Any reason why CCD noise looks better than CMOS noise?

>>2948381
>film noise
you mean grain?

cmos is shit but gives a larger scope for post processing in computer. That's the only advantage it has.

>implying the read out electronic have any effect on non-correlated noise in image

>>2948384
>>2948381

you two are fucking morons

>>2948381
Because the photosites of a cdd are bigger than the photosites of cmos. Cmos have a convertiser lum/singal in each photosite and cdd have a convertiser in each line that make bigger place for the sensibility surface and less noise

File: image.png (227KB, 642x400px) Image search: [Google]

227KB, 642x400px

>>2948475
OP this is basically it, read into CCD and CMOS imagers if you want but you'll just find yourself looking at shit like this.
The sensors are just so mechanically different that their noise read has different appearances.
>When will CCD tech catch up with CMOS tech?
The big advantage CCD had for a long time was better low light performance, but as CMOS sensors started doing better in lowlight, the consumer camera industry almost completely ditched CCD because the amount of advantages that CMOS has. Its a possibility that CCDs won't ever catch up to CMOS in the consumer market

File: 1474098114712.jpg (114KB, 947x798px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 947x798px

>>2948381
>film noise

>>2948515
>The big advantage CCD had for a long time was better low light performance

is this a joke?

ps. OP all the MF makers are moving away from CCD, enjoy your dead tech

>>2948520
It's not a joke unfortunately, it was a reality during the early to mid 2000s when cmos tech was just beginning to work its way into the market but wasn't advanced enough to be put into professional camera bodies

It is a shame fuji never made a FF dslr with the sensor used on the Leica m9.

>>2948524
CCD was also a big deal for video cameras and cameras with electronic shutters, because this tech naturally has a global shutter, to implement GS into CMOS you lose a lot of sensitivity and get reduced DR, which is many high-end cameras that have it today offer it as an order option, rather than a defacto feature.

The Sony Exmor R/RS process finally places the electronics behind the sensor well, which means two things: 100% fill factor is going to be a thing again, and the global shutter circuit is not going to eat into the fill either, which means that one day there will be no reason to to have it, at least as soon as BSI becomes a wide-spread technology.

>>2948577
*no reason not to have it

>>2948577
the princiapl reason of suprematcy of cmos on cdd is the cost of production. A CMOS captor is basically a proccesor with a photosensibl surface, it's easy to product. The CDD technology is better but captor are very expensive and hard to product. Because of that captors of cdd are smaller than captors of cmos and a little captor = no boken= 0 use in photography or movie

>>2948456
> trying this hard to sound smart
Maybe next time you can think about what you say :^)

Nobody will give you a clear answer on this. The answer is so in the weeds with the underlying tech, that armchair engineers can argue endlessly and get nowhere.

>>2949661
go buy a serious book on the videography and you will have your answer

>>2948577
>The Sony Exmor R/RS process finally places the electronics behind the sensor well
Is that similar to pentax's back-illuminated CMOSes?

Also CCDs were traditionally used in scientific/astronomy photography, while CMOS can be produced with regular silicon technology (like the same that's used for CPUs and shit) so it's cheaper to mass-produce.

>>2950779
Pentax buys their sensors from Sony. So yes.

>>2950779

Yep, and now even scientific/astronomy photography are been doing with cooled CMOS

CCD is old tech. Comfy, but old tech.