Olympus engineers would be sensor question

not certain if it ever read by Olympus people.
Since Olympus 410 I have seen 2 challenges for sensor: low light + DR.

Is there way to get for micro 4/3 appropriately sized Faveon chip?

Having color sensitive elements for each pixel located vertically (layered) instead next to each other, would instantly increase area for each pixel 3-4 times and produce better sharpness. I know that Faveon need light hitting the surface in perpendicular fashion because layers so it is sort of challenge for pixels away from the center of the censor but can it be solved by just making bed for the chip not flat but curved like bowl. I am not in the optics, but can it improve (shaping the sensor) also sharpness of picture corners ?

AG said:

Is there way to get for micro 4/3 appropriately sized Faveon chip?

Click to expand...

In the past when Foveon was an independent company this would have been possible of Olympus desired it. Foveon was bought by Sigma, however, and I suspect will only be making imagers for Sigma.

AG said:

Having color sensitive elements for each pixel located vertically (layered) instead next to each other, would instantly increase area for each pixel 3-4 times and produce better sharpness.

Click to expand...

Yes, the Foveon architecture does capture more resolution per pixel site than a Bayer architecture. For luminance it is not quite as much as one would expect at first, about a pixel density increase of two (or the square root of two in linear dimensions). For certain chroma information more than that.

AG said:

I know that Faveon need light hitting the surface in perpendicular fashion because layers so it is sort of challenge for pixels away from the center of the censor but can it be solved by just making bed for the chip not flat but curved like bowl.

Click to expand...

This is really not at all feasible from an engineering perspective. The technical barriers to producing a bowl shaped sensor are almost impossible to overcome. Those that could be theoretically surmounted in a lab environment would never be able to be produced in marketable quantities at a reasonable price. The entire semiconductor industry is based on photographic lithography onto nearly atomically flat single crystal wafers. Trying to produce something bowl shaped would require one to throw away almost all the commonality of fabrication with other semi-conductor processes.

AG said:

I am not in the optics, but can it improve (shaping the sensor) also sharpness of picture corners ?

Click to expand...

Possibly. Flatness of the field of focus for a lens is one optical parameter in the design of a lens, and reducing the requirement could let you design a lens differently. I believe this approach has been taken in some cheap disposable film cameras that had single element plastic lenses. The problem is that if you took this approach with an interchangeable lens camera you would need an entirely new lineup of lenses for only this new bowl shaped sensor - any previously made flat field lens would be useless on the new format.

Really, the problem with DR and high ISO is just that the sensor being used in so many of these cameras is rather old and was never particularly good at these two parameters. It is just time for them to start using a newer sensor. The GH1 does have a nice sensor that is better in these departments.

Finally, it is worth noting that while the Foveon sensor should theoretically have an advantage in high ISO since it isn't "throwing away" light with Bayer filters in practice so far the Foveon sensors have actually performed very poorly compared to the competition in the high ISO department. From that perspective, moving to a Foveon design would not be likely to make this better, perhaps worse. Of course everyone in the Sigma group is anxiously awaiting a possible new camera and sensor from Sigma, so perhaps that will change.

--
Ken W

Rebel XT, XTi, Pany G1, LX3, FZ28, Fuji F30, and a lot of 35mm and 4x5 sitting in the closet...

AG said:

Since Olympus 410 I have seen 2 challenges for sensor: low light + DR.

Click to expand...

You need to try something newer, like....maybe...one of these micro 4/3rd's cameras. They are better. You're living with technology 2-3 years old and it has gotten much better.

Thanks, kenw : great explanations.

BTW, I do have E-P2 + 14-42, 14 - 150, Pany 1.7/20 mm , so I kind of exposed to latest Olympus staff. Sort of loyal / returning customer I am using Oly cameras since 1990. But DR of oly sensors for 4/3 and micro 4/3 is less then OK when shooting on the beach: I am going on vacations every 3-4 month and preffer not to use raw.

AG said:

not certain if it ever read by Olympus people.
Since Olympus 410 I have seen 2 challenges for sensor: low light + DR.

Is there way to get for micro 4/3 appropriately sized Faveon chip?

Click to expand...

It's why people were hoping for Sigma to join m4/3 (and Fuji too).
Not sure it will happen though.
Damien
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bilgy_no1

AG said:

But DR of oly sensors for 4/3 and micro 4/3 is less then OK when shooting on the beach: I am going on vacations every 3-4 month and preffer not to use raw.

Click to expand...

Sorry for saying this but you are not making any sense! You say you need more DR and at the same time you would like to shoot JPEG instead?

--
Duarte Bruno

It is possible to make specially profiled sensor to match one particular fixed focus lens. PERIOD.

AG said:

not certain if it ever read by Olympus people.
Since Olympus 410 I have seen 2 challenges for sensor: low light + DR.

Is there way to get for micro 4/3 appropriately sized Faveon chip?

Having color sensitive elements for each pixel located vertically (layered) instead next to each other, would instantly increase area for each pixel 3-4 times and produce better sharpness. I know that Faveon need light hitting the surface in perpendicular fashion because layers so it is sort of challenge for pixels away from the center of the censor but can it be solved by just making bed for the chip not flat but curved like bowl. I am not in the optics, but can it improve (shaping the sensor) also sharpness of picture corners ?

Click to expand...

--
DSC-R1, DMC-G1(14-45)

Yeah the MTF cameras are all using the same Kodak 12 MP sensor, from the E-620 to the EP-2.

I might be wrong, the the consensus seems to be that all use the same sensor, but different iterations of the TruePic processor.
--

Overall I can't say enough positive things about this camera. Sure it would be nice if it had HD video or a higher resolution screen but those aren't required to take fantastic pictures.

its a liveMOS from panasonic and not from kodak

duartix said:

AG said:

But DR of oly sensors for 4/3 and micro 4/3 is less then OK when shooting on the beach: I am going on vacations every 3-4 month and preffer not to use raw.

Click to expand...

Sorry for saying this but you are not making any sense! You say you need more DR and at the same time you would like to shoot JPEG instead?

--
Duarte Bruno

Click to expand...

--
that is why I like Olympus: good jpeg out of box...

every vacation is hundreds family photos kids... where to get time for raw processing?

Another story when you do some creative shooting and ready to spend hours to polish output...

--that is why I like Olympus: good jpeg out of box...

AG said:

every vacation is hundreds family photos kids... where to get time for raw processing?

Another story when doing creative shooting, here you ready to spend hours to polish output

Click to expand...

Rather than a curved sensor - use micro lenses at each pixel guiding the light into the right path at that point, but still with a flat sensor...

Best so far would be to just us ethe GH1 sensor in all m4/3 products! - It has better S/N than the Foren? however its spelt...

Still I think with more market use and itterations the Foren might well be a very capable sensor in all departments - it obviously needs more work on it but relativly its early days!

Would be a nice thing if m4/3 had the option!