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."

Just wonderful

[Anonymous Coward]

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!

Re:Haha!

[remembertomorrow]

How else would the NSA discreetly film you at home?

enjoy it while it lasts..

[Anonymous Coward]

next year she'll start sending you hi-def video according to the article.

It won't work.

[AntEater]

You don't know about complementary metal-oxide semiconductors. I do.

Re:Yeah, and that's all you need for great pics!

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

And that, my friend, is progress.

Re:Just wonderful

[ByteGuerrilla]

I believe the appropriate response is "I for one welcome our giant high-definition feline overlords."

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

[javamann]

But I just saw on CSI that you can enlarge a picture and recover the image already.

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

[Minwee]

"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."

If you were trying to install a camera on your fingernail, you might think differently.

Re:Dead wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

There is nothing wrong with "more pixels" if you actually have them (and not just blurry spots spread over more pixels or 4bit intensity resolution due to noise). The way most digital cameras on the market use them is obviously not going to scale in a useful way. A typical print simply doesn't need more than 3 to 4 megapixels. But that doesn't mean there aren't ways to use even dozens of megapixels. Take a look at the typical problems that non-photographers have with their point and shoot cameras: Tilted picture, bad framing (mostly too little space around the object) and motion blur. To solve all of these problems, you need more pixels and a wider angle lens. People aren't NASA scientists who plan each and every shot in a committee and typical motives on this planet are a little more agile than a dead rock circling the sun. Should a marsian jump in front of the rover, I bet the picture will be blurry and his head will be cut off.

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

[Ced_Ex]

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!

Re:Uhh...?

[Anonymous Coward]

It won't be worthless to the providers who get to charge people (by the byte) to download big blurry 8 meg images from their cell phones...
Who would do such a thing? Why the same consumers who created a multibillion dollar ringtone business!

Re:Dead wrong

[coult]

>Nope. It's 1/4 red, 2/4 green and 1/4 blue.

Crap! Well, forget everything I said then.

One small step for optics..

[ak-74]

..one giant step for pornography.

Re:Just wonderful

[somersault]

I prefer just not to have any friends