Slashdot Mirror
Mobile Photography Set For Major Quality Bump With Sony's 48-Megapixel Sensor (newatlas.com)
Smartphone camera sensors and lenses have to operate in a very tight space, but they continue to close the gap on full-size digital cameras year after year. Sony's new IMX586 sensor boasts a 48-megapixel resolution, the highest yet for a mobile sensor, and should be coming to a phone near you soon. From a report: That increased resolution shrinks the pixel size down to 0.8 microns, which would usually lead to lower sensitivity and poor light collection. However, thanks to some smart technology called a Quad Bayer array -- where neighboring pixels are intelligently combined -- Sony says the effective pixel size is 1.6 microns. The bigger the pixel size, the better the light capture and low-light performance. In comparison, the Google Pixel 2 -- one of the best photo-taking phones on the market right now -- has a camera with a 1.4-micron pixel size. On paper, that means Sony has managed to produce a sensor that combines a huge amount of detail with excellent light capture and low noise levels as well. We'll have to wait until the sensor is actually on the market to know for sure, but the signs are good.
Look, stop with the pixel count arms race. We all know that that's what the vast majority of consumers can understand, but for anyone caring about the details, it's relatively meaningless as a comparator.
If you blow up your photos to the pixel level, you'll find that it's not the pixel count that's making them look bad, it's the pixel-to-pixel noise and compression and color fringing, for example.
We don't need 48 MP taking up space on our phones and hard drives. For camera phone lenses, compressions, 24 MP is already enough. Anything more than that (if photography is your livelihood for example) and you should be relying on a DSLR.
The ability of the lenses to provide a sharp image at that (actual) pixel density is going to need some serious optical design. The sort that usually costs more than the whole phone.
Why not just use the quad bayer array with fewer pixels and give mobile phones an actual low light capability for once.
My new D5600 Nikon camera, cost something in the $700 range, for instance, has a sensor of 24.2 megapixels. But the tippety top of the line Nikon DSLR, the D5, which costs almost $7,000 only has a 20 megapixel sensor, but obviously can take way better pictures because of the PHYSICAL size of the sensor.. More dynamic range, faster exposure, blah blah blah. Then of course there are lenses that will never be practical for a phone but have way more to do with a good picture than the quality of a sensor.
Instead of cramming an ass-million pixels into your camera sensor, why don't you make a lens and sensor big enough to actually let in some light so I don't have to spend a fortune on a phone just so I can take a halfway decent night shot? Yeesh.
Because consumers don't understand diffracton and false magnification but do understand a bigger number. Too bad this is only going to make the red amplification problem worse as at a pixel size of 800nm it is getting awfully close to the long range of visible red so it will capture even less of that. I would be willing to be I can capture a better quality image with my old K-2000 (10 year old 10MP DLSR) and old screw mount 8 element SMC Takumar f/1.4 but if I used my K-3 and my modern good glass (I own the 3 princesses) I would absolutely crush it. I'd even be willing to bet I could do better than this sensor with a roll of Ektar100 in my Spotmatic F using that same 50mm f/1.4 lens although it would have more noise from the grain.
That said Sony does make some damn fine sensors but no one who knows about optics and sensors really expects this to compete with even entry level DSLRs or mirror-less interchangeable lens cameras, let alone those monster digital medium formats from Hasselblad or Pentax. Instead it will be something for consumers to get into a phone pissing contest over and believe that they can take pictures just as good as a pro can.
Time to offend someone
Then came in the electrics, the puny wheezy golf cart electrics.... Beats them hollow in their own game. An electric SUV beats an Alpha Romeo Spyder, while towing an Alpha Romeo Spyder!
Wish someone will make a CCD with a dynamic range 3 orders of mag better than the crappy ones we have.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
While I know this high pixel count is worthless, can anyways with actual knowledge of the technology tell me if this would help with digital zoom? If my cellphone camera could offer me a 10x zoom producing a 4 Megapixel image, this is something I might consider buying.
Quad Bayer is just the binning of a 2x2 region of sensors. It does not give you double the effective sensor size. They are using both long and short exposure to give more dynamic range. See the following diagram. https://i.imgur.com/rm1UKHj.pn...
There is a diffraction limit which sets in when the pixel size is smaller than 1.22*wavelength*f_ratio. The wavelength range is 0.4-0.7 micron (let us take middle wavelength of 0.55 micron). Best f_ratio that I have seen is 1.8, so the limit kicks in at at around 1.2 micron pixel size. The limit is for far off objects and you get little better when nearby assuming you have a perfect lens.
In practice, it will be impossible to beat 16 MP SLR camera in terms of resolution. This is why mega zoom camera cannot give as good resolution of moon as some of the SLR with large lens can give.