Ah, that nice CCD rendering!

alex ph · Joined: 16 Mar 2013 Posts: 1742

Finding back the taste of the mid-2000s and the easy enchantment of digital photography.

#1

#2

#3

Canon Powershot A720 IS, automatic settings.

Just to be clear: the shots are taken recently, with an older pre-CMOS digital camera.

55 · Expire: 2022-06-15

Interesting shots as always, alex. Like 1 small

Can you put into words what characterizes CCD rendering compared to other sensor types?
I haven't learned to recognize the differences.

RokkorDoctor · Expire: 2025-05-01

Somehow that last shot gives me "PlayTime" vibes, as in the film by Jacques Tati...

alex ph · Joined: 16 Mar 2013 Posts: 1742

Thank you fellows!

What a splendid reference, Mark. Tati was mocking at the aseptic ultramodernity which has to do with the design of the building shot.

calvin83 · Joined: 12 Apr 2009 Posts: 7720 Location: Hong Kong

I have been a Canon G5 camera for many years. The amount of adjustment in the RAW files is much less than the later BSI CMOS sensor. I do enjoy the SOOC jpeg which give vivid color.

55 · Expire: 2022-06-15

RokkorDoctor · Expire: 2025-05-01

I agree images taken with those low DR older cameras do have their own charm, esp. if you take care not to blow the highlights too much.

A bit like shooting high contrast slide film in a high contrast scene. Depending on the subject, used judiciously it can make for pleasing images.

With these older digital cameras it is certainly a lot cheaper to do those will it work/won't it work type experiments than with film Wink

alex ph · Joined: 16 Mar 2013 Posts: 1742

Canon colours are special. And yes, one should not be too much surprised with its DR limits.

I've got a Fujifilm F31 from the same era, praised for its low light capabilities thanks to a special CCD sensor (with two diodes per pixel), and find the SOOC jpeg having a bit larger DR. Still shadows has a sensibly narrower plasticity than Nex gives.

alex ph · Joined: 16 Mar 2013 Posts: 1742

An interesting pragmatically oriented text speaking not really about CCD vs CMOS, but about pixel count and the role of sensor surface to pixel size in machine vision. I appreciated its fresh effect coming from a calm discussion of technical variables, far from holy wars between makers and sensor types.

alex ph · Joined: 16 Mar 2013 Posts: 1742

Out of curiosity and for the sake of a not-so-old nostalgic experience I've recently got several more CCD cameras for a small price. It's quite a feeling to spend today 5 or 20 quids for a perfectly working and slightly scuffed gadget which costed from 200 to 600 quids just 15 years before. So, most part of the set comes from the mid-2000s, and one is roughtly older and was produced in 2000.

The sensor sizes vary from 1/1.7" to 1/1.25", processors which are in charge of noise suppression embetter, megapixels are growing from 3Mp in the first camera to 8-10Mp in the later, image stabilisation is implanted to some of the younger models. All this has a more visible impact on low light performance of each camera.

Meanwhile what I wanted to know this time is how much their rendering differs in good light and colourwise. I reduced all the images to a uniform 1200px on the large side, otherwise they are SOOC jpgs taken with automatic settings.

The year of production (launch) of each camera is indicated before the camera name. Just to keep a trace.

The image is clickable.

It is noteworthy that colours of the earliest 3Mp Olympus are neutral and the later models add more saturation. Also true that, even though Camedia was not a pro camera line, it was neither a compact unlike Olympus Mju, Canon Ixus or Fujifilm Z lines.

Also to note that the first three samples have more visibly blown out highlight zones, and starting from 2006 compact camera processors do a better job of keeping a larger DR (Ixus 900 launched in 2006 was subject to criticism for the highlights issue, referring to outdated hardware components and image processing).

Still, in a good light the difference among all of them is not cracking, besides the resolution. And having slightly darker shadows or slightly warmer main tones is more a matter of taste.

laenee · Joined: 31 Jan 2011 Posts: 370 Location: Shanghai

chhayanat · Joined: 11 Apr 2016 Posts: 250 Location: The Cow Belt

alex ph · Joined: 16 Mar 2013 Posts: 1742

Thank you, fellows!

alex ph · Joined: 16 Mar 2013 Posts: 1742

Interestingly enough, I tried a BenQ DC C500 camera which, following its specifications, is a 1/2.5”, 5 MP CCD camera with a focus free lens at max aperture f3. Launched in 2005, it has only ISO 100 and 200, and its lower light is not up to even basic smartphone image. In fact, it feels and in some way works more as a toy than as a real street shooter. Its operation is on the slow side (especially by today's standards) and its picture quality is definitely not destined to pixel peeping.

Though there are two things which look attractive, in some way.

First, the camera gives a pretty fresh and, if that was not blown light areas, well balanced picture in a good sunlight. It just looks refreshing, as compared to today's cooler and more clinical well-pulled-shadows image.

Second, the SOOC jpg has an unusual DR plasticity which is not on the positive slide like side. It is closer to Sony Nex which allows you to pull and push quite largely. Which is surprising for a CCD camera.

I am putting here several shots to complete the post about CCD rendering with this someway unusual device.

#1 Slight exposure / contrast tweak

#2 Slight exposure / contrast tweak

#3 Slight exposure / contrast tweak, the blown highlights are quite clearly visible

#4 The noise is visible in the sky part, but it does not look too ugly, right?

#5 Slight exposure / contrast tweak

#7 BW conversion of the previous which gives a pretty filmic feeling to me

#8 Dark light SOOC jpg which seems to be irrecoverable in the shadows

#9 A pulled version of the previous via exposure tweak, and a surprise here because pulled shadows are pretty ok

RokkorDoctor · Expire: 2025-05-01

The shadows pull pretty good, but those older CCD cameras can be very unforgiving for blowing the highlights. Specular highlights that blow out to white are OK (car headlights, street lights etc), but large expanses of blue sky that gradually blow out to white often go through rather unappealing colour shifts, like in your image #1. The colour shifts in the highlights can of course be avoided entirely by shooting B&W, for which these old little gems work really well.

I have an old Ricoh GX100 that also still performs really well under good lighting, but grainy detail if you pull the shadows and blown highlights tend to look bad. That GX100 still sees frequent use; TBH the IQ is not better than a smartphone these days, but it has far better ergonomics and it is just fun to use.

stevemark · Joined: 29 Apr 2011 Posts: 4423 Location: Switzerland

RokkorDoctor · Expire: 2025-05-01

LittleAlex · Posted: Tue Jan 14, 2025 10:09 pm Post subject:

stevemark · Joined: 29 Apr 2011 Posts: 4423 Location: Switzerland

The thread made me curious, and so I went into the archive looking at a few pictures from nearly 20 years ago, taken with the Minolta Dynax (Alpha) 7D which has a 6MP APS-C CCD sensor from Sony.

I've compared the original JPGs (left or upper image) with the standard RAW conversion using the actual version of Photoshop (right or lower image).

First a relatively low contrast "blue sky & landscape" situation. No problems at all, apart from the rather aggressive "standard" colors used by Photoshop:

Now more contrast - the sky is "the same" as before, but the forground is in pretty dark shadows. Still no problems with contrast:

Now one of these situatioin RokkorDoctor was mentioning - a part of the sky, near the sun, is very bright and prone to overexposure. On the JPG ouf the Dynax 7D this part is nearly blown out (R/G/B at 248/248/248), but OK - and the RAW has all the color one needs for a prefectly exposed image:

Now finally an image with some glaring bright clouds, again close to the sun, taken at a height of 2600m / 8500ft above sea level. Here the lights are blown out indeed, both in the JPG from the D7D as well as in RAW conversion:

The transition from colors to full white (255/255/255) is pretty OK though, and we don't see "steps" or other artefacts.

And then an image with red roses, usually a difficult subject for any ordinary light metering system:

Here the red channel is overexposed to some extent. Surprisingly the out of camera JPG has better reds (more details and differentiation) than the standard Photoshop conversion.

To summarize - the overall color quality of both the 6MP as well as the 10MP Sony APS-C CCD sensors was (and still is!) very usable as long as one didn't (doesn't) need a really high resolution (calendars come to my mind ...). I have been printing 8 x 10" sized books resulting in excellent detail resolution and impressive colors, using a special 400dpi hybrid raster and special colors with enhanced gamut (e. g. for the reproduction of Tibetan thangkas).

S

RokkorDoctor · Expire: 2025-05-01

Those images indeed look a lot better (and very usable) compared to my experience with the small sensor format CCD cameras of those days.

TBH, I think that was known at the time already; the small sensor cameras struggled with high contrast conditions and needed good lighting. Essentially, if you wanted any retrievable shadow detail on those miniature sensor compact cameras, then you needed to blow the highlights, or if you wanted to retain highlight detail you were going to lose shadow detail in the noise floor.

I never shot FF CCD; as far as digital cameras were concerned I went from using small CCD sensor digital compact cameras straight to the FF SONY A7S.

I have run into unexpected red channel issues with Photoshop before; you may recall we discussed this in a different context Stephan. I learnt that when converting from AdobeRGB to sRGB in Photoshop, one needs to keep a careful eye on the red channel: prior to the AdobeRGB to sRGB conversion the red channel level needs to be well clear from saturation or after conversion it will be clipped. I was expecting different rendering intents to impact this, but surprised that it didn't make much difference re. red channel clipping after conversion.

stevemark · Joined: 29 Apr 2011 Posts: 4423 Location: Switzerland

@ RokkorDoctor: Yes, I remember that discussion about the "red problem" Wink

Here's another one with really bright sky directly adjacent to a shadowy wall (upper right side of the image), this time in full size.

IT'S BEST TO CLICK TWICE ON THE IMAGE AND DOWNLOAD IT - BROWSER AI AND/OR FORUMS SOFTWARE IS MESSING A LOT WITH THE IMAGE UPLOADED ...

Minolta Dyanx 7D (6 MP APS-C Sony sensor), Minolta AF 2.8-4/17-35mm at 17mm f6.7

S

alex ph · Joined: 16 Mar 2013 Posts: 1742

That is a very interesting discussion giving a result that CCD sensors could be used for the further the development of high quality image capture if the light circuit is better controlled. Well, as this often happens in technology and culture production, this may happen in the next cycle of the production spiral.

I acknowledge quite a hype around CCD-based P&S cameras coming to Europe from the US and pushing precisely prices on Canon P&S from the 2000s. This has little to do, for the moment, with quality claim and has more to share with a "digital lomography" trend. But this does not exclude an interest of more serious professional photographers in reviving the "colour slide like" digital technology.

Doc Sharptail · Joined: 23 Nov 2020 Posts: 1321 Location: Winnipeg Canada

I have a camera quite similar to the O/P's first post- a Canon SX 270 HS.

It has gone from being a 20.00 thrift shop special to moving on flea-pay at the 200.00-250.00 range. The value thing makes little sense to me. The sensor is still roughly 5 x 7 mm, and no price tag is going to change that.

The propensity for blowing highlights is quite real. ISO 400 and at the "super fine" I/Q setting. Quite weak morning daylight coming almost straight through the window above the bicycle. 1/10 sec and f 3.5. The I/S works fairly well here with just minor blurring of fine details at image center. I like this image, despite the blown high-lights. Great rendering from such a tiny pocket sized camera.

An old snap from when I first obtained the camera. ISO 125 at the "fine" I/Q setting. Rendering is again, the strong point here. This one is actually a fairly hefty crop.

As a P&S Program Auto everything with flash, it's obviously working very hard here. The camera's built in flash head simply is not big enough for the 7 foot picture snapping distance.

In the right hands, this camera could make some interesting images. There's no getting around the tiny sensor size, though.
If your thing is posting to instagram/facebook, etc, this little camera is fine.

-D.S.

alex ph · Joined: 16 Mar 2013 Posts: 1742

Agreed, when used carefully and with consciousness concerning the overexposed areas, these P&S little pocketable machines are capable for nice and colourwise balanced results.

I tried another one from this huge CCD P&S family, the one having a bigger sensor. It is Fujifilm Finepix E900. I am pretty much impressed with the result which is a slightly different rendering from Canon P&S line. Fuji images have a larger DR plasticity for further PP. And, having less boosted jpeg colours, they look a bit closer to, I don't know, maybe medium format film balance of sharpness and fine detail. The camera itself is bulkier and not that intuitive as Canons justly praised for their ergonomics. Still, this is a very pleasing tool of exploration and fun.

Here are some samples from the E900, either slightly PPed or untouched except resizing.

#1

#2

#3

#4

#5

alex ph · Joined: 16 Mar 2013 Posts: 1742

I am experimenting with Canon S45, an older upper segment CCD P&S camera. Sure, its 4Mp sensor does not always render enough detail by today's standards. But boy, what a lively and expressive rendering!

#1

#2

#3

#4

#5

#6

#7