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!
How else would the NSA discreetly film you at home?
Registered Linux user #421033
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.
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; }
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.
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?
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
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
..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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.