Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2010/12/21

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] Erwin and the S2; comparison
From: red735i at earthlink.net (Frank Filippone)
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2010 22:40:39 -0800
References: <C935A22E.817C%mark@rabinergroup.com> <1CD6B5C4-1ED7-4E1B-89FB-7FD33EC3EEA3@frozenlight.eu> <AANLkTi=ADTfr59wSr_shitKfuUROyGHnCt7c09YfJLC_@mail.gmail.com> <FE6BBD19-A5C6-47BA-9349-EEF2E5F744BC@frozenlight.eu> <AANLkTimj-6Kt6GNQ-1KdcjwLM9O39-CiEWkh9J2H2Pks@mail.gmail.com> <004501cba175$7323c240$596b46c0$@earthlink.net> <AANLkTimgc9W=sTxEOY4D5fBUbs_mgjiNnN_VWiUHriPU@mail.gmail.com>

I was in the Semiconductor Industry......  Usually , the technology used to
make a product rarely effects the way the device is used (SW) from the
outside of the device....  Sure, there are some different "rules" or ways of
making it work, but in general, the function and purpose and end goal
determines the SW, not the technology.....

"Trivial" is pretty relative.... 

The purpose of the SW is to take the data presented by the sensor output and
format it to the memory location called the SDHC Card.  In the process, the
data may be filtered in different ways, JPEG'd ( which in itself is a
special filter), or maybe transformed to another color or spatial system or
a combination of any or all of these.

Whether you use a CCD or a CMOS Image sensor, the process is the same.
Implementation is different, but that is both the trivial ( difference) part
as well as the "Secret Ingredients" part.   I personally think Nikon has
done a superb job with their "secret ingredients" in high ISO performance.

Geoff,,,,, in your response, you actually agree with what I am saying, in
the technical sense.  More instructions to do more pixels is "trivial",   It
is really not different, just more of the same..... Using 2 processors
rather than one is also a pretty "trivial" exercise and totally independent
from the technology used to make the sensor..

" To provide a plain and neutral image, we do a lot of complex compensation,
sensor corrections and lens vigentting corrections"... Would have been
needed whether they used a CCD or a CMOS sensor, just "different" algorithms
or implementations.......to achieve the image goal.   

I do not want to make it sound like all of this is easy.... it certainly is
not.   But don't go around thinking that because it is CCD or CMOS that
there is massively more work to write the SW ( Actually FW, but who is going
to be fussy in a name). for one over the other.  It is the same goal in
either case.  It is just different.


Frank Filippone
Red735i at earthlink.net


Do you work in the industry with direct experience?

I don't, but I know enough that it's not trivial change.





Replies: Reply from hopsternew at gmail.com (Geoff Hopkinson) ([Leica] Erwin and the S2; comparison)
Reply from richard at imagecraft.com (Richard Man) ([Leica] Erwin and the S2; comparison)
In reply to: Message from mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner) ([Leica] Erwin and the S2; comparison)
Message from photo at frozenlight.eu (Nathan Wajsman) ([Leica] Erwin and the S2; comparison)
Message from richard at imagecraft.com (Richard Man) ([Leica] Erwin and the S2; comparison)
Message from photo at frozenlight.eu (Nathan Wajsman) ([Leica] Erwin and the S2; comparison)
Message from richard at imagecraft.com (Richard Man) ([Leica] Erwin and the S2; comparison)
Message from red735i at earthlink.net (Frank Filippone) ([Leica] Erwin and the S2; comparison)
Message from richard at imagecraft.com (Richard Man) ([Leica] Erwin and the S2; comparison)