Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
ISO, noise, CMOS and CCD sensors
Jul 28, 2013 21:17:57   #
Frosty Loc: Minnesota
 
I hope this is not a dumb question, but what happens when I change the ISO. I know it works like ASA/DIN in film cameras. When a higher ASA film is used, it allows you to take pictures with a faster shutter or smaller aperature but you get grainer photos.

Does the same thing happen in digital? Do the sensor 's pixels just receive fewer photons resulting in more noise if a high ISO is used? (I'm guessing I just answered my own question.)

Also, is there a difference between CMOS and CCD sensors and noise if one uses the same size sensor, the same ISO and the same shutter/aperature combo? If so, does anyone know why?

Reply
Jul 28, 2013 21:29:33   #
marcomarks Loc: Ft. Myers, FL
 
Frosty wrote:
I hope this is not a dumb question, but what happens when I change the ISO. I know it works like ASA/DIN in film cameras. When a higher ASA film is used, it allows you to take pictures with a faster shutter or smaller aperature but you get grainer photos.

Does the same thing happen in digital? Do the sensor 's pixels just receive fewer photons resulting in more noise if a high ISO is used? (I'm guessing I just answered my own question.)

Also, is there a difference between CMOS and CCD sensors and noise if one uses the same size sensor, the same ISO and the same shutter/aperature combo? If so, does anyone know why?
I hope this is not a dumb question, but what happe... (show quote)


Your explanation is pretty much right. But ISO is actually achieved by boosting the gain of the electronics in the camera which results in electronic noise which is not similar to film grain. Digital noise is ugly and not desirable. Some shooters used film grain artistically on purpose. To some it was objectionable but others it was useable. Digital noise is never desirable.

The CMOS/CCD sensor thing I have not researched. All I know is that some manufacturers are moving to CMOS at a lower resolution and dropping CCD sensors at higher resolutions. I don't know why but it must be a significant improvement for a company to drop a step back from the MP resolution race.

Reply
Jul 28, 2013 21:32:54   #
lighthouse Loc: No Fixed Abode
 
I can only answer the first part - yes you will get more noise.
This noise can be negligible up to a certain ISO and absolutely ghastly after that.
Also depends how big you are blowing up your pics. On a 6" x 4" print it can be unnoticeable and can be horrible at larger sizes.
Software can deal with noise - up to a point.
Technique can also deal with noise to a certain extent.

Reply
 
 
Jul 28, 2013 21:34:08   #
maccardi Loc: Western New York
 
marcomarks wrote:
Your explanation is pretty much right. But ISO is actually achieved by boosting the gain of the electronics in the camera which results in electronic noise which is not similar to film grain. Digital noise is ugly and not desirable. Some shooters used film grain artistically on purpose. To some it was objectionable but others it was useable. Digital noise is never desirable.

The CMOS/CCD sensor thing I have not researched. All I know is that some manufacturers are moving to CMOS at a lower resolution and dropping CCD sensors at higher resolutions. I don't know why but it must be a significant improvement for a company to drop a step back from the MP resolution race.
Your explanation is pretty much right. But ISO is... (show quote)


Ditto, Most DSLR's are depending on the model are good at least up to ISO 800 with very little noise and some are even better at higher levels.

Reply
Jul 28, 2013 21:49:21   #
hangman45 Loc: Hueytown Alabama
 
Frosty wrote:
I hope this is not a dumb question, but what happens when I change the ISO. I know it works like ASA/DIN in film cameras. When a higher ASA film is used, it allows you to take pictures with a faster shutter or smaller aperature but you get grainer photos.

Does the same thing happen in digital? Do the sensor 's pixels just receive fewer photons resulting in more noise if a high ISO is used? (I'm guessing I just answered my own question.)

Also, is there a difference between CMOS and CCD sensors and noise if one uses the same size sensor, the same ISO and the same shutter/aperature combo? If so, does anyone know why?
I hope this is not a dumb question, but what happe... (show quote)


CCD's tend to have more noise at higher ISO's but are better at low ISO's where CMOS are usually better at high ISO

Reply
Jul 29, 2013 00:38:53   #
BHC Loc: Strawberry Valley, JF, USA
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_sensor

Reply
Jul 29, 2013 08:16:15   #
donrosshill Loc: Delaware & Florida
 
As I remember it, CCD sensors are more expensive and difficult to manufacture than CMOS chips. In that case, manufacturers are more sensitive to their bottom profit line. The technology is so close to each other that the manufacturers tend to make them better by the software applied.
Don

Reply
 
 
Jul 29, 2013 08:34:12   #
Frosty Loc: Minnesota
 
marcomarks wrote:
Your explanation is pretty much right. But ISO is actually achieved by boosting the gain of the electronics in the camera which results in electronic noise which is not similar to film grain. Digital noise is ugly and not desirable. Some shooters used film grain artistically on purpose. To some it was objectionable but others it was useable. Digital noise is never desirable.

The CMOS/CCD sensor thing I have not researched. All I know is that some manufacturers are moving to CMOS at a lower resolution and dropping CCD sensors at higher resolutions. I don't know why but it must be a significant improvement for a company to drop a step back from the MP resolution race.
Your explanation is pretty much right. But ISO is... (show quote)


Thanks marco marks. I assume in your explanation that lower resolution means fewer pixels.

Reply
Jul 29, 2013 08:35:43   #
Frosty Loc: Minnesota
 
lighthouse wrote:
I can only answer the first part - yes you will get more noise.
This noise can be negligible up to a certain ISO and absolutely ghastly after that.
Also depends how big you are blowing up your pics. On a 6" x 4" print it can be unnoticeable and can be horrible at larger sizes.
Software can deal with noise - up to a point.
Technique can also deal with noise to a certain extent.


Thanks lighthouse.

Reply
Jul 29, 2013 08:38:26   #
Frosty Loc: Minnesota
 
maccardi wrote:
Ditto, Most DSLR's are depending on the model are good at least up to ISO 800 with very little noise and some are even better at higher levels.


Thanks for replying maccardi. I have a CCD camera. When I shoot film I mostly use 400 ASA, so I guess I will stick with 400 on the digital.

Reply
Jul 29, 2013 08:40:35   #
Frosty Loc: Minnesota
 
Mogul wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_sensor



Thanks Mogul (that s 2-6-2 isn't it). I will look it up.

Reply
 
 
Jul 29, 2013 08:45:44   #
Frosty Loc: Minnesota
 
donrosshill wrote:
As I remember it, CCD sensors are more expensive and difficult to manufacture than CMOS chips. In that case, manufacturers are more sensitive to their bottom profit line. The technology is so close to each other that the manufacturers tend to make them better by the software applied.
Don


Thankyou for your reply donrosshill. I heard that CCDs are more expensive to make and use more power. This results in heating up the sensor. It doesn't affect most people but wedding photographers didn't like it. Manufacturers like the lower cost.

Reply
Jul 29, 2013 13:08:40   #
ksudad Loc: W Valley, PHX
 
“Resolution” is a term people often throw around—sometimes incorrectly—when talking about images. This concept is not as black and white as “the number of pixels in an image.” Keep reading to find out what you don’t know.
http://www.howtogeek.com/107163/htg-explains-everything-you-know-about-resolution-is-probably-wrong/

Reply
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.