Reading mode: Light Dark

Sony's new sensor...

Go to last post
D

David A Melges

Senior Member
Messages
3,931
Reaction score
0
Location
MI, US
For some reason this didn't really catch my attention the first time around, months ago....maybe because so much tech gets announced that I just have come to prefer waiting until its actually IN a camera to really get excited.

But aside from the potential Sony's "backlit CMOS" has already....larger photosites, much better signal to noise ratio.......the prototype is only FIVE megapixels. Which I know will worry some people, but actually excites me!

What if Sony decided to go the 100% IMAGE QUALITY route, totally sidestepping the megapixel race, and using the superior per pixel quality of the new sensor as the marketing angle.....they could create the 5mp camera from hell! (scuse my language) 60 fps (is insane) but think of the QUALITY per pixel that camera could produce! They could also make the built in "stacker" camera....the one that shoots say 6 frames covering 6 stops of exposure and the firmware automatically stacks them for dynamic range.

I know, odds are by the time we see an actual camera, the prototype will be swapped for something in the 10-16mp range, but its (once again) kinda nice to dream!

dave

ps link to Sony press release below

http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/News/Press/200806/08-069E/index.html
--
I love Sony!
 
David A Melges said:
What if Sony decided to go the 100% IMAGE QUALITY route, totally
sidestepping the megapixel race
Click to expand...
Yes! I wish every manufacturer would have the vision to produce a camera line based on this principle. The manuf that does will corner the market.

Imagine a camera with a 2-Stop advantage in ISO noise characteristics! I'd kill for such a beast. It would be a wedding shooter's dream. Think of what 2 stops would do for your kid shots. And for low-light shooting. Macros! Sports! BIF! Egad I'm drooling.

(Psst, I've been wishing that Canon would actually release 2 new Full Frame models. One that is a high MP version, and one that is a "low" MP version (perhaps 8 MP) with an extra stop or more of clean ISO's)
David A Melges said:
they could create the 5mp camera from hell!
Click to expand...
David A Melges said:
(scuse my language)
Click to expand...
Well put actually.
David A Melges said:
They could also make the built in "stacker" camera....the one that
shoots say 6 frames covering 6 stops of exposure and the firmware
automatically stacks them for dynamic range.
Click to expand...
Right. HDR from hell! (scuse my language)
David A Melges said:
I know, odds are by the time we see an actual camera, the prototype
will be swapped for something in the 10-16mp range, but its (once
again) kinda nice to dream!
Click to expand...
I have all of my fingers and toes crossed.

Great post!

R2

--
*
Good judgment comes from experience.
Experience comes from bad judgment.

http://www.pbase.com/jekyll_and_hyde/galleries
 
I ask you to think about what you are saying.
5 megapixels is the best number?
The size of the sensor doesn't matter to you? Do you really believe that?

My mom always used to say, "Convince a man against his will, and that man is of the same opinion still", so this may be may be wasting our time, but please read the article with me:
David A Melges said:
With the development of this new back-illuminated structure, Sony has realized a CMOS image sensor with even higher sensitivity and lower noise.
Click to expand...
Did you notice that the higher sensitivity and lower noise came from the new structure and not from the number of pixels?
David A Melges said:
Furthermore, the back-illuminated structure also expands device potential in areas such as speed and dynamic range by enabling multiple metal wiring layers and greater flexibility in the transistor structure.
Click to expand...
Again do you notice that the potential improvement in dynamic range and speed come from the design and not from the number of pixels?
David A Melges said:
Going forward, Sony will continue its development of image sensors that combine ease-of-use, advanced image quality and cutting-edge pixel miniaturization.
Click to expand...
Sony believes in pixel miniaturization, and it's nothing to do with marketing. The benefits outweigh the disadvantages. In the minds of Sony engineers, advanced image quality and cutting edge pixel miniaturization go hand in hand. I realize that this is a very challenging notion for you, but I highly recommend it.
Even if you don't agree with the Sony engineers, I still like you.
Love.
--
John Dunn

Portraits: http://www.fototime.com/ftweb/bin/ft.dll/pictures?userid= {8B9B811D-AD1C-4A7D-923E-A4D0930BB5EE}
 
I'm all for debating this to find the best answers. Keep in mind, those of us who want this, want this ALSO. High pixel count cameras are not going anywhere, what I don't understand is why you're so against us having a portion of the effort be directed toward lower pixel counts. We have an unbelievable number of cameras with way more pixels than visible resolution, so we certainly have no shortage of high pixel cameras.

The new sensor has improved sensitivity because of the new tech. It has higher dynamic range because of the new tech. NOW, if they combine that with larger photosites, very simple math, more signal to the exact same amount of noise, means higher signal to noise. Its really that simple. For whatever electronics are attached to the photosite, if we increase the amount of light, we increase the signal and improve signal to noise.

There is a VERY large contingency of us that want, not all cameras, but just one or two or a few to choose from, where the manufacturer quits thinking numbers of pixels and instead thinks QUALITY of pixels. Add to that the reduced burden on file size and the increase in shoot speed, and this is a very attractive camera.

Just one camera to start would be nice, lol

Thanks John
dave
--
I love Sony!
 
I'm the worst kind of guy to listen to: opinionated without any deep knowledge but this is what I think.

Noise is a function of light. Laser light is all straightened out and pointing in the same direction. I imagine it doesn't have any noise. If you took a picture of a laser beam it would all be the same intensity. Normal light, however, is bouncing all over the place, and some of it cancels itself out. There's this random nature to light that causes a sensor to futz up a certain percentage of what it captures. That percentage is the same all over the sensor, and the same in a big pixel and a small pixel. This type of noise is not affected by pixel size.

Noise is a function of the sensor. People are noticing that there is a lot less noise in camera sensors than there used to be in film. Modern sensors are a lot more sensitive than older ones. So this type of noise is dependent on how good the sensor is. This type of noise is not affected by sensor size.

In the discussions of noise I've been reading, I think that engineers refer to these two types of noise as shot noise.

Noise is a function of the sensor design. The electronics surrounding the sensor and other elements of the design can affect the signal, causing noise. I think this is referred to as read noise. People believe that the read noise/signal ratio from a small pixel is higher than the read noise/signal ratio from a large pixel, however, recent experiments have shown that this is not always true. In the article referred to in the opening thread, the Sony engineers are anticipating putting a lot of wiring on the front of the photosite without affecting its s/n ratio.

Larger sensors give you an advantage because you can gather more light and then have more information to work with. The amount of light gathered isn't affected by the size of the pixels on the sensor.

Small sensors, like the one in the W300, are only capable of catching enough light to give you an excellent image up to about 8 by 10 size. If you look at their output at 20 x 30 size, it may not look so good, because at that size, the random nature of light is starting to show.

Tiny pixels have an advantage when it comes to noise, because they chop the lumps of noise into tiny pieces. So the noise from a sensor with tiny pixels doesn't look so bad.

We've seen watercolour effects and other problems from sensors with small pixels, but this is a teething problem. The manufacturers are trying to learn how to work with this kind of output. I suspect that the processing engines in the cameras will continue to improve.
--
John Dunn

Portraits: http://www.fototime.com/ftweb/bin/ft.dll/pictures?userid= {8B9B811D-AD1C-4A7D-923E-A4D0930BB5EE}
 
Draw a square. Think of that as one giant pixel. Tons of light. Not much resolution.

Take that square, and divide it into 4. Is there as much light taken in as the original single square? Nope, because you forgot that you've included two extra lines inside. Those lines (pixel walls) make noise. Resolution is increased, yes, but so is noise. Now divide each of those squares again, making 16 squares. Same amount of light taken in? Once again, no, because you've added more interior lines (pixel walls) again. Resolution is increased, yes, but there's a lot more noise added as well. Bottom line; the fewer the pixels, the better, but resolution will take a hit. What you really need to know is how big you want to view, print, or crop the pics. That should determine your resolution needs.

ps- I make this stuff up as I go along.......
 
David A Melges said:
But aside from the potential Sony's "backlit CMOS" has
already....larger photosites, much better signal to noise
ratio.......the prototype is only FIVE megapixels. Which I know will
worry some people, but actually excites me!
Click to expand...
I have a very different opinion than you on the issue, not because I do not agree with what you have said but because I maybe have different needs and different experience and I believe that there are many photographers out there wou'd share the same ideas.

Drawing better image quality and low noise levels from a sensor, compared to the actual already achieved quality, is nice but really doesn't excite me too much especially if it is limited to 5 MP - which can hardly generate anything larger than a 8x6 print and much less than that if you crop.

On the other hand, I find the actual IQ of modern sensors already so good that I really don't need any better and if you talk about noise, we are already tons better than any film I ever worked with in the past and that includes the legendary Kodachrome 25.

For example, look at the samples of the Canon EOS 1Ds III, even John Dunn fall off his chair... and he hated Canon.

So basically, I am a very happy bunny with the IQ and noise levels I'm already getting now and I really don't need better than that.

On the other hand, pixels is a different story. I want as much as I can get for two main reasons.

1. In many cases, I print large. sometimes up to 30x20 inches. Maybe you can explain me how to do it with a 5MP camera, I haven't yet found the way.

2. I want to be able to crop out 80% of a photo and still have enough substance to print larger than a post stamp.

Having said that, pixels for me represent quality, The more the better. And I would very much love to have a camera that would give me as much pixels as money can buy.

Cheers
Moti

--
ARPS - ABPPA
My new website here:
http://www.pixpix.be
 
from the more pixel crowd, about how they would feel about a camera with a tiny sensor, and 100 million photosites?

Sometimes you have to take theories to an extreme to start to understand the concepts. To most of us, its clear that making the pixels smaller increases noise, leads to significant "tampering" with the data (NR) and the end result is an image that is far from true to the original LIGHT. To many of us the problem is common sense, the more photosites, the lower the signal to noise....the more noise.

To me thats obvious, but there is a segment of us that don't see that, and I'm just not sure why? So I've asked several times, would that segment want a tiny sensor camera with ONE HUNDRED MEGAPIXELS? If more is better, then certainly 100mp would excite you. And I have to wonder, if by imagining that ridiculous camera, that should very obviously be nothing but electronics and a couple photons, and all noise, and no signal, and no image at all...if imagining that extreme an example, can you start to see that as you add pixels, you increase noise?

dave
--
I love Sony!
 
......ok, this is cute. My daughter is 12, and she shoots my F707 these days.

I now have very large fine art prints all over our local luxury hotel. In the lobby they are 20x30, and the one right next to the check-in desk, is from the good ole 707. In fact, its a significant crop, that was incorrectly saved as a downsized file, then resized UP to make a 20x30, and there it sits, the most viewed of all my shots....probably ever. Keep in mind the 707 is 5mp. The image was printed from a crop that was maybe 3mp. Not optimum conditions, and NOT a perfect picture....but good enough for a luxury hotel's lobby.

My daughter LOVES that her camera took that picture. Whenever she comments I get all sentimental about how good a camera that was, and how I wish I had a camera with 5mp like that, with a LENS like that, but that utilized modern sensor tech, after all, with all we've done in the last 7 years THAT 5mp camera would be beyond incredible. Well last night that got us into THIS conversation about megapixels and image quality. After I explained the whole thing to her, she walked off and came back with this analogy:

"Its like taking the bus, Dad. When 30 people take the bus, we use up a gallon of gas, but when 30 people take their own cars we use up 15 gallons of gas or something like that."

You see in her analogy, the people are LIGHT. We want 30 people worth of light to make a good photograph. The gas we use is NOISE. We want as little noise as possible to have a clean image. Both the bus and the 30 cars give us an image from the same amount of source light....but the 30 cars produce a heckuva lot of waste.

There is no question we need more pixels than ONE, to make an image. But every time you make a photosite smaller, you add noise, and thats just simple math. So the FIRST question, is how many pixels do you need to make a good photograph, noise aside.

The shocking answer, is a whole lot less than you think. Use a CLEAN 5mp file to print a 20x30??? I've done it. And sold it, and been proud of it. And I'm the pickiest guy I know, lol But I don't want a 5mp sensor from 7 years ago, I want a large (2/3) sensor with todays much smaller electronics, and more effective processors, and less heat, etc etc etc....so that the 5mp image we capture TODAY totally rocks the 5mp image I captured in the past. Why can't we have just a FEW cameras like that?

dave
--
I love Sony!
 
why you want more pixels. I would love to have a full frame sensor camera with 20 or even 25mp. I'm pretty sure I can't personally see the need for more than that.

But in a smaller form camera, like an H series.....my belief is the extra pixels aren't doing us any good, and in fact causing all kinds of problems. The manufacturers are getting better at hiding the problems with improved software, but the process of hiding the problem hides even more detail.

I don't want the manufacturers to QUIT making more pixel cameras.....I want them to ADD a line of cameras that are purely about image quality. I truly believe the main reason we see more pixels in tiny cameras is marketing....NOT image quality.

If Sony would release a 5mp pocket camera, with all the new tech advances, smaller electronics, bigger photosites, better software......and if their marketing plan was to put a HUGE blowup of their shot alongside ones from all these tiny photosite cameras....sony would win big.

take care
dave

--
I love Sony!
 
Very good news in general - though Kodak's KAC-05020 also has great innovations in their pipeline
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0802/08020602kodaktruesense.asp

So this is an exciting time for new developments. Though indeed sensors ca 2001 could produce great results, cameras have also improved vastly over the years. Progress on sensors is not so great for non professional photogs as one would think, quality was quite excellent in 2001 as this Nikon Coolpix 3 meg shot attests - could even sustain large prints (all sizes at http://www.flickr.com/photos/nycandre/186142673/ )



It appears that all these new technologies will first show up in cellphone cameras - probably due to cost considerations - it is cheaper to produce a lot of tiny sensors than larger ones because of the way they are produced (one large silicon wafer split into however many chips can be crammed onto it).

These sensors will be very good for macro photography, not so much for "standard" art photography since it is very hard to produce any bokeh (isolate a sharp area) with smaller sensors that have extremely wide depth of field.

I wonder when will the public be saturated or tired of new cameras coming up each year with improved features. I have trouble enough getting the best of my existing cams. But, no stopping so called "progress"

Some cameras that were really "worth it" up to Jan 08: the Olympus E10, Nikon Coolpix 990, Fuji F10-31d, Fuji E900, Sony R1, Canon 10-20D and a few of the more limited 24+ MP/cm2 digicams

Personally, I have declared a moratorium on purchasing new bodies until a decent RF (rangefinder) style body of decent high quality m4/3 or otherwise shows up at a reasonable price. Something that would improve on what only the Fuji F10 can do in low light, for example (see http://www.flickr.com/photos/nycandre/2337297641/ for larger sizes)



And, no, no DSLR's could do it ... they are too noisy soundwise ! (maybe not the very latest if liveview 50D and 300D can shoot silently, but have to wait and see)

I have also decided not to buy any wide or superwide lens for my DSLR's - wide and superwide lenses can be designed and produced for non DSLR at much lower cost and with much higher performance - because there is no restrictions on lens design due to the clearance necessary for the flip up mirror. For example the Sony R1's lens is better at wide angle than most all DSLR lenses. To state it more simply, why spend $1,000+ on a high quality DSLR wide lens when you should be able to get a higher quality lens AND body for less money?
 
If the camera could be made to take (say) 5 grabs of each shot,
each slightly offset mechanically (1/10th of whatever pixel dimension ?)
they could be averaged and overlayed in software.
That would let you build (say) a 25mp shot from a 5mp sensor.
It would only be a convergence of current anti-shake and software technology.
Too easy ?
--
regards, Ron

 
It may be simple math to you to believe that pixels cause noise, but it has no basis in reality. In the new back side sensor outlined by Sony there are no electronics between the light and the sensor. In traditional sensors microlenses work around the wiring. A hundred megapixel sensor and a one pixel sensor receive the same amount of light.

Noise is caused by light. If your image doesn't show any noise, then the sensor is big enough for the job. If your sensor shows a lot of noise, then your sensor is small and you are stretching what it can do.
Noise is also caused by the inefficiency of the sensor itself.

A one pixel sensor can identify one blob of one colour...red green or blue. A hundred megapixel camera can break that down into the tiniest variations in colour. If 100 million photons hit the sensor, the one pixel camera will still show only one result. The 100 million photosite sensor will show the result of every photon meeting every photosite. Which is better?

I have no objection to you wanting an updated 5 megapixel camera, I just wish that you could believe me that there is no advantage in that.

I pointed you to the W300 thread. That 13 megapixel tiny sensor is doing a good job of pulling detail out from across the river with just a 3x zoom. A 100 megapixel camera would show a lot more detail. At 8 x 10 there wouldn't be any more noise.
--
John Dunn

Portraits: http://www.fototime.com/ftweb/bin/ft.dll/pictures?userid= {8B9B811D-AD1C-4A7D-923E-A4D0930BB5EE}
 
John, I'm uncertain if I should even enter into this discussion as I'm still recovering from slamming my face into a rock from our hike the other day - and my thoughts are still a bit scattered and I'm now dealing with a swollen purple eye.

Anyway, imagine this.... Rather than the bus, let's use.....buckets.

There are 2 buckets that represent pixels. They are both filled with water which represents the light from the image. One is a large bucket; one is small. Add a drop of red dye to each bucket (noise). The water in the small bucket turns red (the noise is more obvious). The water in the large bucket turns a light pink (the noise is less obvious). In other words, the larger the pixels the less obvious the noise.

All pixels generate noise. More pixels are great - but only up to the resolution limit.

Sky
 
because of the notion of depth. Sensors are two dimensional like your garden - they are not like a bucket of water. Noise is generated randomly across the entire surface area of the sensor. It makes no difference how many pixels there are, the amount of noise is the same.

If rain sprinkles water randomly on the earth in your garden, a big square will get the same amount of water, proportionately as a small square. The big square will get more water, but it has more dirt so the water/dirt ratio is the same as the little square.
--
John Dunn

Portraits: http://www.fototime.com/ftweb/bin/ft.dll/pictures?userid= {8B9B811D-AD1C-4A7D-923E-A4D0930BB5EE}
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top