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."

Comments

Interesting, but...

[RedBear]

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.

It's not the megapixels, its the quality

[RedMage]

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.

Re:CMOS?

[Dg93]

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.

Re:Where's the useful cut-off point?

[Em Adespoton]

What is lacking is a way to scale down photos for such uses that Joe Winblows User/Best Buy Shopper can understand.

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.