We can't say that we've ever heard of PaPaLaB, but all it takes to get on the consumer electronics radar is doing something that no one has ever done before. It's one of those "easier said than done" things, we're guessing. Anywho, the Japanese outfit has just rolled out a camera system that has been proven to see the
same colors as the
human eye, a feat that was previously only achievable via huge, impractical camera rigs. The YC-3300, however, is far smaller and manageable than prior systems, and it has already been dubbed a "full-visible-color-gamut camera" by the powers that be. The creators expect it to primarily be used for photographing digital archives and for use in the medical field, but we're already anxious to see such technology miniaturized further and ushered into the consumer market. Surely someone can make that happen before the next
PMA kicks off, right?
posted December 26th 2009 6:21PM
huh? someone explain what it means "sees same colors as human eyes".
@boggit it means that 8% of these cameras are color blind
@boggit
sorry dude, you're color blind
@boggit Camera sensors have a limited range of colors (called color gamut) they can detect. Presumably, most cameras can't detect some colors that the human eye can, and this one doesn't have that problem.
None of this is likely to make any difference to the vast majority of camera users, but for some specialty uses it's good.
@boggit Cameras (and monitors) traditionally have a color gamut that differs from that of the human eye. There are different standards, but you may see something like "90% of the NTSC color space" or talk of adobeRGB color space or something like that and how a monitor/camera meets or exceeds a certain % of that spec. This camera basically sees the exact same color space as the human eye, instead of possibly having overblown blues or less red or something like that.
@boggit Your typical camera's censors don't have the same range as the human eye and vary greatly in default white balance, causing colors to typically end up being colder (more blue) or warmer (more red) than they would appear in real life. RAW formats exists mostly for the purpose of correcting the camera's white balance.
@boggit
It means porn will look just the way it should when you're wearing your 3D glasses with your 96% gamut TV.
Well, I suppose you'll actually need two of these cameras for the 3D glasses to be any good, but you get the idea.
@boggit
Human eye retina (the part that convert light to electrical signal) contain photoreceptor cells (rods and cones) , there is 3 type of cone cells:
"S" cone cells that can approximately responds to electromagnetic spectrum with wave length from 420 to 440 nm (what we call Blue).
"M" cone cells that can approximately responds to electromagnetic spectrum with wave length from 534 to 545 nm (what we call Green).
"L" cone cells that can approximately responds to electromagnetic spectrum with wave length from 564 to 580 nm (what we call Red).
Each cone cell type peek at a certain wave length (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cone_cell)
Cameras today mostly use 2 type of light sensors, CCD (a charge-coupled device) or CMOS/APS (active pixel sensor) .
So "sees same colors as human eye" simply mean that camera sensor (CCD or APS) responds in the same way and sensitivity as the rods and cones of the human eye, covering the same hue–saturation plane. which is easier said then done because usually cameras use different color model like RGB model. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_gamut for more info.
Hope this help.
Kinda pointless considering displays and print quality won't be able to match the range anyway.
@Proud Japanese
It's not pointless for the same reason that 16-bit RAW files aren't pointless, even though no consumer equipment can print or display in 16 bits per channel: storing more information gives you more flexibility in editing. Also, it could help future-proof the image files, allowing them to take advantage of any future advances in printing or display technology, which is especially useful for photographing digital archives.
@Zweben
While true and yes, I make use of raw files just about every day, it would be so nice for monitor technology to give us an affordable high gamut displays. (BTW most cameras shot in 12 or 14 bit and then converted to either 16 or 8 bit. And that is still not enough, 32 bit would be nice.)
@Proud Japanese
When you're dealing with digital preservation, you're not going to care about what current display technology is like. With digital preservation, you're looking to have the images you take be viewable over many many years. In as little as 10 years, we'll easily have displays that can display a wider gamut than what this camera can capture.
If it was truly future proof it would have taken into consideration the next stage of human evolution or when the machines take over.
I'm not sure about color but hospitals have very wide gamut displays in B&W for x-ray displaying nowadays.
And seeing that and how everything scanning-wise goes more and more color I'm guessing your quality hospitals also have such displays in full color, not at the frontdesk of course but in rooms where they judge scans.
And it's not that hard I'm guessing since human colorvision isn't THAT perfect.
@(Unverified)
12bit means that the voltage range of a photosite (normally from +0 to not more than +5V) is digitized (A/D conversion) in 2^12 levels wich means 5V/4096=~0,0012V in the best case.
Such a value is so little for a sensor that starts to be very difficult to distinguish from each digitized value to others, expecially when the surface of a photosite is smaller than a bacteria.
14bit means that the voltage range is divided in 16348 (4 times smaller than 12bit)
Going ahead in this way means that a 16bit A/D converter in the specification is surely cheating, and 24/32bit is nonsense with current technology.
IMHO a RAW file with 16bit per color is enough for the next 5-10 years.
You mean colours
@d0mth0ma5 No he doesn't, this is AMERICA!
@(Unverified) Holy crap, how the hell did I get to America?! Or Japan, where the story originates.
Oh and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humour#Understanding_humour it's late but Happy Non-Denominational Festive Holiday Period, use it well.
@(Unverified) Also, when you say "AMERICA" I assume you incorrectly mean, The United States of America, and not Canada, where they say "Colour", Brazil where they say "Cor", although you could mean the Spanish speaking places in America where they do indeed say "Color"
@d0mth0ma5 Sorry French-Canadians, "Couleur"
@d0mth0ma5 It's Festivus for the rest of us!
@(Unverified) "Matt" Cheers, thats my new thing of the day
And why would it be festive or (festivus) exactly for non christians? Are we celebrating something? What?
It's more of a period of sadness for atheist to see religion still having too damn much pull, if you think about it.
Can't wait for it to trickle down into a consumer camera like 2 decades from now.
@ddhboy
if was following moore's law it would take less time... that is but there are too many variables from a small company from funding to r&d
Several of the big cameramanufacturers indicated they were interested in going for greater colordepth next, so it's not just a small outfit that will push it.
Mind you graphicscards from both ATI and nvidia have been boasting they have 10bit per channel color and more, and yet we are waiting for it to be connectible to something, and for an OS that can use it, I don't think W7 can do more than 32bit (24+gamma) on the desktop can it? It might but I doubt it, I know XP and before can't.
I wonder why nvidia and ATI don't release some apps/code to use it, to push an interest in higher capability displays, they could release a 48bit picture viewer (for formerly-MS's-but-now-open HD photo format and PNG and TIFF such) that opens a 48bit display via hardware calls for instance, and once people find they can't use it they will start to want displays that can :)
There really is no indication whether it's talking about the camera having the same spectral sensitivity as the human eye (which is not uniform throughout the visible spectrum), or if it is able to capture the same dynamic rage.
@jakeshdaddy
So what do you call this statement:
"Kato: We used a three-band color-matching function (S1, S2, S3) made by Shimodaira Laboratory at Shizuoka University. This function was calculated by linearly transforming a typical color-matching function that is the sensitivity of human eye. Each of the three bands has a positive value and an independent peak. And each overlapping peak is minimum.
We developed a color filter that is compatible with those three bands and used it to realize the full-visible-color-gamut camera. "
Seems clear that they simulate the weaknesses of the human eye too there, or at least the average eye according to the available literature, which might actually be a bit dated and incomplete, but that's another story.
HOW MUCH FPS DOES THIS CAMERA SEE?
Sorry had to do it.
Heh, it's using a Nikon mount... hope the tech trickles down to a dSLR in < 10 years.
@(Unverified)
After reading the article, you can bet your ass that this will be in future dSLRs. What they developed was essentially a color filtration which sits on top of a readily available 4000 x 2672px sensor with 12 bit capture (photosite size is 9μm, guessing it's a Nikon D3 sensor?) . Another note is that they are planning to licence the technology to Mitsubishi, which is also Nikon's parent company, and also use it in medical imaging (Nikon Precision division).
@(Unverified)
didn't know that Mitsu was Nikon's sugar daddy... But who or what company is funding PaPaLab?
@xconan
Nikon is part of a same Japanese conglomerate along with Mitsubishi Heavy Industries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikon
@(Unverified)
That explains why they can keep toe to toe against Canon. But their glasses are expensive compared to Canon.
Gamut is a fun word to say.
Gamut.
They should release a 'droid gamut', for a catchy name
No one appeared to get the most important advantage of this sensor: no white balancing is needed! On this camera there is simply no need for any white balance adjustment. That's huge!
All the current hassle with the white balance is there only because traditional sensors have different spectral sensitivities than the human eye.
@vagvoba
No, the human perceptual system balances color temperature for a consistent visual experience. Digital sensors are able to objectively capture the color temperature of light, and white balancing is used to bring it more inline with human perception. Hence a red apple for the most part always be perceived as red by humans despite the large fluctuations in color temperature.
@jakeshdaddy
You are wrong.
@jakeshdaddy
Digital sensors adjust colour based on 18% gray tone, or middle most tone on the Zone System by using it as a point of reference. Demosaicing in your RAW conversion uses the middle gray to determine how to convert it into full colour image, and then sends it to the imaging pipeline to process it before it's saved to the memory.
So if your colour filtration can collect information from the entire visible spectrum, then there is no need to use a gray reference point for demosaicing.
@(Unverified)
My comment was in response to the notion that the human perceptual system does not make adjustments to the images captured in the retinas in terms of color temperature which is not the case. CMOS and CCD sensors are not capable of recording color information, and rely on a grid of RGB filters placed on each photosite typically in the Bayer pattern, and interpolate color values based on readings from the surrounds photosites. I believe what you are referring to is one of the many methods image processors use to calculate an optimal exposure.
The Pharaoh is unimpressed.
About time! I've been waiting for this. Now it's just a matter of time before someone invents a display that can show the entire gamut. This would be possible with two tunable lasers, but I'm not sure if tunable lasers exist???
I see you true colors shining through.
I see your true colors, and that's why I love you.
So, don't be afraid to let them show.
I see you true colors....your true colors.
so what do we call HD? not HD?
and all these years I wasn't even seeing the real colors? boy am i pissed
its fine the way it is, I like that cams make the blues, bluer though, reality isnt as bright looking
Seems a large number of people like pushed colors, get a kodak, they have that down I hear, they push it just up to the edge before going overboard I'm told.
omg, they've got Deluxe Paint II