Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Sony's Latest Smartphone Camera Sensor Can Shoot At 1,000fps (theverge.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the don't-blink dept.

Sony has taken the wraps off of its latest smartphone camera sensor which it says can shoot 1080p slow-motion video at 1,000 frames per second. "The new 3-layer CMOS sensor -- an industry first -- can capture slow motion video about eight times faster than its competition with minimal focal pane distortion, according to Sony," reports The Verge. From their report: The sensor can also take 19.3MP images in 1/120th of a second, which Sony says is four times faster than other chips, thanks to high-capacity DRAM, and a 4-tier construction on the circuit section used to convert analog video signals to digital signals. All of that fancy camera talk basically means this sensor blows every camera currently in a smartphone out of the water. Although the iPhone 7 and the Google Pixel can shoot 1080p slow-motion video at 120fps, they are still miles behind what Sony has reached with its latest sensor. At 1,000fps it even surpasses the Sony RX 100 V, which can only shoot at 960fps.

86 comments

  1. storage by spiny · · Score: 4, Insightful

    but the base model will probably only have enough room to store three seconds of video

    --

    Fry: heh, Yakov Smirnoff said it
    Leela: No he didn't.
    1. Re:storage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      but the base model will probably only have enough room to store three seconds of video

      With no sd card slot.

    2. Re:storage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Probably so. I wish Nokia was still making good-quality camera phones (yes, they used to be top quality compared to competitors back then). Anybody still remember that Nokia Lumia 1020 with a 41 megapixel camera from 2013? Would have been nice if they continued on that path.

      Captcha: optical

    3. Re:storage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Full HD at 8 bit per channel is about 50Mbit.
      Their specs say the DRAM has 1Gbit capacity.
      So that's 20 frames at high speed that can fit in the internal buffer.
      At 240 fps (their specs don't mention 1000 fps??), that gives you 0.08s of video before it needs to be transferred to flash storage.
      Transfer to flash is probably a few orders of magnitude slower, so this will only work for very short bursts of 20 frames.
      They could use the chip in a specialized camera with a high bandwidth RAM buffer, but for smartphones this just seems to be a gimmick.

    4. Re:storage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With that small a sensor, anything over 12 mpx is a waste. Any photographer worth his salt knows this. Computer nerds, on the other hand, know nothing.

    5. Re:storage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but the base model will probably only have enough room to store three seconds of video

      With no sd card slot.

      And shutting down afterwards due to overheating.

    6. Re: storage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Come on, they do know that if the pictures aren't working then you should rewind the film and try again.

    7. Re:storage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I wonder if it's a coincidence that 240fps 1080p has the same bandwidth as 60fps 2160p. It's plausible to think that at 960fps you are limited to 20 frames (or 40 with yuv?) but at 240fps you can stream it to the flash.

    8. Re:storage by alantus · · Score: 4, Funny

      The compact version will have a memory stick slot, while the normal one will use betamax tapes.

    9. Re:storage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the many reviews which showed that the Nokia 808 was (and still is) clearly better than every other mobile on the market were nothing too?

      I'll happily put my 808 up against any current mobile phone camera, and I reckon that in the majority of circumstances it will come out with much better shots (ps. I'm a part time photographer, as well as computer nerd, not sure which side of your argument I should be on).

    10. Re:storage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but the base model will probably only have enough room to store three seconds of video

      With no sd card slot.

      And shutting down afterwards due to overheating.

      Starting a fire.

    11. Re:storage by apoc.famine · · Score: 1

      No worries - it will just stream directly to the cloud.

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    12. Re:storage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The sensor on 808/1020 was huge compared to the ones in current smartphones. In fact, it was 1/1.2" whereas for example the iPhone 7 only has a 1/3" sensor.

  2. Is this a technical forum? by dv82 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "4-tier construction on the circuit section used to convert analog video signals to digital signals" ... Really, posting marketing non-information on Slashdot? Perhaps it's a parallel/pipelined A/D, judging form the application, performance and use of "tier". In any case, A/D converters have common specs, and if this one is special those specs would be of interest. Nerds don't have to be protected from "fancy camera talk".

    1. Re:Is this a technical forum? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Welcome to Slashdot, where snippets of press releases are posted verbatim at the mere mention of advertising cash.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Is this a technical forum? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No, and it hasn't been for several years. Today we see PR and adverts wrapped up as news. The new owners lust for click impressions on a dying site. Heck, this places sees less traffic that the likes of voat.

      Back on topic: Regardless of the CCD capture rate on our mobile devices, they are still complete pig swill when lighting conditions are less than ideal. How about making sensors a little better rather the buzzword bullshit gimmicky 1 bajillion pixesl at pointless framerates that nothing supports?

    3. Re:Is this a technical forum? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If there is a site that doesn't wrap up PR and adverts as news then please don't keep it to yourself!

  3. Re:Seven Major Teachings of the Occult by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the bush family is occult for sure

  4. But the storage can only save 0.3 fps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But the storage will only be able to save on frame every three seconds.

  5. obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sony's new sensor goes to 1000.

    Captcha: lockup

    1. Re: obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Call me when its over 9000

  6. This is great! by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Finally a feature we can really use in our everyday lives. I bet some poor sap got fired after suggesting, "if we make our phones a little bit thicker we could double the battery life!" What an idiot. ;)

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    1. Re:This is great! by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      Absolutely this ^^^. I'm all for progress, but WTF people? 20 years ago, this kind of high speed photography was rare, and very expensive, and not terribly necessary to everyday life. 20 years ago, when you picked up a phone to dial it, it just worked - no problems about battery life, no problems about spotty wireless service. Can we please focus just a little bit on retaining what we had, instead of doing things because we can?

    2. Re:This is great! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'm looking at this from a different angle. No, most people are not going to use this for anything more than filming the dog shaking at 1000 fps a couple times.

      But as someone who actually has a use for HD 1000fps, this crap cannot hit the consumer market fast enough. For years there has been basically no mid-range option between the old casio exilim line(which could do technically 1000fps, at an almost unusable resolution) and high-end dedicated HS cameras that you either rent for $$$/day or buy for outright for fifty grand.

      All kinds of Youtube channels will certainly have uses for this, from oddball hobbyists to more mainstream sports. In more practical industries, imaging troubleshooting a machine that's jamming by just dropping a spotlight on it and whipping out your phone, when it normally would have shut the line down all day while you fork over a thousand bucks to the rental place. Small shops might benefit also. 1k should be enough for a gunsmith to examine a bolt cycling and figure out what the problem is on that one weird chinese rifle he's never seen before.

      The most important thing is it's competition in a really niche industry where a few companies have been charging whatever they want for decades. That cannot be a bad thing.

    3. Re:This is great! by thegarbz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Or not. We already have what you want, you people just don't want to turn it on. Reliable phone with 10-20 days of battery life? Turn on ultra-low power mode and you get everything you ever want. Oh but you don't use that mode do you? No one does, because as much as you claim that's what you and everyone wants, the convenience of a device that instead does EVERYTHING trumps your silly battery life + dumb phone requirements every time.

      In the mean time I'm sure we'll all be happy not further crippling our devices to please people like you who don't use these modes which are provided to you already thank you very much.

    4. Re:This is great! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Battery saving modes are useless and often do the opposite due to being broken.

    5. Re:This is great! by DamnOregonian · · Score: 2

      I'm looking at this from a different angle. No, most people are not going to use this for anything more than filming the dog shaking at 1000 fps a couple times.

      As I read TFA, I was thinking to myself, wtf would I ever use this for?!
      Sold.

    6. Re:This is great! by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Battery saving modes are useless and often do the opposite due to being broken.

      Thankyou for your insight anonymous coward. I would take your comment seriously if it weren't for the fact that my phone happily ran for 12 days on battery saving mode and still had 20% battery left when I returned from my camping trip.

      Truly horrible performance. Horrible I tells ye.

    7. Re:This is great! by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      Anybody who coaches sports (e.g. golf swing) could make good use of this.

  7. Light? by Pieroxy · · Score: 2

    I guess that 100fps means every shot will have an aperture less than 1/1000th of a second, meaning it will only work in very bright setups. Still an impressive feat though.

    --
    Write boring code, not shiny code!
    1. Re:Light? by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      Bright light has always been a requirement of high speed photography - so, you can catch an awesome slow-mo of junior sliding into home plate on a sunny day, post it to Facebook to wow your friends what a tech wizard you are, and then never use the feature again because: what a pain in the ass and who really cares?

      20 years ago, I needed a high speed camera like this, once, for about 5 minutes in a professional/scientific setting, and that was it. Any other uses for something like this, for me, in the last 20 years personal or professional, would have been merely "because it can" - not because it would have been valuable.

      As pointed out above, battery life is about a million times more pertinent to my daily needs, but nobody seems to compete on battery life anymore.

    2. Re:Light? by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      My phone lasts 2-3 days on a charge, which is good enough for me. I'm not sure why having a slo-mo feature is "a pain the ass". If you don't need it, don't use it.

    3. Re:Light? by NatasRevol · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Or you can think a little higher.

      Training junior's whole team by showing slow motion of what they're doing right/wrong.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    4. Re:Light? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As pointed out above, battery life is about a million times more pertinent to my daily needs, but nobody seems to compete on battery life anymore.

      Except Sony, then. Look it up.

    5. Re:Light? by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      My phone from 2006 lasted 7-10 days on a charge, even in 2010 the original battery was lasting 5-7 days on a charge.

    6. Re:Light? by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      And you can still get one like that (Amazon ) for less than $40 on Amazon.

    7. Re:Light? by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      >Up to 5 hours of talk time

      I should have specified: that 7 to 10 days of battery life was with 1-2 hours a day of talk time, including taking some photos, playing some music, etc. Normal usage. Motorola 810e.

      Not 360 hours in "off" position.

  8. More interested in the quality of the images by mtmiller100 · · Score: 1

    As impressive as those speeds are, I am much more impressed by a camera's image quality. What are the practical applications to these per-second speeds? Will they help eliminate blurring when I take a picture of my daughter, and she starts crawling away right when I take the picture? That would be useful.

    1. Re:More interested in the quality of the images by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

      You could, you know, go to the linked article and watch the videos. That is, if you wanted to know what the quality of the images was like.

    2. Re:More interested in the quality of the images by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As impressive as those speeds are, I am much more impressed by a camera's image quality. What are the practical applications to these per-second speeds? Will they help eliminate blurring when I take a picture of my daughter, and she starts crawling away right when I take the picture? That would be useful.

      If the sensor is able to catch 10x the light while sticking to 100fps, or perhaps using faux high ISOs with minimum noise, then this is indeed a evolution.
      Otherwise, it's number marketing. For $nnnn i can make it go to 11

    3. Re:More interested in the quality of the images by mtmiller100 · · Score: 1

      Sure, but I've learned long ago to take what the manufacturer says with a grain of salt

    4. Re:More interested in the quality of the images by Gaygirlie · · Score: 1

      You could, you know, go to the linked article and watch the videos. That is, if you wanted to know what the quality of the images was like.

      Watching video that has been carefully-selected and adjusted by the marketing-department to give as positive an impression as possible doesn't actually tell much of anything about the actual quality.

    5. Re:More interested in the quality of the images by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you saying you don't believe those videos were taken by the camera?

    6. Re:More interested in the quality of the images by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      We're used to linked articles that don't even have a single photo of the topic. I'm shocked to hear that there's a video for this one.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    7. Re:More interested in the quality of the images by David_Hart · · Score: 1

      As impressive as those speeds are, I am much more impressed by a camera's image quality. What are the practical applications to these per-second speeds? Will they help eliminate blurring when I take a picture of my daughter, and she starts crawling away right when I take the picture? That would be useful.

      Um, take a quick look at the size of the lens, that will tell you immediately what the limits are on image quality. Can you get good (or good-enough) photos out of a phone camera, in perfect conditions, yep... Can you get excellent photos in any number of challenging conditions? Nope... you need a real camera with a good quality lens for that.

  9. As usual, the vendor knows best. by geekmux · · Score: 3, Interesting

    While I can certainly applaud Sony in advancing technology for the sake of innovation and capitalism, the form factor certainly questions logic here.

    I shouldn't be surprised though. When it comes to consumer electronics, the vendor knows best, which is why they no longer give a damn about asking a single customer if 1,000fps is something they want or need in a smartphone. It's not exactly a necessary feature in order to take drunk selfies and cat videos destined for social media.

    Camera enthusiasts will continue to cringe as smartphone focus will eventually push development away from the DSLR form factor entirely. It's a shame, because as it stands today, there is no substitute for a lot of good glass.

    1. Re:As usual, the vendor knows best. by religionofpeas · · Score: 2

      Once the chip is developed, the extra cost of 1,000 fps support is very small, so why not ? And while not always useful, there are certainly times when I'd like to shoot some slow-motion footage. Work-related stuff comes to mind.

    2. Re:As usual, the vendor knows best. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For some it's about taking photos of their kids. Ever try to capture a good photo of a wiggly toddler? If they can make a camera app that starts up super fast and captures the image at super high frame rates, I'm in.

    3. Re: As usual, the vendor knows best. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Glass might be replaced by processing:
      http://spectrum.ieee.org/consumer-electronics/gadgets/inside-the-development-of-light-the-tiny-digital-camera-that-outperforms-dslrs

    4. Re:As usual, the vendor knows best. by geekmux · · Score: 1

      For some it's about taking photos of their kids. Ever try to capture a good photo of a wiggly toddler?

      As a parent, yes I certainly have. I'm thinking with the speed at which any toddler wriggles, 100fps is likely sufficient. You're capturing a human, not a bullet flying through the air.

      If they can make a camera app that starts up super fast and captures the image at super high frame rates, I'm in.

      This is a feature that enables shooting 1,000fps, which has little to do with the speed at which your smartphone can respond when you want to start up the application.

    5. Re:As usual, the vendor knows best. by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      The 1000fps is really out there in terms of "will I ever use it" - if it pushes the low light capabilities forward, that will definitely improve the drunk cat photo quality.

    6. Re:As usual, the vendor knows best. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Sony make the professional cameras used for TV, live sports and movies. They know what the fsck they are doing. This is just downstream usage for stuff created for high end CCDs. It has probably been sitting on a shelf until Samsung or LG could retool one of their plants and run these things off at a scale and price that makes them viable for consumer gadgets.

    7. Re:As usual, the vendor knows best. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Camera enthusiasts will continue to cringe as smartphone focus will eventually push development away from the DSLR form factor entirely.

      It won't, if only because the photographers who take pictures of the phones still want DSLRs. But that won't actually be the only reason. There's also sensor size, which remains relevant.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    8. Re:As usual, the vendor knows best. by geekmux · · Score: 2

      Sony make the professional cameras used for TV, live sports and movies. They know what the fsck they are doing. This is just downstream usage for stuff created for high end CCDs. It has probably been sitting on a shelf until Samsung or LG could retool one of their plants and run these things off at a scale and price that makes them viable for consumer gadgets.

      A toilet maker likely knows what the fsck they're doing as well. Doesn't justify forging one out of titanium, which speaks directly to my original point.

      Just because you can, doesn't mean a customer will appreciate the fact the new-and-improved model with features no one asked for now costs $75 more. Bigger is not always better, as pointless remains pointless.

    9. Re:As usual, the vendor knows best. by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      I shouldn't be surprised though. When it comes to consumer electronics, the vendor knows best, which is why they no longer give a damn about asking a single customer if 1,000fps is something they want or need in a smartphone.

      When Canon / Nikon developed video capabilities in their camera EVERY customer said it was something they don't want. It is now a standard feature that has opened up a new world of videography to to many people.

      Not every customer needs to be asked about every feature, otherwise we'd all be riding really fast horses. Me ... I can't wait. 1000fps would lead to some neat effects for camera footage, and that's before taking into account the features that this opens up from an image processing point of view (anti-shake, HDR etc) all which fundamentally rely on the same principles as high frame rates which is the ability to quickly alter the state of the sensor and read the data out.

    10. Re:As usual, the vendor knows best. by DamnOregonian · · Score: 2

      Doesn't justify forging one out of titanium

      Sounds cold... But also strangely awesome

    11. Re: As usual, the vendor knows best. by b0bby · · Score: 1

      That's really neat; I know that the reviews of the dual-lens iPhone setup are pretty good, and Light looks like that idea taken to its logical conclusion.

    12. Re:As usual, the vendor knows best. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > 1,000fps is something they want or need in a smartphone.

      Sony make sensors for their cameras, such as the RX10 III, which has a number of high speed frame rates*. They use the same technology, and possibly the same parts, to make sensors for mobile phones. That the phone winds up being capable of the same frame rates is merely a side effect, it wouldn't be any cheaper if they removed that feature (though as pointed out a mobile may limit the number of frames captured).

      * 960 fps @ 800 x 270
      480 fps @ 1136 x 384
      240 fps @ 1824 x 1026
      120 fps @ 1920 x 1080

    13. Re:As usual, the vendor knows best. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      > smartphone focus will eventually push development away from the DSLR form factor entirely.

      Complete nonsense. The same technology is used for both. DSLRs and Mirrorless system cameras get the technology first and phones only benefit later. Current developments in cameras are moving to 4K and higher and using this to do 'HDR', 'post focus'* and 'focus stacking'* by getting the camera to take several very high speed shots, varying focus or aperture or other, and then the user can choose the one(s) they want to keep or merge.

      These cameras can also be set to take photos continuously into a cyclic buffer _until_ the button is pressed. The user can then choose the appropriate shot from the one second or so prior to get the best action shot.

      Very high frames rates are not just for making slow movies. When the processing power of the phones improve then these features will also move to them.

      * https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonic-lumix-dmc-fz2500-fz2000/4

    14. Re:As usual, the vendor knows best. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      > features no one asked for now costs $75 more.

      You are assuming that the cost will increase. This is not necessarily true. Once the development cost and machinery has been paid for by using these on DSLRs and system cameras (which have been using these for a couple of years), then churning out smaller sensors with the same technology may be cheaper than continuing with older sensors.

      You may not need slow-motion video, but you might want the other photo features that this can lead to, and already does on top-end cameras, such as post-focus, focus-stacking, HDR, choosing from a cyclic buffer of action shots, ...

    15. Re:As usual, the vendor knows best. by radarskiy · · Score: 1

      The high frame rate is just the inverse of the short sensor scanning time. You need this to avoid rolling shutter effects when you don't have an actual shutter. The fact that you can capture a lot of frame is just an interesting side effect.

  10. Re:Astrology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Intended for another forum maybe? Most here will be certain that astrology is bullshit. Although not, admittedly, for any of the reasons that your post witters on about.

  11. 1000 fps or 240 fps? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm confused, WTF?

    The high-speed readout capability makes it possible to record up to 1,000 fps (approximately 8x faster than conventional products*3) super slow motion movies in full HD (1920x1080 pixels).

    Frame rate Movies
    60fps 4K (3840 x 2160)
    240fps Full HD / 720p

    src: http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/News/Press/201702/17-013E/index.html

    1. Re:1000 fps or 240 fps? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > I'm confused, WTF?

      It is very likely that, yes, it will do high-speed at 1920x1080 and it will do high-speed at 960fps, but is will not do 960fps at 1920x1080. The SONY RX10 III does:

      960 fps @ 800 x 270
      480 fps @ 1136 x 384
      240 fps @ 1824 x 1026
      120 fps @ 1920 x 1080

      This is likely he same.

  12. The language is quite revealing: by LordHighExecutioner · · Score: 1

    > Shoot At 1,000fps
    > this sensor blows every camera

    It seems that, to advertise the qualities of a smartphone, expressions related to firearms and ballistics are of common usage. So, if once in a while a smartphone explodes it should not be a surprise, after all.

    1. Re:The language is quite revealing: by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      Remember the country of origin, these could actually be sexual references.

  13. Still using filters... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seems the other layers are for memory and processing, not three layers of image capture. Pity...

  14. Can it by ArchieBunker · · Score: 1

    Also see through clothes like those Sony camcorders from the 90s?

    --
    Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
    1. Re:Can it by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      With an IR-pass filter, just as effectively, yes.

  15. 1000 fps raw by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

    That's good. Say a raw file is ~20MB, so one second costs 20GB!

    --
    Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    1. Re:1000 fps raw by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      Don't use raw then. At 1000 fps most things don't move much, so there's a lot of potential for temporal compression with minimum loss of quality.

    2. Re:1000 fps raw by stridebird · · Score: 1

      Good point, but would compressing the images on the fly restrict the maximum sustainable frame rate? Either way, it's gonna strain the storage and IO of a handheld device.

  16. Well ain't that a spiffy gimmick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sure is a neat little feature. And for 99% of the consumer world smart phone camera tech is just right. You're not looking for extreme quality when everything you use is going on Facebook or Instagram to boot. But until manufactures can improve upon these tiny sensors to the point that the pictures come out crisp and rich at their maximum resolutions, photographers like me will probably stick to our big, loud DSLRs. I use my iPhone camera about as sparingly as possible just because the quality control issues with producing anything from it is infuriating.

  17. Re:Seven Major Teachings of the Occult by dreamchaser · · Score: 1

    a combination of spirituality and superstition, fad and farce, about which the only thing certain is that it is not new.

    You just described every religion ever, including Christianity.

  18. Re:Seven Major Teachings of the Occult by dreamchaser · · Score: 1

    Sorry, forgot to close the quote :) The second line is mind.

  19. Galaxy S7 can shoot 240 fps by fintux · · Score: 2

    I find it weird that the slow-motion is only compared to iPhone 7 and Pixel at 120 fps, while Galaxy S7 has a double framerate of 240 compared to those. Of course this is still far from 960 fps, but the summary gives an impression that iPhone 7 and Pixel were the industry leaders in this regard, which they simply aren't.

    1. Re:Galaxy S7 can shoot 240 fps by by+(1706743) · · Score: 1

      As can the Nexus 6P (and I'm guessing the Pixel), but -- like the S7 -- that's at 720p, not 1080p.

  20. The 3 layers are *not* R,G,B - it's a Bayer sensor by OldMugwump · · Score: 3, Informative

    FWIW, the 3 layers are not red/green/blue, but photosensor, DRAM, and logic. It's a standard Bayer pattern sensor; not a multilayer color sensor. And by "focal plane distortion" they don't mean focus error due to different depths for RGB, but rolling shutter ("jello effect"). (The post was a bit confusing - it's easy to read it as being about a Foveon-type sensor. But no.)

    --
    "Shoot, a fella could have a pretty good weekend in Vegas with all that stuff."
  21. Damn by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

    A camera like this used to cost $10,000 or more and it wouldn't even have a phone attached.

    --
    Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
  22. Everyone seems to be focused on the 1000fps by JazzXP · · Score: 2

    For me the real innovation here is significantly reducing the rolling shutter effect. 1000fps is just a byproduct of the tech to do that.

  23. Courage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    However, in an Apple-like move drawing upon great reserves of courage, the phone won't have a lens.

  24. That's OK, they'll @#(& it up with software by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have the Xperia Z5 Compact which is supposed to have a top-notch camera ... in automatic mode it spits out crappy pictures about half of the time. I used to get *much* better pictures with my old Samsung S2 :-(