Samsung starts mass-production of thinner 16MP sensor with 1.0μm Pixels

https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8878/18415568962_88496633d8_o.png

Panasonic CM-1 performance with OIS. Is it too much asked, can someone do it? I don't think the sammy-san here can do it. All they want is thinner thinner thinner... might as well go for max ISO 400 with this rate

Aug 1, 2015*permalink

Peiasdf

Yeah. I kinda hope the upcoming Lumia 940/1040/1540 will have something amazing.

Aug 1, 2015permalink

Modgil

Samsung should also work on a 1.8micrometre 16mpx sensor. I love my 808pureview size never being a bother. Currently use s4 as primary phone, and always wish the s4 had sensor and optics from the 808.

Aug 1, 2015permalink

Joe Ogiba

If you want a large APS-C sensor then get the Sony QX1 smartphone camera. I sometimes use it with my 6.44" Sony Xperia Z Ultra that has an optional case with mount built-in for the QX1 . My Z Ultra does not have a flash and the QX1 has a pop up flash . I can also use any lens on it like my E/FE mount lenses.
https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8615/15947075285_4f58229370_b.jpg

Aug 1, 2015permalink

ThePhilips

Pixels of that size filling up a FF sensor... Some landscapers' head would simply explode at the idea.

P.S. 36mm x 24mm = 36000 x 24000 = 864MP. Shy of a gigapixel resolution.

Jul 31, 2015permalink

arhmatic

Manufacturers needs to stop this thin device craze forever.

Image quality is more important. Battery life is quite bad, most phones barely last through the day... Phones are uncomfortably thin to hold.

Samsung, apple and the rest, please stop this.

Jul 31, 2015permalink

Yes, phones are so thin these days that they need cases so you have something to hold on to. But cases are good because they can protect the resale value (a damaged/worn case is better than a damaged/worn phone). So as far as I am concerned it's OK that phones are getting thinner because that way a good case with some decent shock absorption can offer better protection without the whole combo being too bulky.

Jul 31, 2015*permalink

ThePhilips

"Battery life is quite bad, most phones barely last through the day..."

Let me guess: you are huge fan of Google and use the pure unaltered vanilla Android OS?

Jul 31, 2015permalink

arhmatic

iPhone. This is the case with both 5 and 6+. Older models were bulkier with a little more battery life.

I dare any apple fan trying to defend this. I know, your battery life is great on your brand new one, but what about a year of use and daily charges?

Aug 3, 2015permalink

SmilerGrogan

Agreed! iPhone battery life is not the best feature. And as battery starts to get weaker, a lot of functions in iPhone start to not work as well. It's a pain.

Aug 3, 2015permalink

grasscatcher

I see a few snarky comments about image quality of smartphones. Yes, they are lacking compared to a typical enthusiast camera, but look how wonderful the images they produce are, given what they have to work with! If a full-frame camera could produce such images proportional to its sensor size, we'd all be going nuts over it!

I, for one, would like to see one of these 1 g 3.2" sensors in a larger enthusiast or bridge camera. Why? Because with, say, the latest processing power from something like a Sony RXM4, you could get amazing speed and processing performance out of such a tiny sensor, and still have a body large enough to house the battery and heatsinking necessary for such speeds. All of that processing power gives you more ability for more stabilization, etc., for more stops of forgiveness to make up for smaller sensor size. Plus, you could have a 2000mm super-zoom lens on a relately small body.

As processors, and processing, become more developed, I see less divergence among sensor sizes.

Yes, large glass and large sensors will always have an advantage in many types of photograghy, but don't make the mistake of discounting the smaller sensors!

Jul 31, 2015permalink

ludwik123

Sounds like a fantastic new sensor.
Another nail in the coffin of the FF Canikon DSLR'S.
Mobile phone IQ is approaching FF very quickly.

Jul 31, 2015permalink

duartix

LOL.
I can see the fumes from this distance.

Jul 31, 2015permalink

ludwik123

Do You mean toxic fumes from the coatings of the DSLR lenses?
As we smash and burn our unwanted HQ large FF camera lenses.

Jul 31, 2015permalink

Yes the smartphones are very close. In couple of years they'll have same iq as today's FF (sarcasm).

But then again every other camera is getting better too.

Aug 1, 2015*permalink

thx1138

Just when you thought smart phone IQ couldn't get worse, Samsung admits they are trading IQ for size. Ridiculous

Jul 31, 2015permalink

They admitted no such thing:

"Samsung says that despite the smaller photosites, sensor performance is just as good as on previous models and conventional sensors with 1.12 micron photosites."

And it's certainly not impossible for them to be correct about that, as the history of sensor development clearly demonstrates.

Jul 31, 2015permalink

Boissez

> Cainn24

At some point it does get hard to progress. Visible light has a wavelength of about 0.5 micron and diffraction perturbs the image way before that.

Jul 31, 2015permalink

and: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oversampled_binary_image_sensor

Sure, but we're not there yet, and we don't seem to have completely exhausted our options when it comes to improving the efficiency of existing designs either.

Also, you might be surprised to discover that at least one prominent CMOS sensor architect has some pretty convincing arguments for venturing more deeply into sub-micron territory than "conventional" wisdom might suggest is worthwhile. See: http://www.ericfossum.com/Publications/Papers/What%20To%20Do%20With%20SubDiffractionLimit%20Pixels.pdf

Jul 31, 2015*permalink

0MitchAG

You mean people actually have high expectations when it comes to mobile phone IQ? Like they said, it's not going to make a difference.

Jul 31, 2015permalink

rwol1970

Considering how a lot of images (or maybe most) are consumed, mobile phone IQ is more than sufficient for >90% of the cases. Of course, it's almost impossible to play with DoF, make very large prints or use them with bad light conditions but the average shooter doesn't care about that.

Aug 1, 2015permalink

Hex144

7.5x crop factor. This is about 1/3.2".

Jul 31, 2015permalink

Ittenomis

As if camera phones weren`t already bad enough, Samsung is striving to make them worse.

Jul 31, 2015permalink

What they are in fact doing instead is striving to make them lighter in the pocket without compromising IQ any further.

Jul 31, 2015permalink

Without compromising IQ? Are you going to believe what their marketing is telling? I rather have unbiased objective test / proof that such claim is indeed truth. Until then, I'm not buying it.

Aug 1, 2015*permalink

I said that's what they are _striving_ to do.

I don't care about marketing; I care about facts. And the fact is that if you look at the history of digital photography you will see that sensor efficiency has improved over time as a consequence of a constant series of incremental improvements in sensor technology. And increases in efficiency mean you can either:

1) produce better quality images using the same sensor type or

2) reduce the sensor area slightly without a performance penalty

Will Samsung actually pull it off? I don't know. Theory is one thing, implementation is another. But if they do succeed far from it being miraculous it will simply represent the next incremental improvement in sensor efficiency.

Aug 1, 2015*permalink

Sensor tech is getting better, yes. But imo the smartphone manufacturers are doing this thing wrong. If they REALLY tried, they could've driven the entire compact market out (well, most of it anyway). But they haven't made big enough steps imo, because even today ppl are buying compact cameras. Some of them have bigger sensors than most smartphones. So why are we only seeing CM-1 trying (kind of fail without OIS) to reach the compact IQ? If there are ppl who want bigger sensors in their smartphones, and want them to be smartcameras, why aren't we seeing more these products?

Aug 1, 2015*permalink

utomo99

I hope mobile phones and tablet start using better sensor, maybe including bigger sensor. to produce better images

Jul 31, 2015permalink

They can't as they are so slim. However, they can use arrays of camera modules. That's where the future will be. Apple has already ventured to buy a company to address this.

Jul 31, 2015permalink

rwol1970

If sensors will be bigger some revolutionary new lens technology is needed. The advantage of using a mobile phone as a camera is that it's so easy to carry around. Bigger sensor = bigger lens = fatter phone which doesn't fit in your pocket.

Aug 1, 2015permalink

-> http://www.jsts.org/html/journal/journal_files/2006/12/08%28271-275%29.pdf

Ok, the RWB Bayer CFA is real, I researched it a bit.

If anybody wonders how it can work, well, the green channel can be easily computed from white when already knowing the red and blue channels. However, there is a problem with increased color noise (because the color matrix now contains large negative factors -- the difference of two noisy signals is an even noisier one) and early saturation of the white pixels. At least, conventional demosaicsm applies with just a modified color matrix table. Converters should have no problem to support it.

I found a 2006 research paper where Samsung discusses their ideas related to the RWB Bayer CFA:

Jul 31, 2015permalink

My personal opinion on the RGWB and RWB patterns is that they are no progress over the conventional RGGB pattern. There is decreased luminance at the expense of increased color noise. Such a pattern would most likely NOT score better at DxOmark and for a reason. Moreover, the green filter can be made arbitrarily transparent such that there is a continuum of patterns between RGGB and RWB. It is safe to assume that the current sensitivity of the green filter has already been optimized for optimal performance.

Eventually, there is a subtle problem with the metamerism index of an RWB pattern. The reconstructed green channel differs from what the human eye perceives which is RGB rather than RWB.

Jul 31, 2015*permalink

SimenO1

I think the "unsyncronized" saturation of W versus B and R are a good thing. It increases the total DR in a single (gray) scene. At burnt out edges its easy to extrapolate the colors a bit closer to the burned out area.

I actually would like a 3 by 3 or 4 by 4 pattern rather then a 2 by 2. The 9 or 16 pixels should in my opinion be a mosaic of RWB with chess patterned small and big micro lenses. The small micro lenses will gather less light and increase DR in bright areas, possibly with about 1 stop. There is no ND filter that simply wastes light to achieve this. The rest of the light is gathered by bigger micro lenses that increases signal at the rest of the pixels, making dark tones better by about 1 stop.

Jul 31, 2015permalink

NetMage

Fuji tried that without much success, because it complicates processing for small gains.

Jul 31, 2015permalink

BJL

That reference proposes a method to avoid blown out white pixels: read the charge in each white pixel partway through the exposure and again at the end (without reset?) Then combine the two readings, or just extrapolate from the first one if the later one is blown out.

Jul 31, 2015*permalink

This link seems to contain extra information. It covers a press event, not the press release
-> http://www.gsmdome.com/samsung-details-new-mobile-camera-sensor-rwb-tech-5-mm-thickness-16-mp-resolution

Moreover, news seems to be 2 months old ;)

To me it seems like Samsung introduced a new "RWB" Bayer color matrix pattern alongside the smaller sensor to compensate for loss of sensitivity.

If true, this RWB pattern (which seems to differ from an RGWB pattern which Sony evaluated for some time) seems to be the bigger story here ...

Jul 31, 2015*permalink

The article should probably point out that the new sensor is first of all smaller than the previous one!

If the previous 16MP 1.12µm sensor is 1/2.6", then the new 16MP 1µm sensor must be 1/2.9", almost 1/3". With the larger crop factor, the lens and camera module becomes thinner. But maybe not with a faster lens (F1.7 rather than F1.9 would be required to compensate).

The headline should have read "smaller sensor" rather than "thinner sensor". Jounalists need not copy paste everything coming from the PR departments ...

Jul 30, 2015permalink

the whole point of the exercise it to make it thinner not smaller in terms of footprint. Of course you'd assume it'll also be slightly smaller if the individual pixels are smaller but we cannot be 100% certain as Samsung has not provided any information.

Jul 31, 2015permalink

NetMage

They could increase the MP to keep the area.

Jul 31, 2015permalink

No, we *can* actually be 100% certain. That was my point what is missing in the article. Samsung published the old and new resolution, both being 16MP, so the sensor area has been shrunk proportionally to 1/1.12^2.

And after all, it is the increase in crop which allows a decrease in focal length and camera module thickness.

Jul 31, 2015permalink

Androole

Ahaha...

"Samsung Starts Mass Production of Smaller Sensor. Smaller Sensor is Less Tall"

Jul 30, 2015permalink

iAPX

For me there is "an image quality tradeoff " since many years, and I would dream to see 6MP or 3MP camera sensors with the same surface, to increase Dynamic Range and reduce Noise.

Jul 30, 2015permalink

supeyugin1

try iphone. They still have 8MP ancient sensor.

Jul 30, 2015*permalink

HTC tried this with their 4MP "ultrapixel" sensor and the reults were pretty disastrous.

Jul 31, 2015permalink

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/55405101
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/55408684

@iAPX

That's really not how it works at all since the performance sweet spot migrates to higher and higher pixel counts over time as a consequence of the evolution of sensor design.

And if you don't buy that, here's a quick investigation of the issue using actual image samples:

Jul 31, 2015*permalink

iAPX

As a D610 owner, instead D800, because of the sensor, it's better Dynamic Range and better Noise (stochastic perfect noise at 6400 ISO for example), I don't buy it.

Jul 31, 2015permalink

http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-D610-versus-Nikon-D800-versus-Nikon-D810___915_792_963

Plenty of people don't buy things that are true, but thankfully that doesn't change reality for everyone else ;)

(most people who make this mistake don't think to compare output at the same print/display size)

Besides, I wasn't talking about parity within the same generation (even though in this case there is) but the fact that performance sweet spots migrate to higher pixel counts _over time_.

Aug 1, 2015*permalink

Pixel count does and doesn't matter. But I think the root issue is that smartphones are bad, and going about the camera thing wrong. Otherwise they'd have completely replaced some of the compact cameras right? But as it is, some compacts are better than some smartphones.

Aug 1, 2015*permalink

micksh6

DPR article incorrectly refers to sensor thickness instead of total camera module thickness, which includes lens.
In the source article, it's clearly stated that these numbers belong to whole sensor/lens module thickness:

"Samsung’s new 16Mp image sensor reduces the module’s overall height by 20 percent"
"Enabling a module z-height that is less than 5mm"

No wonder some readers got confused.

Jul 30, 2015permalink

I have corrected this, thanks.

Jul 30, 2015permalink

I've read the article in its current form and I still assumed the sensor, not the camera module, was thinned.

Jul 30, 2015permalink

Jon Stern

The thickness is referring to the total module height (from the back of the substrate to the top of the lens). The silicon will be 0.2mm or 0.15mm thick.

The thinner module is in comparison to a 16MP sensor with larger pixels, which has a optical format >1/3.2-inch, so requires lenses with a larger focal length (and therefore TTL).

[Full disclosure: I work on mobile phone camera modules for ON Semiconductor (formerly Aptina), a rival manufacturer of image sensors.]

Jul 31, 2015permalink

joe6pack

5mm for a sensor is thin?

What about the lenses? And the screen in the back? All that has to fit under 7mm.

Jul 30, 2015permalink

BJL

5mm is the whole camera module height, from back of sensor to front of lens: that is the height that has been thinned down.

Jul 31, 2015permalink

zos xavius

So which is it? Sensor performance "is just as good" or a "trade off in some image quality for a sleeker device?"

Jul 30, 2015permalink