The full colour camera which can see in the dark

A full colour camera which is 10 times more sensitive to light than most others has been developed by Canon.

The camera is able to shoot up to 75dB gain, equivalent to an ISO of more than 4 million, and could be used for surveillance, astronomy or nature documentaries where lights might disturb or scare wildlife.

BBC Click's Dan Simmons reports.

**LINK**

.

Ady,

Yes, I saw the Click programme [may be wrong, but I thought he mentioned Sony]

... Very impressive !

... not sure I understand your '10 times more sensitive' figure though.

MichaelG.

An interesting concept, a colour camera that can "see in the dark". Below a certain light level human colour light receptors (rods or cones? - can't remember) do not respond, which rather begs the question, what colour are things when it's dark?

...spectrum of available light, sensitivity and spectral range of the observers optical receptors, spectral reflectance/absorption of the object..

I have a vague recollection of a desert flower that reflects ultraviolet from moonlight such that a sensitive moth can see it nearly a mile away..

..is the grass green you see the same as the grass green I see?

.

Looks like I was wrong ... Canon it is

A little more detail here.

... and here.

MichaelG.

Edited By Michael Gilligan on 03/11/2015 15:16:04

Sony did something along that the same lines Michael. I became rather excited till I looked into it a bit more.

150 million and 7.5 stops ! I thought we see in stops as near as dam it. Interesting though many people who are into cameras are well aware that ever increasing pixel counts relate to more noise and less dynamic range and much higher max iso as the buckets fill up more quickly and in real terms it's often a bad trade off - hence until recently most full frame cameras usually having a real greater dynamic range and lower noise figures and higher usable iso's.

I do a lot of photography at times and have switched to m 4/3. With decent pp software it's surprising what can be done with it. I also bought a Nikon V2, step too far but handy in good conditions and oh so easy to carry a number of lenses about as is m 4/3 really but Oly's best lenses are touch expensive and often a bit heavy too.

John

-

The same as in the light, except the sky isn't the 'skyglow' is much more complex than that.

This photo was taken at 11:12 on the 12 August, moon below the horizon and over two hours after sunset.

Yes, those are stars!

Edited By Neil Wyatt on 03/11/2015 17:28:49

.

John,

Bewildered by your numbers

The claim is 'more than 150 times more sensitive' [or some such]

So: 2 raised to the power 7.5 = approx 181

MichaelG.

.

P.S. ... I have micro 4/3 too ... excellent system !!

Edited By Michael Gilligan on 03/11/2015 17:40:02

I looked at one of your links too quickly Michael and then mixed the numbers up. ISO 4 million. 150 times better than cameras that top out at 25,600 , around 7.5 stops more sensitive. I'm busy.

I posted a shot taken at ISO 256,000 on a well known forum taken with an EM5 and some one thought I had cheated. The EM1 is just as capable. Can't expect a huge dynamic range though at that setting and it needs PP but actually the camera jpg's are not bad and can even be pp'd. At more usual iso levels I have had more problems with a Nikon APS.

I'm a bit disappointed by Olympus's weighty pro lenses, all aimed at faster lenses but will probably go for the zoom and converter but the 300mm is too heavy and limited in use for my tastes. I haven't looked at what they are producing or prices for a while now. I'll probably look again early next year.

John

-

I lied... i just checked some shots taken with the camera pointed up a bit more, if you look at the two stars near to right, there is a small light blur just in the frame above and between them. that's the Andromeda Galaxy...

Neil

"The full colour camera which can see in the dark"​

I thought colour was a function of reflected light - no light, no colour?

http://www.archimedes-lab.org/color_optical_illusions.html

Edited By Vic on 03/11/2015 20:44:18

.

True, Vic ... The 'fib' is in the headline's chosen definition of 'the dark'

MichaelG.

Edited By Michael Gilligan on 03/11/2015 21:54:30

For anyone interested there is a new programme about Colour starting tonight on BBC4.

I'm wary about claims made by Canon ever since they said in-camera shake reduction didn't work just because they used an in-lens version instead. Fuji, Sony, Olympus, Panasonic and Pentax have all proved it works just as well.

Every photo of visible light has a 'colour', there are no 'monochrome' photons.

By 'dark' they mean what we as humans perceive as the dark, in the photo above the sky was black except the clouds faintly illuminated by light pollution and the stars. The bush and the grey slabs were just one shapeless black lump to my eyes.aside from when I had to pay a closer visit to the bush

Very little LP coming from behind me so the bush in that photo was effectively lit by starlight alone.

30 seconds at ISO1600, the new camera could have taken the same photo in 1/80 of a second.

Neil

Edited By Neil Wyatt on 04/11/2015 10:24:48

30 seconds at ISO1600, the new camera could have taken the same photo in 1/80 of a second.

Now that makes some sense of it all.

Ordinary decent fast camera film is ISO400

Bear in mind my image was 'push' processed in Raw Therapee - the new camera's image would need the same amount of 'push' and could show even more noise.

Neil

Darkness "the absence of light".

**LINK**

No light = no colour as far as I can see?

.

Vic,

Did you not look at any of the alternative definitions that I linked?

MichaelG.

Depends whether you go with Wikipedia or the OED.

Neil

What is red?