Myth busted: Canon's 14-bit snake oil

[Jon Ruyle]

1. Read out the pixel nondestructively (i.e. read without reset) four times (instead of just once like normal) and average the four values together for less noise.

In some applications in which dynamic range is important, speed does not matter. Why isn't there a "landscape mode" or something with super low read noise? I would use it even if it took a second (or maybe even much longer) to read the image if it gave me very low read noise (and thus a few stops more DR).



<div>

You can accidentally underexpose a D700 ISO 100 photo by *SIX* stops (or more), boost it back up 6 stops in post, and still get a nice looking image in post. If you tried the same thing on Canon the result would be total garbage.

</div>



I looked at DXOMark. They give the D700 a dynamic range score of 12.2 stops and the 5DII a score of 11.9 stops. Doesn't this mean that the D700 has only 0.3 stops more dynamic range? What am I missing? (One way to reconcile this would be that the canon exposes for more highlight headroom than the Nikon, but I don't think that is true).

[Jon Ruyle]

Because of the detailed reviews and friendly atmosphere right here on TDP, wasn't it?

Phew. You're right. I knew there was *something*. []

[Daniel Browning]

Why isn't there a "landscape mode" or something with super low read noise?

Ha ha!There are dozens of ways that Canon could improve their cameras. Something like this would take about an hour to prototype in MATLAB (read four times, average, write one file) and I would guess about 16 man-hours to implement on the camera firmware. Based on how slow they are with firmware, I'd guess Canon's bureaucracy would somehow bloat that to several weeks.


So how can you ask Canon to do 2 days of work to improve a camera when there are dozens of improvements that would take far less time? For that matter, I'd settle for just asking them to please stop going out of their way to make cameras*worse*!


For example, Canon had a highly useful metadata ISO on the Canon 10D. Compared to analog or digital gain, it reduced file size, increased highlight headroom by 1 stop, and still provided a perfect preview JPEG. They went out of their way to remove it from the 20D and replace it with digital gain -- bloating the file size, clipping a full stop of highlights, and removing the ability to have perfect preview JPEGs at lower analog gains.


Or what about when Nikon upgraded to 14-bit and went out of their way to foul up the NEF compression LUT? It's like they outsourced the development to a bunch of high school kids who are making changes to code they don't even understand.


Then there's how Canon went out of their way to make it impossible to use HTP in the very circumstance where it has *no* downside (highest ISO settings)? If they were going to go out of their way to force the users into something, they should have forced it to *on*, not *off*, since it only has benefits and no downsides.


Look at how many years have passed and Canon *still* doesn't have a working AutoISO. Even on the newest cameras they managed to foul it up for everyone that has a flash attached to their camera.


If I was going to ask a "why", it would be "why don't they stop going out of their way to foul up the cameras?" -- after that I might ask why don't they do the easy things to improve their camera.


Only then, in some far off utopian future, I would ask why don't they add features that actually require some work (such as a "landscape mode", or a working AutoISO).


EDIT: to answer your question, though, I think the reason why is the Marketing department.

[Alan]

I knew it! I KNEW IT! I bought a defective camera! And, all because I BELIEVED Bryan Carnathan! How could he do this to me?? He told me my 5DMk2 was a great camera. Ha! He must be in cahoots with those market driven Canon engineers! How dare they!!


I spent all that money and took all those thousands of defective pictures, and now I'm stuck with them. How am I going to tell my family about this?? They will be so disappointed. I just can't tell them. It'll break their hearts! Oh, the humanity!!


I should have listened to my heart, when I first realized that I was only getting 12 bits, or maybe even 10 bits, when I should have been getting 14 bits! But, nooooo.....I just went ahead and made one bad decision after another.


The only remedy I can think of is to have my family freeze my head when I'm dead. Yeah, yeah....that's what I'll do! The future technology will be able to revive me. Of course, they'll have to exhume my body, but IT WILL BE WORTH IT!!!


Yes, YES!! That's the answer!!! And, once that happens, I'll buy that perfect Canon camera (since those stubborn and dumb engineers that used to hold back on all that wonderful technology that they could have put into my CURRENT camera, but DIDN'T!!....They'll be long gone. YES!!). Then, I'll travel back in time with my perfect Canon camera and re-take all those pictures that I took....it'll be a problem telling my wife why I've got this unrecognizable camera....but, I'll think of something!!


No, wait!!! I don't have to tell her anything. I'll just go back further into time when I was a kid. Yeah, that's what I'll do. I'll have the only digital camera in the WORLD! I'll be rich!


Then, when I marry my wife all over again, she'll think I always had this camera and won't wonder how I'm going to pay for the thing!


Back to the future!!!

[HDNitehawk]

If I was going to ask a "why", it would be "why don't they stop going out of their way to foul up the cameras?" -- after that I might ask why don't they do the easy things to improve their camera.

Daniel


I have a theory, Canon technology is actually far ahead of what is in the cameras today. They either dumb down or under design on purpose. They do this so each cameras and lenses fits its place in the lineup. Technology is only put in to the cameras and lenses when it is profitable to do so. If they put all they could do out at once, the competitors would work harder to catch up, and a technology war would result. ....How else could you explain, that with a 7D you can do a lot of post process adjustments to make it almost as good as the 5D's. I got my new 1D Mark IV today, the pics coming out of it are very nice. Not much at all needs to be done with them. In fact if you do to much it takes away. The 5D is the same way......Did Canon do this on purpose? Did they not want the 7D's pictures to look close to the 5D's or 1D's because if they did they would loose sales?


Easy doesn't always make money. What makes the most money is what will be done.


Rick

[HDNitehawk]

If I was going to ask a "why", it would be "why don't they stop going out of their way to foul up the cameras?" -- after that I might ask why don't they do the easy things to improve their camera.

Daniel


I have a theory, Canon technology is actually far ahead of what is in the cameras today. They either dumb down or under design on purpose. They do this so each cameras and lenses fits its place in the lineup. Technology is only put in to the cameras and lenses when it is profitable to do so. If they put all they could do out at once, the competitors would work harder to catch up, and a technology war would result. ....How else could you explain, that with a 7D you can do a lot of post process adjustments to make it almost as good as the 5D's. I got my new 1D Mark IV today, the pics coming out of it are very nice. Not much at all needs to be done with them. In fact if you do to much it takes away. The 5D is the same way......Did Canon do this on purpose? Did they not want the 7D's pictures to look close to the 5D's or 1D's because if they did they would loose sales?


Easy doesn't always make money. What makes the most money is what will be done.


Rick

[Daniel Browning]

I knew it! I KNEW IT! I bought a defective camera!

Oh, so you bought a Nikon?


Wait...you mean you bought aCanonand you think it's imperfect? Blasphemy! [:@] What kind of heretical reading materials you have been brainwashed with?



<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="content-type" />

He told me my 5DMk2 was a great camera.

No, no, I think you are mistaken. You didn't buy a greatcamera; youbought a flawless camera.No one in a million years could speak of its shortcomings, for it has none. I'm sure this one slip was just an accident on your part, but anyone caught spouting such heresies in the future must face immediate exile.

I spent all that money and took all those thousands of defective pictures, and now I'm stuck with them.

I'll believe it when I see it. All my tens of thousands of 5D2 pictures came out 100% perfect, and in all my years of seeing Canon photos, every single one has always been immaculate in every conceivable way. Even that one when my 3-year-old accidentally hit the shutter release with the lens cap on -- a perfect tropical landscape photo came out.

How am I going to tell my family about this?

Worse yet -- how are we going to tell forum members how perfect the camera is? At least we don't have to ever worry about discussing Canon's flaws, since they have none.

I should have listened to my heart, when I first realized that I was only getting 12 bits, or maybe even 10 bits, when I should have been getting 14 bits! But, nooooo.....I just went ahead and made one bad decision after another.

Don't worry. Canon will never make a camera with too many bits, nor too few, but precisely what we need.


Can you imagine how bad those poor Nikon shooters must feel? Without perfect cameras like us, they probably have forum members that complain about all the problems and flaws in their cameras, and wishing that Nikon would fix and improve them. Can you imagine what a bother it would be to have to skip over those posts?


The only downside to having a perfect camera is that there is no reason to ever buy a new one.


[]

[Jon Ruyle]

Ha ha!There are dozens of ways that Canon could improve their cameras.

Yeah. It's just that until now, I thought of read noise being a hardware thing. But you've just pointed out that if the user is patient, it can be virtually eliminated it in software- improving DR by several stops. I mean, why stop at 4 reads? Why not do 100? Or as many as it takes?


(I think 16 hours is an overestimate of the development time for this- it is a trivial change- though by the time all the PM's have had their way, two weeks is probably about right)


Metadata ISO and auto ISO are a horse of one color. But this... well, this is hitting below the belt.

to answer your question, though, I think the reason why is the Marketing department.

Maybe they should ask the marketing guys in cisco how they managed to sell those crappy open source routers...

[Alan]

The only downside to having a perfect camera is that there is no reason to ever buy a new one.


[img]/emoticons/emotion-5.gif[/img]
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

That's why I plan on buying one in the future!


The bigger question is: when is the technology going to be available to freeze my head? Unless.......It's got to be out there. Some marketer is holding out on us!


[]

[HDNitehawk]

The bigger question is: when is the technology going to be available to freeze my head? Unless.......It's got to be out there. Some marketer is holding out on us!

They have the technology now. Its the thawing out part they are still working on.