Slashdot Mirror
8 MegaPixel Digital Sensor Unveiled
hdtv writes "Micron has unveiled an 8-megapixel digital sensor, that 'enables pocket-sized cameras and cell phones to capture bursts of 10 high-quality photos in a single second or even high-definition video.'" From the article: "'We're saying it can go in a point-and-shoot camera selling in the $200 to $300 range,' said Suresh Venkatrama, Micron's director of the digital camera segment. 'It brings high-quality digital video and photography down to the consumer space.' The new sensor is a type of chip known as a 'complementary metal-oxide semiconductor,' or CMOS. Analysts say the technology, which is also used in memory chips and microprocessors, will challenge the dominance of traditional light-sensing charge-coupled devices, or CCDs."
Now instead of having people post unscaled 2592 x 1944 digital pictures on the web for no reason, we can worry about NASA-sized pictures of cats!
Wow, quality shots from a hole thats .8mm wide? Now I've heard everything.
see the ratio signal noise on this one ! It should be horribilis !
Ceci n'est pas une Signature !
Canon has been using CMOS sensors for years.
Of course, this will not be available until they send us 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 megapix. cellphones.
Size matters when it comes to sensors ... so by cramming 8 megapixels into a tiny sensor, it will be pretty darn noisy for image quality - don't even try bumping the ISO!
A several year old 4MP DLSR (even using older technology) will yield better images ... but yea, won't be as portable. Just be aware of the tradeoff and arguably sensor size is more important than megapixels.
Hulk SMASH Celiac Disease
At least one of their recent digital cameras has a CMOS sensor in the "APS" format. The main benefit of CMOS is power consumption, because the clocking needs are simpler. People who used to crack off the covers of the old dual in line DRAMs and make crude 1-bit sensors (with gaps for the read and write circuitry) will remember how far back the CMOS approach goes.
Pining for the fjords
Interesting news, but does it have improved dynamic range and low-noise high-ISO sensitivities? Because those are the main problems with digital capture these days, not resolution. I don't want a compact 8-megapixel camera that churns out 10 crappy pictures per second.
Several things will still be a challenge in "consumer" level images devices (i.e. cameras)
1. More pixels mean higher demands on the lenses. And good lenses are NOT cheap.
2. More pixels mean higher demands on storage. Storage is getting cheaper.
3. More pixels mean higher demands on bandwidth. Bandwith is not universal.
For your typical user of a point-and-shoot camera, 8+ megapixels won't mean much. Most people print images at 4x6" at best, or view them on the screen. For your pro or semi-pro user, they're not that affected by the point-and-shoot market, and will be looking for sharpness, clarity, color fidelity, and lack of noise. None of which are areas that CMOS sensors have excelled in.
}#q NO CARRIER
This reminds me of a quip Jay Leno made years ago when he was still guesting on Letterman. He asked what the point of Twisted Sister on CD was. Are we missing some subtle nuance lost in older analog media?
So now instead of 1-2 megapixel poorly lit, blurry shots up some woman's skirt, we'll see 8 megapixel poorly lit, blurry shots up some woman's skirt.
Yeah, 'cause Nikon, Fuji, Canon, Olympus, Kodak never looked at CMOS. In fact they're not even paying attention.
How's the noise on that CMOS sensor?
My 486 had that CMOS feature built into it.
CMOS isn't new.
Digital camera's aren't new.
CMOS digital camera's aren't new.
So, what's new? So cameras can take 10 pictures in quick succession... Is that new? Erm.... no. My 3yrl old Minolta can store pictures in RAM before they get stored to the SD card so that you can take pictures quickly.
Nothing to see, please move along.
return 0; }
Canon already has an exceptionally good 8 megapixel CMOS sensor in its 350D... This retails from around $500 upwards. Surely the fact that it is a DSLR rather than a compact accounts for the price difference from that quoted? If so, this is very old news.
High end cameras use CMOS too. So there's no limit in the technology itself. I guess it's just that it 's also easier to make cheaply.
good quality CMOS sensors = expensive
low quality CMOS = cheap
Medium quality CCD = middleground
How is this new? The Canon Digital Rebel XT comes with an 8MP CMOS sensor and can shoot at 3fps for less than $1000.
Quality wise I can tell you the CMOS vs CCD isn't an issue anymore. Plus CMOS takes alot less power.
A bit like sound... once you get to CD quality, there's not much point in going any further because the speakers, amplifiers etc cause the most distortion and any improvement at theCD end will not make it to your ears.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
People get all excited about the possibility of using cmos technology to build sensors. One company, who will remain nameless, started hiring cmos specialists a couple of years ago. Then the project died. It seems that it is hard to get the advantages of cmos AND decent performance at the same time. The company in tfa isn't actually building the chips yet so I'll believe it when the chips get to the market.
next year she'll start sending you hi-def video according to the article.
When phones start coming with a good lens assembly, then it'll be news.
Everyone also neglects the fact that phone memory is still very small, and high-res desktop monitors hardly bump 2 megapixels, nevermind 8. The only reason someone would need 8 is for print work, and anyone doing print work with a mobile phone deserves to be shot.
"Oh boy"
Uh, what makes the single-lens reflex cameras so good is not so much the big sensor, but the fancy-ass $800 lenses, through-lens multi-point sensing, precision alignment, etc.
It's pointless to put an 8 megapixel sensor behind a cheap lens. The image will still be just as blurry, colour-fringed, barrel distorted, and unevenly exposed. It's just that now the defects will be 20 pixels wide instead of 2.
Are you kidding me?
ALL top-end cameras use CMOS sensors. Here's the rule of thumb - Digital SLR's use CMOS. Point-and-shoot use CCD.
And over there we have the labyrinth guards. One always lies, one always tells the truth, and one stabs people who ask t
You don't know about complementary metal-oxide semiconductors. I do.
Alex, I'll take keybindings not used by Emacs for $400....
Seems that most (if not all) the CMOS based cameras that are out now are considered low end junk.
You mean like Canon's digital SLR series or Nikon's digital SLR series?
Granted - the medium format digital backs are using CCDs at the moment, though i've heard that some of that has more to do with the difficulty of manufacturing CMOS chips to the size and density needed to make a 50mm x 37mm sensor.
CCD also has a higher dynamic range - but that comes at power cost - and also slightly less responsiveness.
So generally speaking, I'd say these days that CCD vs. CMOS comes to a draw, depending on what you're looking for. I'm sure the CMOS vendors will work on increasing dynamic range while the CCD vendors will work on their power/speed costs.
--Dg
My first thought was, "Cool! Higher resolution is dropping in price again." My second thought was, "Crap, now my users will be trying to email each other 3 megabyte and larger photos on a regular basis." I'm wishing there was some way new digital cameras could come with an education of what filesize means and how it relates to emailing and otherwise sharing with others. A large number of non-technical users have no idea of the concept. I've run across people wanting to email software CDs and copy DVD movies (inhouse, not MPAA) onto WAN-wide file shares.
But why is the rum gone?
In addition, the chip is mounted on something called a PCB, otherwise known as a Printed Circuit Board!
I am not an expert, but...
I think low megapixel CMOS chips are quite cheap (to produce and/or run), so are fitted to cheap mobile phone and no name cameras. CMOS chips can suffer from problems with noise and so without compensation will produce poorer results.
However, this seems to have been achieved, and high quality ones are also fitted to more expensive cameras, for example this Sony.
This article says it a lot better than I ever could do :) :Shutterbug article.
However, you are probably still be right, there are hundreds of thousands of cheapo CMOS cameras about, so the majority are probably junk. Be aware that there are also great, expensive ones for pros, too
The 5D, with a 13.1 MP full-frame sensor is CMOS. Most camera makers are slowly going over to them because of their much lower power consumption - I presume the reason any one cares about this particular one is because it's cheap.
The main limiter with image quality (unless you're talking medium format or bigger) isn't the sensor any more, it's the lens. And right now, a picture made with a small piece of cheap plastic in front of an 8 MP sensor will reveal exactly all the flaws and distortions in said lens rather than a better image.
More like middle upper end - the 1Ds's and D2Xs of the world.
The high end medium format digital backs (e.g. the PhaseOne P45 39 megapixel medium format digital back) are still CCD.
--Dg
Pacman ate all the megapixils
The quality of the lens will be more important. Not much point having a large imaging array if you have a cheap plastic lens between it and the subject.
Open Source Drum Kit, LPLC deve board - mjhdesigns.com
Congratulations! Instead of a relatively low noise, moderately power hungry CCD sensor, I now have a relatively high noise, low power CMOS sensor that needs to be cooled to suppress dark current enough to get usable imagery. Thanks! I sure am looking forward to seeing digital cameras with TECs or cryo-coolers like my FLIR uses in them.
2 things I want to see in a digital camera:
a. fast operation. Whatever the operation, I want it to be as fast as it was on the old SLR with 35mm film and a power winder. Snap, snap, snap. No waiting for camera to boot. No waits between pics.
b. take that fast operation and put it in a camera that is as dead simple as Kodak Instamatics, so my Mom will be happy with her camera. No zoom, no autofocus, no different exposure settings. Snap, snap, snap -- oh darn, that one came out too dark, but I took 20 more and one was just fine. That's what Mom wants, and I want her to have it so I don't have to be an on-call digital camera consultant.
When she used Instamatics, she never had to ask anyone for help, and was satisfied. Now, it's confusing for her, and usually involves some frustrating delay.
FTA
"This will immediately appeal to photography enthusiasts, but the average consumer is really more of a middle- to late-adopter and doesn't pay attention to the specs and features as much,"
now, I worked in retail for 6 months (thank god thats past tence) and i have to call BS on this one. If anything, the average consumer is OBSESSED with specs and features. Just because they dont always know exatly what each feature really does, or which cameras have it does not meen that they arnt concerned with them. You will never see someone go into a store and say "oooo! that one looks cute, buy it".
they bring out a cheap 8Mpix camera and it will fly off the shelves... signal to noise ratio? thats stuff that 99% of the salesfolk wont understand and therefore wont mention it to the customer. they will just see 8Mpix and a cheap price and pick it up
Wow....look at all the whitespace! Tripmaster Monkey would be proud!
Canon uses CMOS. Pentax, Nikon, KonicaMinolta (now Sony), and Olympus still use CCD.
Jack Valenti and Orrin Hatch will be first up against the wall when the revolution comes.
..instead read this one at CNET
= rss
http://news.com.com/2100-1041_3-6073584.html?part
The new important thing for this sensor (to consumers anyway) is that it can capture 2mp at 30fps.
It has been designed with capturing full motion 720p video in mind.
This is great- I have long wondered why, as camera mega pixels sizes go up, we are still stuck with VGA video. I would love a digital camera still that can double as a HD video camera.
There is an algorithm out there where you reduce the number of pixels and replace them with a median value. This reduces the noise, but can obviously only be done with high resolution thingies. Could get you a 2 megapixel stable image out of a 8 megapixel noisy one...
10 ?"Hello World" life was simple then
Just for the record I would rather have a SLR 2MP camera than a P&S 8MP. The difference in focal precision and lens quality more than makes up for the difference in resolution. Let's face it a web pic is 72dpi & that's where most of these images are going to end up - 1280X1024 is only 1.3MP for 32bit color depth full screen image. 2MP is what?... 4X6 at photographic resolution? So unless I want an 8X10 (rarely) I am wasting 75% of the data 90+% of the time.
I hear this all the time, oh this camera sucks because it's only a 3/4/5 MP one. I need to get the new X MP camera to take a good picture.... No you moron, you need to learn the basics of photograpy and get a decent camera. Pixel density has an upper limit where it is useful. After about 1MP for web work, and 2MP for general use, you're wasting your money. If you are a professional photographer or you do keep 8X10s of everything then you might need a 10MP, but if you do, you probably don't want a P&S anyway.
*SLR - Single Lens Reflex - what you see in the viewfinder is exactly what the iris of the camera will see - CMOS, CCD, film. The light comes from a lens - hits a prism & get's split to the iris & the viewfinder.
*P&S - Point & Shoot - seperate lenses for the iris & the viewfinder - usually fixed focal length for the viewfinder, and a guestimated focal distance based on image centering algorythms. Note the similarity between P&S and PoS.
My biggest problem with the point-and-shoot digital cameras (not the DSLRs) is the lack of decent focus. Many images come out blurry and the focus mechanism takes forever. On the DSLRs it's a different story and pictures come out near-perfect every time.
-Palal
Actually, this article demonstrates what is wrong with the "more pixels" mentatlity and the above post shows just how lame some people think (particularly ACs). The truth is that the camera on the NASA MARS rover that has retured all of those great pictures of the red planet (or the studio mock-up of the red planet if you prefer) is 1.3 mega pixes, as was reported here previously on /. It's not all about the pixels, much more important is the quality of the lenses and the quality of the sensor. Using a 8 megapixel sensor on a camera with a cheap lense is a senseless mix, it will waste memory in each shot but will not give quality pictures. And, while I have not had a chance to evaluate this particular device, in general CMOS devices have a much poorer quality than CCD devices. So unless this chip somehow manages to give much better results than we have any reason to expect, it will only be used to hype "8 megapixels" and waste memory space with each shot, not provide better quality pictures.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
I might be jaded, but I worked in digital imaging about 6 years ago, and I remember a big splash hitting when Kodak (I think) announced a 6 megapixel CMOS sensor for digital cameras. At the time, they were touting that the chip was so cheap, we'd be seeing disposable 6MP digital cameras within a year or so. It was hailed as a huge breakthrough. It captured images faster than CCD (meaning faster file times) more accurate colors and it cost pennies to produce. Now, in 2006, I see an announcement that touts a new breakthrough CMOS sensor. It's fast, cheap, better quality...
I wish I saw some fruits of these grandiose announcements. Seems like PR magic to me.
-Arthur
Cave ne ante ullas catapultas ambules
What sort of crack are you smoking? It must be damn good shyte. Go look at the specs on Canon's professional DSLRs: 16MP CMOS sensors. Then come back and tell us you were mistaken :)
Will the crappy optics in cell phone cameras actually be able to do anything with an 8MP picture?
Sure, you can zoom in more on an 8MP picture. However, when your lens is always out in the open, covered with finger prints, dust, grease, scratched and soo tiny, that extra resolution will just capture noise.
Clearly, slashdot editors aren't much into photography. First of all, even a toddler knows that the sensor is worthless (no matter its esoteria or expense) if the lenses in front of it are garbage. Secondly, the idea of CMOS isn't new; Canon has been using them for quite awhile now (e.g. 350D).
-ben
myselfmusic
CMOS sensors suffer from "fixed pattern noise" since each pixel has its own amplifier and not all of the amplifiers work at an equal level. This noise can be partially removed in post signal processing (Cannon I believe actually takes images 10 ms apart when you click the button, one lit and one dark and subtracts them, or something like that). CCD sensors suffer from charge migration (or smear) where some of the charge from one pixel can migrate to it's neighbours during the read process.
CCD sensors have a higher fill factor (close to 100%) and offer greater sensitivity to light (although they can also suffer from over exposure - haloing). CMOS have much lower filling factors since each pixel needs the amplifier and processing circuitry packed in beside it. These lower fill factors are not as much an issue when you have a large sensor as in most SLR cameras.
CCD sensors tend to be more expensive because they require a unique manufacturing process whereas CMOS sensors can leverage the existing CMOS manufacturing capacity. You can also build logic processing into a CMOS chip (offering higher chip integration) whereas all processing is done offchip for CCD's. And CMOS sensors tend to consume less power.
Which is better? Darned if I know.
If I upload a 720p video to YouTube it will still be converted into a crappy looking .flv file. Hopefully a higher bandwidth successor to YouTube will fix this someday. Then I can watch sexxiebebe23 the way she was meant to be watched.
I remember when Steve Ciarcia reported in _Byte_ magazine on a RAM chip, its cover ripped off and replaced with a lens, offering a 256x128pxl (32Kpxl) imaging chip marketed by... Micron Technology.
--
make install -not war
A lot of comments seem to make a big deal out of the potential noisiness of the data. But if this thing can take ten snapshots per second, couldn't it take three shots in a third of a second and average the results to reduce noisiness without sacrificing resolution? I don't know much about photography, but it seems like this should be quite effective to me.
Funny, I was looking at webcams today, and find it annoying that they all have nearly the same specs for video. The same thing goes for digital cameras.
This will be a selling point for video, even if it is not top quality for still images.
...most the women I know like 8 a lot more than 4-6...
never bring a twinkie to a food fight.
What use will an 8 megapixel sensor be when half of the pixels will be noise?
If you know anything about digital sensors then noise at high ISO is a serious issue when using small sensors. Also the optics are important.
I don't see the point of blurry, noisy 8MP images.
Canon have improved CMOS dramatically, noise was a problem with CMOS and their sensors are better than CCD for noise now.
I've gotta friend that has the Sigma SD10 (a DLSR) that uses the X3 chip. He giggles like a school girl when he talks about it. It's kind of disturbing. Of course, the pics he takes with it are phenomenal.
Mediocrity knows nothing higher than itself; but talent instantly recognizes genius. -- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
In terms of high-end photography, there are several requirements which rate MUCH higher than simple FPS:
Now, even if this new Matrix chip performs at even the sub-par level of today's CCD camera sensors, simply buying a camera with one in it does not by any means guarantee quality photography. Back when the sensor (film!) was interchangable from camera to camera, there was still intense competition between camera and lens manufacturers. This is because the sensor can only "see" the image that the lens and camera body deliver to it. The most important factor is the lens! Imagine rubbing vaseline on your glasses and walking around like that all day. This is life with a cheap camera lens. There's a reason why most professional lenses, without a camera body, cost betweed two and ten times as much as an entire point and shoot camera. If a lens is a valve for light, then a professional lens is like a firehose, a prosumer is like a garden hose, a point and shoot is a drinking straw and a cameraphone is a hypodermic needle.
--That's my 2(6.022*10^23) cents worth.
I recently bought an olympus 720sw point and shoot (7.1 megapixels) and it doesn't take nearly as good of photos as my canon G3 (4-5 megapixels).
It does however remain waterproof up to 3 meters which is nice if you like to snorkel.
CMOS camera sensors are really cheap because they use coventional silicon chip manufacturing technology. They've been used in low end camera devices for years.
The original poster is a moron. CMOS has been used in cell phones and security cameras for years. Canon's high end DSLRs have been using them for nearly as long. This is not some new fangled imaging technology. Please stop sensationalizing stories.
for choosing the camera. Like those in dpreview. Many instances of gorgeous-looking cameras with great specs, and then review finds so many glitches it ends up being the 'average' or 'above average'. With a noise as one of key factors.
You wouldn't happen to be an Anime character would you?
This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
Size matters when it comes to sensors
I'm not convinced that it does. What matters is light. Less light on a pixel means more noise. Small sensors are usually paired with small aperature lenses.
They don't have to be. As long as each pixel of the sensor gets the same amount of light, it shouldn't matter how big the pixel is.
Do you know of another mechanism that would cause small sensors to be noisier?
all modern point and shoot cameras have excellant spot focusing ability. it's quite trivial to do/implement. it's when the camera is set to multi point focus, or the user doesn't know how to properly focus a camera that you get blurry images. that, or shutter speed has been set too slow and blurriness is from hand shake.
i would say look to the user for the error. yes, point and shoot cameras are made for dumb users, but there are always dumber users than you think.
The problem is that the same people make cameras in both markets, and are terrified of the day when you won't have to buy two devices from them. But inevitably, that day is coming.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
zomagawd!!!! what will we do with this new amazeing thing!!!
These days CMOS sensors have made great strides in quality due to 2 things: microlenses, and on-chip noise reduction.
CMOS sensors used to be pretty crude because the photon-buckets were small and far apart because the chip circuitry had to be placed between pixels. Small buckets made for lots of noise and poor sensitivity. Microlenses solved sensitivity issues by allowing focusing light from a wider area onto the bucket, and on-chip noise reduction removes much of the noise at the chip level. CMOS was once promised to be cheap and plentiful because it was based on existing microchip manufacturing technology - but the need to add things like microlenses has made the manufacturing nearly as expensive as CCD.
CCD is more common in very high end applications like astronomy and medium format digital. The quality argument is alot like those arguments between audiophiles - very few people can tell the difference and it has more to do with the after-capture processing rather than what type of chip captured the image.
Indeed nowadays the decision to use CCD or CMOS is more electrical design than anything. What works best with a company's existing product facilities and what previous components in stock they can re-use...
-
..one giant step for pornography.
worth looking at.
The problem with most low-end cameras and especially cell-phone cameras lies in the lens, not the sensor. Simply put, a small lens tends to have more distortion, and can't gather as much light to see in the dark well. Add that on to a light weight camera that is difficult to hold still, and you are garenteed that half your pictures will be blurry and dark.
It's not that I have anything against it, but it looks like a product targeted at being able to sell a 8Mega pixel camera for $300 that people will compare with the $800-3000 offerings in the same pixel range and think they are getting a good deal, but really they will not get something worth having. For that matter, they would be better buying a $50 PHD camera (my mother-in-law who has a PHD in engineering calls them that for 'Push Here Dummy'), and spending the money saved on film and processing -- You will still have a crappy lens, but you will probably get better pictures.
More Caffeine. NOW
Actually, the Mars rover camera used a filter wheel with over a dozen filters (not just red, green, blue, but different shades and ultraviolet and infrared, if I recall correctly). They would take one image at each camera position with each filter, then those would be composited back on Earth. Then the camera was repositioned for the next position and the sequence was repeated. The resulting set of images were stiched together into large panoramas.
My other first post is car post.
One of the best rated and best image producting cameras uses CMOS. I believe CMOS are actually less sensitive to heat fluctuations than CCD and they use less power, not more. CMOS in general provides lower picture quality generally because each pixel has its own circuitry whereas they all pass through the same in a CCD, so the CCD can be more uniform. However, while CCD manufacturers have been working on power use, CMOS manufacturers have been working on image quality.
Okay, this is neat, big resolution in a small package, though the image quality must suck as these small circuits are more susceptible to noise. I'm sure the engineers have done their best to minimize interference artifacts but it's still pushing the limits. What I'd REALLY like to see is this type of miniaturization applied to a big sensor, so that we could attain very high pixel counts. An 8.0 mpix mini camera is cute, but a 50 mpix SLR would make me drool at 8000x6000. We'd finally beat film quality and tap into a whole wealth of new photo-editing possibilities.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
Did they copy the Canon APS-C 8.2 megapixels CMOS sensor?
They've only dominated the market using those "much poorer quality" CMOS devices. 30D 60D 10D 300D 350XT 20D 30D....the entire line of digital SLRs.
Any new sensor claiming high resolution and frame rate should be suspect until proven, esp if it's aimed at $300 price points.
Sensor noise is related to heat.
To fix this for Earth cameras:
a. add a Peltzier cooler
b. add big thick black copper cooling vanes
c. put a reflective cover over the camera to stop the sun (leave holes so hot air can rise)
Both viewfinders you describe are stupidly failing to take advantage of the digital sensor.
The dSLR is a bad joke.
You can't see exactly what you will photograph. You get 95% usually. You're not seeing via the sensor, but via a complex set of mobile mirrors and/or prisms. That crazy contraption will never be perfectly aligned because it has to move.
Now, take the picture. Whee. You can't, until the silly viewfinder contraption moves out of the way. That's lag. You also get vibration.
The contraption is one more mechanical part to fail. You probably also have a physical shutter to break.
Because of the mirror, the lens-to-sensor distance can not be small. This makes wide-angle lenses expensive and shitty. (more distortion, more abherrations, etc.)
Better would be to just use the display. Not a good display? Battery life? Put the money and weight of the crazy mirror contraption toward the display and battery. Problem solved.
Bonuses: video operation and web cam operation.
is 10fps considered high-quality digital video??
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Photo film is like a printer. Each dot (film grain or ink droplet) can take on only two values.
The way film works is that a grain changes when it collects several photons in quick succession. The change is sudden and complete. So-called "analog" film is rather binary. A single 8-bit or 12-bit pixel is worth very many 1-bit film grains if you want decent color.
An SLR can't take a picture until a crazy mirror contraption gets yanked out of the way. This is lag. It also contributes to vibration.
Some very expensive models can do mirror lock up, but then you can't see through the lens anymore. In other words, you unSLRed the camera, turning it into a P+S w/o a viewfinder.
Grrr. That's all I want. I'm pissed that my expensive dSLR can't do it. WTF? I got the biggest sensor I could afford. (largest of the APS-C ones) I even got physical (not software) image stabilization.
I hate flash photos. I suppose a set of remotely operated flashes could work great, but let's not go there. The sliver of shadow on one side (usually right or bottom) is nasty. The light fall-off with distance is nasty. The reflections are nasty. The red-eye is nasty. The light fall-off with angle is nasty.
I just want to take a zoomed-in photo of an active baby 20 feet (6 m) away in a room lit by a plain ordinary bulb. Why is this too much to ask? My eyes are over 30 years old, and I can see the baby just fine.
Well the interference doesn't depend so much on the size of the photo-receptor as the spacing between them. The smaller the spacing/insulation, the greater the leakage. Leakage also makes things run hotter (like 90nm Pentiums), which increases thermal noise (electrical "sparks" due to random electron jumps into conductivity and back down again). Leakage also increases with the intensity of the light hitting a sensor. This means that sensors separated by a smaller gap are more vulnerable to "blooming" where a light source blots out the surrounding pixels because the current from the pixels that are actually hit by the light leaks into the adjacent ones.
CMOS has traditionally been considered noisier than CCD, but when the pixels get this small and this close together that distinction is less important.
We are the 198 proof..
I may experiment with my Nikon D50 and see what happens with clear plastic blocking the lense (not sure if this even relates).
It doesn't. The difference between plastic and glass won't show up if you just use a flat sheet, because the light isn't being refracted (bent) by the flat sheet.
Chromatic abberation shows up when a lens bends different wavelengths by different amounts, resulting in a band of color along the edge of bright objects.
This is easy to see if you compare a cheap zoom lens with a big zoom range (ie., 50-300mm) with an expensive fixed focal length lens on a brightly-lit scene with white areas.
A house divided against itself cannot stand.
and will the cameras have a toggle for the infra-red filter? everyone already has a megapixel camera, what we need are the "look thru the blouse and pants" x-ray viewer thingies
no sig = no personality(?)
The Canon Digital SLR cameras (Digital Rebel) have been using CMOS sensors for years. The low-end (for SLR) 350D (Rebel XT) hit 8 megapixels over a year ago.
I accept these are good sensors and it is nice they are going to be put in cheaper cameras (thought at this level it usually is the lens not the sensor that matters), but this is hardly news.
I bought a Maxxum 5D because I wanted a decently big sensor, and nobody will sell me a sanely designed camera with a big sensor.
:-) It's only available on the dSLRs that manage to make mine look cheap; mine can do so in a cleaning mode so clearly there isn't a physical difference that justifies the extra cost. Grrr... reminds me of SCSI.
Film SLRs can be excused many flaws because film isn't reusable or immediately displayable. Digital has no such excuse.
I don't think I've ever used any setting faster than 1/40 of a second, never mind 1/50 of a second. Typical is 1/10 to 1/30. I've gone as low as 1/4, which takes some steady hands despite the stabilized CCD. BTW, that 1/4 was with f/5.6 and ISO800 at 70.0mm (35mm equivalent: 105mm).
(Which reminds me: this century-old analog terminology is insane. Really, mm instead of FOV degrees?)
Mirror lock-up is how you turn a dSLR into a P+S w/o a viewfinder.
Wide angle lenses have been made as low as 6mm. I don't think you'll see that in an SLR.
I have a Konika-Minolta Maxxum 5D with the 18-70mm kit lens. I hesitate to be changing lenses since that would introduce dust. (the downside of digital: no film advance to get rid of the dust) Messing with the camera is also a good way to lose the opportunity to take the picture.
As I said, I hate flash photos. I never use the flash. The whole point of buying a camera with a big sensor was to get decent low-light performance so I wouldn't depend on a flash.
In addition to all the image-related problems I mentioned, flashes greatly annoy the subject and ruin the mood.
I usually use ISO800 and f/5.6 at 70mm (105mm equivalent). At ISO1600 the noise starts to get annoying. That leaves shutter speed to play with; 1/12 to 1/25 second is fairly normal for me. I've gone as long as 1/4 second, hand-held, which made a nice picture of a 6-year-old who sat very still.