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."
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
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.
This is too true, in the last year since my sister got her 5 megapixel camera my Gmail has gone from 3% full to 40%, by this time next year it 3 gigs of club photos and business parties.
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
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.
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.
Google on "digital photography cmos chips" found this nice article http://www.dpreview.com/news/0512/05121201new_chip s.asp which explains the benefits and seems to answer some of your questions, althouth I'd suggest salt-to-taste.
"The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits." -- Albert Einstein
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
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.
A high pixel count has many benefits. Your effective "zoom" is increased. Low light pictures may be enhanced using DSP. Other grainy photos can be enhanced. Photo editing looks better when done on hi-res images. Also, we are not limited by our monitors with digital photos, it just means we can print better (or larger) pictures.
There are two types of people in the world: those who divide people into two types and those who don't.
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
A high pixel count also means smaller physical sizes for each pixel on the sensor which means an increase in noise.
I'll take a 3 megapixel APS-C sized sensor over an 8 megapixel sub-fingernail sized sensor any day of the week and twice on sundays.
--Dg
FTFA "... A 2-megapixel digital picture file can be printed in the normal 4-inch-by-6-inch format without noticeable graininess while an 8-megapixel picture can be printed in the larger 8x10 format without a loss of quality.
In other words, if all you're going to print is 4x6" pictures, 2Mp is "enough".
If you're trying for 8x10" pictures, 8Mp is "enough".
If you're trying for "Poster Size" or "Billboard Size"? In this case "enough" is defined by what you plan on doing with it.
My wife and I have a 4 year old 4Mp camera. The picture quality is fine, however the recycle time and shutter delay are what finally made us upgrade more than anything else. In the case of the new sensor, the Mpixels might be nice, but the "must have" features are:
"Micron's new sensor includes a faster processor that eliminates usual point-and-shoot delays between taking pictures. That means users can shoot up to 10 images per second at 8-megapixel resolution or 30 frames per second at a resolution of 2-megapixels."
and
"The sensor's rapid capture rate and high resolution also allows smaller cameras to incorporate features such as image stabilization, faster auto-focus, higher quality digital zoom and recording HD video, said Micron, which also is the largest U.S. manufacturer of computer memory chips."
This means that "pure" digital video cameras are gonna drop in price, of course, the Mega-Pixels might need to increase a bit before they're good for shooting anything more than a 4x6 picture.
This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
every canon DSLR has had a CMOS sensor for years. CMOS is a fairly mature technology with low noise.
Other than that, yes you're spot on about lenses storage and bandwidth.
..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.
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.
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.
look at highger end cameras, the problem there lies not with the CCD sensors in getting several photos a seconds, its the memory. CCDs are not the problem here, its the rest of the hardware. I own a nikon D70, a low end Digital-SLR and that can take around 4 photos a second continuously for a good 10 seconds before the buffer gets full and thats with and 80x Compact Flash card. Consumer cameras arent designed for that, even the higher end ones have buffers which hold at most 3 photos at top quality and resolution. And thats JPEGs not raw data...
I am very sucseptible to "let's have another drink"
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.
Get a Digital SLR. Mine boots up in less than a second (it's ready to take pictures before you can bring it to your eye). It can easily take 5 pictures at about 3 frames a second, and about 1 more a second after that.
I'm sure someone makes a digital camera with a fixed focal length fixed aperture lens. I'm not sure there is a huge demand for one though. The majority of bad pictures I see people taking are simply because they are asking the camera to do something it can't. Like take a picture of something moving in low light. Or shooting in darkness with no tripod.
Jack Valenti and Orrin Hatch will be first up against the wall when the revolution comes.
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.
Yup, it's the lens.
I shoot a Nikon D70 and it's standard lens has a reputation for being sharp (for a kit lens, that is). I still can't do a major enlargement to 100% pixel size on screen and retain full sharpness without post processing.
Greg
(Inside a nuclear plant)
Aaaarrrggh! Run! The canary has mutated!
The dynamic range on digital cameras is getting better all the time, but what you say about the lenses isn't true. These days digital cameras use the same lenses as film cameras, and my EOS 350D takes better photos than my EOS 300 film using the exact same L lens.