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!
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
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
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.
And that, my friend, is progress.
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.
But I just saw on CSI that you can enlarge a picture and recover the image already.
..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.
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.
You're mostly right, but the larger sensor size is also a major advantage in favor of dSLRs. When you squeeze 8 megapixels into something half the size of your pinky nail (which is approximately the sensor form factor most point-and-shoot digitals use) the pixels' close spacing causes interference which translates into higher overall noise (especially with higher ISOs).
When you increase the size of photoreceptors so they fill a larger APS or 35mm format sensor (typical of most dSLRs), there is less interference, which translates into smoother output independent of such factors as number of megapixels, sensor technology (CMOS vs CCD), lens size/quality, metering instruments/algorithms, etc...
CSI blows up 2 pixel images from grainy security cameras to look into the reflection on the suspect's eye to read the licence plate of the getaway car.
You can only imagine what they can do with an image from 8MP sensor! Anyone holding electron microscope stocks can kiss their profits good-bye!
Live forever, or die trying.
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.
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.
However, I've also got an 8 mega pixel Canon digital SLR, and the picture quality is vastly superior
What lens do you have on that? I just bought a Rebel XT and although I was really impressed with the quality of the images, it was pointed out to me that the 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 lens it came with really isn't a very good lens. It's not very sharp, especially in the corners, it's a slow lens, doesn't have very good depth of field, etc. At a friend's suggestion, I bought an inexpensive 50mm f/1.8 prime (non-zoom) lens, and I have been amazed by how much better the image quality is. I've shot the same scene with both lenses and the difference isn't subtle at all. Not only is the 50mm much sharper, but when you look at the pictures side by side, it's obvious that the 18-55mm gathers light unevenly. The picture is darker in all of the corners and in the right and left edges. Pictures with high contrast edges show pretty obvious color distortion with the 18-55 as well.
Oh, and if you're taking pictures indoors, that f/5.6 is just way too slow. You need a lot of light with that lens.
Note that I'm not actually knocking the 18-55; compared to my old camera (which wasn't junk, either) it takes *fantastic* pictures. But experimenting with the 50/1.8 has made me realize that the optics matter -- a lot. That seems like kind of a stupid thing to say, in retrospect, since it should be utterly obvious that optics are important to a camera, but I kind of assumed that the differences between lenses, other than zoom power, were subtle and maybe even subjective. They're not. Which makes it obvious that the tiny lenses that can be crammed into a compact camera are always going to be limited. No matter how many megapixels the sensor can capture, if the glass can't focus the light onto it properly, the pictures aren't going to be very good.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.