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."
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
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
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.
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
In theory, that's true. However, I've got a Sony 3mega-pixel camera a later model Sony 7 mega-pixel one. I've taken identical photos on both of them on max detail and resulution. The picture quality is almost exactly the same (although the file sizes aren't!) - I've tried zooming in and that makes no difference. However, I've also got an 8 mega pixel Canon digital SLR, and the picture quality is vastly superior - I can zoom in far further at an acceptable quality than with the 7 MP Sony.
You must use Linux. On Windows, the OS says, "I see you're trying to email a picture. Would you like me to scale it down for you?"; on MacOS, there's a Resolution menu available when you attach a picture for mailing. Same thing happens with slideshow presentations on both platforms.
The problem *I* have is that when I ask someone to email me the original photo, I invariably get a 640x480 copy that their computer has automatically scaled down for emailing.
Technically you are correct that the rovers' main camera is 1.3 megapixel...however, the camera takes color images by snapping 3 different pictures with 3 different filters. This corresponds more accurately to a 3.9 megapixel consumer camera, since all but a few consumer digital camera have one third of their pixels for red, one third for green, and one third for blue; the final full RGB image is created by interpolating the missing colors, so the true resolution of a 3.9 megapixel consumer camera is probably about the same as the rovers' 1.3 megapixel camera, assuming identical optics.
Another poster made the point that most of the images you see from the rovers are actually multiple images stitched together, resulting in even more 'megapixels' per image.
On a separate point, what distinguishes good from great cameras is not megapixels but optical quality. A terapixel camera with a pinhole lens would produce much lower resolution photos than a 6 megapixel Nikon with mulithousand dollar glass attached.
All is Number -Pythagoras.
Why are you assuming that monitors will not increase in resolution/DPI?