide evidence for this claim? Yes, I could. Could you please google for one of the more recent Sony press releases on plans for restructuring? Originally posted by Asahiflex Unless those sensors contain technology patented by certain camera vendors... Like in Intel selling processors using Intel patents? Or do you mean that contract work isn't of course sold to others? Don't get it ... Last edited by falconeye; 06-12-2015 at 01:57 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
First image of the Full Frame Curved sensor!…made for the RX2?	interested_observer	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	12	09-15-2014 10:04 PM
Economics of full frame	mikemike	Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras	47	06-24-2014 03:47 PM
From Full-Frame Sony... to Pentax... to Full-Frame Canon	Mr_Canuck	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	42	01-21-2014 12:50 AM
Full frame or no full frame....	Deedee	Pentax K-3 & K-3 II	14	10-08-2013 05:39 AM
Is full frame the medium format of the digital era ?	ghelary	Photographic Technique	2	05-28-2009 08:50 AM

06-11-2015, 10:20 AM	#811
philbaum Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Port Townsend, Washington State, USA Posts: 3,659	Some of the elephants in the room i see: a. as some have mentioned, the 42mp sensor has been designed for silent shutter - something i would expect Pentax to implement - how cool if it works out b. This talk about speed has been approached differently by mfr. Sony has chosen to deal with high mp levels and large files - by compressible RAW. Nikon makes compressible RAW optional - Sony not. It will be interesting to see if Sony allows non-compressible RAW in its latest A7. Compressible RAW probably allows smaller chips and smaller cases - such as the A7 series. Not to mention, more files in the buffer, faster processing time,less heat - etc. c. If you look at the DXOmark measurements for DR for Nikon/Pentax, and Sony for the same sensors, typically, Sony cameras lag behind in DR measurements from Nikon and Pentax. What could be going on? I think, but don't know for sure, that its Sony's lossy compressible RAW is skewing DR measurements in favor of Pentax and Nikon. Is this a big deal - many Sony owners don't think so. In fact, its probably the compressible lossy RAW that allows Sony to put such a big sensor in such a small case. I still haven't made my mind up, don't like the lossy RAW, but on the other hand - like small form designs for camera case. If i'm right, we probably will see lossy RAW again in the A7RII camera. So what will Pentax settle on with regard to lossy RAW and small files; or full RAW and large files. Its all about trade-offs. Processing time, buffer size, heat production, case size - its al affected by these design decisions.

06-11-2015, 10:57 AM	#812
thibs Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Belgium Photos: Albums Posts: 7,001	Originally posted by philbaum c. If you look at the DXOmark measurements for DR for Nikon/Pentax, and Sony for the same sensors, typically, Sony cameras lag behind in DR measurements from Nikon and Pentax. What could be going on? I think, but don't know for sure, that its Sony's lossy compressible RAW is skewing DR measurements in favor of Pentax and Nikon. Is this a big deal - many Sony owners don't think so. In fact, its probably the compressible lossy RAW that allows Sony to put such a big sensor in such a small case. I still haven't made my mind up, don't like the lossy RAW, but on the other hand - like small form designs for camera case. If i'm right, we probably will see lossy RAW again in the A7RII camera. So what will Pentax settle on with regard to lossy RAW and small files; or full RAW and large files. Its all about trade-offs. Processing time, buffer size, heat production, case size - its al affected by these design decisions. I don't agree. Lossy RAW means useless RAW. How can this be RAW if it is no RAW? No Thank you. RAW is already manipulated enough as it is. sRAW though, combining pixels, saving space and computing power but, at least potentially, allowing better DR is a WAY better possibility IMO. Lower res RAW is a nice option. Lossy RAW should be banned. Or renamed. This is no RAW.

06-11-2015, 11:17 AM	#813
aleonx3 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Brampton, Ontario Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,996	Originally posted by D1N0 The 36mp sensor first appeared in the Nikon D800 after that in the A7R. .... This doesn't make sense, you mean Nikon (as a customer) has a first dip into Sony's new sensor before Sony put it in it's own A7R later?

06-11-2015, 11:21 AM	#814
Kunzite Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Romania Posts: 15,132	Nikon announced the D800 in Feb 7, 2012, while Sony announced its A7r in Oct 16, 2013. That's an easily verifiable fact. But the decision is way more complex than making a sensor available to a manufacturer or another. I'm sure Sony wasn't idling just because they were trying to play nice with one of their competitor.

06-11-2015, 11:34 AM	#816
D1N0 Pentaxian Join Date: May 2012 Location: --- Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,802	Originally posted by Kunzite Nikon announced the D800 in Feb 7, 2012, while Sony announced its A7r in Oct 16, 2013. That's an easily verifiable fact. But the decision is way more complex than making a sensor available to a manufacturer or another. I'm sure Sony wasn't idling just because they were trying to play nice with one of their competitor. Maybe Nikon custom ordered the 36mp sensor from Sony, and Sony decided to use it themselves once they had the A7 ready.

06-11-2015, 01:23 PM	#817
drougge Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Malmö Photos: Gallery Posts: 787	Originally posted by thibs I don't agree. Lossy RAW means useless RAW. How can this be RAW if it is no RAW? No Thank you. RAW is already manipulated enough as it is. sRAW though, combining pixels, saving space and computing power but, at least potentially, allowing better DR is a WAY better possibility IMO. Lower res RAW is a nice option. Lossy RAW should be banned. Or renamed. This is no RAW. As long as it's optional I can't see how anyone would be against it. And a scaled raw is going to be a less precise aproximation of the data that was read out from the sensor than some sensible type of lossy compression (without scaling). (Or, to be clear: Scaling is more lossy than reasonable compression.) Escpecially on bayer matrix data, which is what we're talking about here (you basically have to demosaic it to scale it). I'd like to have both options even though I know how "untrue" they are. I don't want raw because I'm analysing the sensor, I want it so I don't have to worry about WB and similar when shooting.

06-11-2015, 01:55 PM - 1 Like	#818
falconeye Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Munich, Alps, Germany Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,871	Originally posted by aleonx3 This doesn't make sense, you mean Nikon (as a customer) has a first dip into Sony's new sensor before Sony put it in it's own A7R later? That's a complete misunderstanding of Sony. Sony camera business is a relatively unimportant department within Sony and shortlisted to be sold out. OTOH, Sony semiconductor (with imaging sensors as their most important segment) was promoted to strategic role. They have more than 50% market share worldwide in imaging sensors and are a multi billion dollar business. That's like thinking Intel not giving a chip to Apple because Intel may want to build a few computers themselves ... The D800 sensor went to nikon years ahead of Sony using it (the D800 was delayed at least a year), The D810 sensor isn't used anywhere within the indistry elsewhere (and it is a much better sensor with almost twice the full well capacity). And the new stacked image sensors will be sold too. I assume one of the driving forces behind the new stacked sensors (which contains an embedded image processor) is to get an even bigger share of the camera components market. It will be more difficult to adopt for Nikon or Pentax because it requires substantial changes to their firmware. But given the significant advantages, they'll do so sooner or later. It makes no sense whatsoever to assume that Sony poses any restrictions on sensor supply to camera vendors. ---------- Post added 11-06-15 at 22:06 ---------- Originally posted by thibs I don't agree. Lossy RAW means useless RAW. How can this be RAW if it is no RAW? No Thank you. RAW is already manipulated enough as it is. sRAW though, combining pixels, saving space and computing power but, at least potentially, allowing better DR is a WAY better possibility IMO. I strongly disagree. It is true that the compression scheme used by Sony is unfortunate. It can produce visible artefacts in post-processed images. However, it is reported that Sony management recognized the fact and promised to escalate the matter to engineering for a (possibly optional) solution. Not easy because it requires all raw converters to adapt. On the other hand, most of the bits within a raw file are random for physical reasons. It can be proven mathematically that no information is lost if only their statistical properties rather than every bit are stored. And random bits be restored upon load. It is possible although I am unaware of anybody actually doing it (maybe, I should publish a paper about it?). But the religious beliefs that RAW must remain uncompressed (or lossless compressed) are lacking a real reason. sRAW, on the other hand, are a complete mess and it is these formats which should be eliminated. Nikon sRAW esp. is a ridiculous format.

06-11-2015, 02:07 PM	#819
rawr Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 11,913	Originally posted by falconeye It makes no sense whatsoever to assume that Sony poses any restrictions on sensor supply to camera vendors. The only 'restriction' may be price. Early runs of sensor production will probably be more expensive, but as production ramps up, unit prices come down. So if Ricoh wants to go to the head of the queue, it will probably cost them more per chip.

06-11-2015, 09:57 PM	#820
philbaum Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Port Townsend, Washington State, USA Posts: 3,659	Originally posted by thibs I don't agree. Lossy RAW means useless RAW. How can this be RAW if it is no RAW? No Thank you. RAW is already manipulated enough as it is. sRAW though, combining pixels, saving space and computing power but, at least potentially, allowing better DR is a WAY better possibility IMO. Lower res RAW is a nice option. Lossy RAW should be banned. Or renamed. This is no RAW. I'm sympathetic to your viewpoint. However when i looked at an example of the artifact produced by Sony RAW, it was only visible with difficulty at 100% at the Rawdigger site. Without today's pixel peeping technology, noone would know its there.

06-11-2015, 10:43 PM	#821
biz-engineer Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2015 Photos: Gallery Posts: 12,239	Originally posted by falconeye Sony camera business is a relatively unimportant department within Sony and shortlisted to be sold out. Could you please provide evidence for this claim?

06-11-2015, 11:35 PM	#822
thibs Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Belgium Photos: Albums Posts: 7,001	Originally posted by philbaum I'm sympathetic to your viewpoint. However when i looked at an example of the artifact produced by Sony RAW, it was only visible with difficulty at 100% at the Rawdigger site. Without today's pixel peeping technology, noone would know its there. Thanks. What's the point of getting massive amounts of (not always useful I'll agree) pixels/data if you throw part of it away. Even if it is@ 100%, I don't care. Then we might use Jpeg as well.

06-12-2015, 01:06 AM	#823
Asahiflex Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Netherlands Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,795	Originally posted by falconeye It makes no sense whatsoever to assume that Sony poses any restrictions on sensor supply to camera vendors. Unless those sensors contain technology patented by certain camera vendors...

06-12-2015, 02:58 AM	#825
Mistral75 Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Paris, France Posts: 7,527	Originally posted by falconeye (...) Sony camera business is a relatively unimportant department within Sony and shortlisted to be sold out. (...) Originally posted by biz-engineer Could you please provide evidence for this claim? Originally posted by falconeye Yes, I could. Could you please google for one of the more recent Sony press releases on plans for restructuring? (...) That Sony camera business is a relatively unimportant department within Sony or rather a department of lesser importance, in particular in size, is indeed obvious from figures and various reports. That it is shortlisted to be sold out, not so much, or you have found something I didn't see. Could you please provide the corresponding link? I thank you in advance.