8 MegaPixel Digital Sensor Unveiled 279
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."
That is gonna be a noisy sensor (Score:5, Informative)
I believe Nikon already have this (Score:4, Informative)
Yeah, and that's all you need for great pics! (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re:Just wonderful (Score:2, Informative)
8MP CMOS is nothing new.... (Score:1, Informative)
Re:CMOS? (Score:2, Informative)
good quality CMOS sensors = expensive
low quality CMOS = cheap
Medium quality CCD = middleground
Re:CMOS? (Score:3, Informative)
Quality wise I can tell you the CMOS vs CCD isn't an issue anymore. Plus CMOS takes alot less power.
Quality? (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re:Interesting, but... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:CMOS? (Score:2, Informative)
ALL top-end cameras use CMOS sensors. Here's the rule of thumb - Digital SLR's use CMOS. Point-and-shoot use CCD.
Re:CMOS? (Score:2, Informative)
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 [dpreview.com].
This article says it a lot better than I ever could do :) :Shutterbug article [shutterbug.com].
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
CMOS is already here (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:I believe Nikon already have this (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Where's the useful cut-off point? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:CMOS? (Score:2, Informative)
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.
Re:Where's the useful cut-off point? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Where's the useful cut-off point? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:It's not the megapixels, its the quality (Score:1, Informative)
Other than that, yes you're spot on about lenses storage and bandwidth.
That MSBC news story misses the important feature. (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Lens vs. MP (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Dead wrong (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Where's the useful cut-off point? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Quality? (Score:4, Informative)
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...
Re:I want a faster camera, not more pixels (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Uhh...? (Score:3, Informative)
-ben
Re:CMOS? (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re:Dead wrong (Score:5, Informative)
You may be unaware that although those cameras do have really great optics, those startlingly good images are mostly made by taking lots and lots of 1.3 megapixel images and then painstakingly piecing them together (by hand) into a mosaic back here on Earth. There are a hell of a lot of pixels there.
One of the rovers is, I belive, doing a major pan right now. It's taking about two weeks to take all the pictures and transmit them back home.
Re:That is gonna be a noisy sensor (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Where's the useful cut-off point? (Score:3, Informative)
I shoot a Nikon D70 and it's standard lens has a reputation for being sharp (for a kit lens, that is). I still can't do a major enlargement to 100% pixel size on screen and retain full sharpness without post processing.
Re:Where's the useful cut-off point? (Score:2, Informative)
The dynamic range on digital cameras is getting better all the time, but what you say about the lenses isn't true. These days digital cameras use the same lenses as film cameras, and my EOS 350D takes better photos than my EOS 300 film using the exact same L lens.
Re:Where's the useful cut-off point? (Score:3, Informative)