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."
Interesting, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not the megapixels, its the quality (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Who Cares (Score:1, Insightful)
When phones start coming with a good lens assembly, then it'll be news.
Everyone also neglects the fact that phone memory is still very small, and high-res desktop monitors hardly bump 2 megapixels, nevermind 8. The only reason someone would need 8 is for print work, and anyone doing print work with a mobile phone deserves to be shot.
Re:CMOS? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Where's the useful cut-off point? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Where's the useful cut-off point? (Score:3, Insightful)
You're just adding data, but not improving the viewable image. Why have an image that is higher res than a monitor or your eyeball's ability to process data?
While there is indeed a limit to how good the original image may be, I believe the major benefit of higher and higher res is the ability to blow up smaller and smaller portions of the original image, while still retaining something viewable.
Of course, once you exceed a certain threshold, the accuracy of your camera lens starts playing a major role in your ability to blow up images, so for this application, that could also be considered a 'cut-off' point.
Dear Micron, (Score:4, Insightful)
a little about average consumers (Score:3, Insightful)
"This will immediately appeal to photography enthusiasts, but the average consumer is really more of a middle- to late-adopter and doesn't pay attention to the specs and features as much,"
now, I worked in retail for 6 months (thank god thats past tence) and i have to call BS on this one. If anything, the average consumer is OBSESSED with specs and features. Just because they dont always know exatly what each feature really does, or which cameras have it does not meen that they arnt concerned with them. You will never see someone go into a store and say "oooo! that one looks cute, buy it".
they bring out a cheap 8Mpix camera and it will fly off the shelves... signal to noise ratio? thats stuff that 99% of the salesfolk wont understand and therefore wont mention it to the customer. they will just see 8Mpix and a cheap price and pick it up
Re:Dear Micron, (Score:1, Insightful)
Focus, DAMN IT! (Score:3, Insightful)
But the optics! (Score:2, Insightful)
Sure, you can zoom in more on an 8MP picture. However, when your lens is always out in the open, covered with finger prints, dust, grease, scratched and soo tiny, that extra resolution will just capture noise.
Re:Where's the useful cut-off point? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Where's the useful cut-off point? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Dead wrong (Score:3, Insightful)
People will buy the high pixel counts though. Really, nobody ever zooms in on their photos enough to realize that the picture they took with their cell phone is really only two effective megapixels anyway because of the sucky lens.
Re:Where's the useful cut-off point? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Dead wrong (Score:4, Insightful)
Another poster made the point that most of the images you see from the rovers are actually multiple images stitched together, resulting in even more 'megapixels' per image.
On a separate point, what distinguishes good from great cameras is not megapixels but optical quality. A terapixel camera with a pinhole lens would produce much lower resolution photos than a 6 megapixel Nikon with mulithousand dollar glass attached.
Re:Dead wrong (Score:2, Insightful)
8 Million pixels, and not one of them... (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem with most low-end cameras and especially cell-phone cameras lies in the lens, not the sensor. Simply put, a small lens tends to have more distortion, and can't gather as much light to see in the dark well. Add that on to a light weight camera that is difficult to hold still, and you are garenteed that half your pictures will be blurry and dark.
It's not that I have anything against it, but it looks like a product targeted at being able to sell a 8Mega pixel camera for $300 that people will compare with the $800-3000 offerings in the same pixel range and think they are getting a good deal, but really they will not get something worth having. For that matter, they would be better buying a $50 PHD camera (my mother-in-law who has a PHD in engineering calls them that for 'Push Here Dummy'), and spending the money saved on film and processing -- You will still have a crappy lens, but you will probably get better pictures.
Re:Where's the useful cut-off point? (Score:4, Insightful)