270

Samsung launches 64MP image sensor for smartphones

The 'megapixel wars' on smartphone cameras stopped some time ago but recently we are seeing an uptick in smartphone image sensor pixel counts, not because consumers demand higher resolution images but because many modern sensors use Quad-Bayer technology which combines four pixels into one, for better detail, lower noise levels and increased dynamic range.

Samsung has now launched the ISOCELL Bright GW1, the world's' first 64-megapixel sensor for smartphones. It comes with the same 0.8-micrometer pixels as the current 48MP sensor which means it will have a larger sensor surface and therefore better light gathering capabilities.

Cameras equipped with the new sensor model will typically output 16MP images, much in the same way as the current 48MP models from Samsung and Sony deliver 12MP images. That said, engineers will also have the option to read out complete 64MP images, which can make sense in good lighting where noise and/or dynamic range are less of an issue.

In addition to the 64MP model, Samsung is also launching a new 48MP variant. Mass production is expected to start in the second half of 2019.

View Comments (270)

Comments

All (270)
Most popular (15)
Editors' picks (0)
DPR staff (0)
Oldest first
Red1Rocket

Who needs this kind of resolution? Most cell phone users are not photographers and from what I've observed could care less about pixels or even quality photos. My new cell has four cameras but I only use one. I have zero use for the others. And the camera is a 16 mpixel which is nice for display on the phone but a bear to transport any of these files to other people as each phone company has limits on file sizes one can transfer. So who needs this? Who needs 4K video on a phone? Ssmsung should work on making other features work reliably (like fingerprint) rather than trying to make a cell phone into a professional camera.

2 days ago
bilmenot

First the camera was an added non essential feature on the cell phone, now the cell phone becomes a non essential feature of a camera, cell phone can no longer called a cell phone, the phone part is no longer important, may be we should call it a Personal Information and Entertainment Device you name it. I am quite tired seeing new phones keep pumping up the resolution on a tiny sensor, cell phone can easily produce beautify photos much easier than with regular camera, coz POST is done inside the phone before we see the final image, so resolution is not the major part.

1 week ago
FrithjofA

LOL!
The force of marketing tries to beat the law of physics. Diffraction limitation on these small sensor sizes limits the information content of an photo: I only gain a larger file but pay dynamical range.

Obviously Samsung needs to market its larger sd cards!

1 week ago
Zdman

Well there are some gains to be made from super sampling the image especially as a bayer pattern is used for colour. So yes we've reached the diffraction limit per pixel but now we can put four pixels in that spot and get a more accurate colour than we would by demosaicing. Of course the quad bayer pattern they use here actually defeats that purpose so I can't actually see the purpose either.

1 week ago
cybertec69

Here is what Tony and Chelsea think of the 64MP sensor. Or as the tattoo monkey calls them Regis and Cathy. He is also not too fond of DPReview, he has a special name for this site.

https://youtu.be/OGG9bmGAqd8

1 week ago*
zephyrprime

Increasing phone resolution is useless. It would be much better to develop a camera module that used the full thickness of the phone instead of just the distance from the back to the pcb. This would allow for a larger sensor and aperture which is what is really useful.

1 week ago
apsc4ever

64MP of Samsung plastic-look junk.

1 week ago
mfinley

Woo hoo! Yet another innovation for androids! Can't wait to see this in the Pixel 4, move it from super camera to super, super camera.

Apple better come out with a robot or a self watering plant or something, cause they are falling farther and farther behind with the iphone. Their new strategy is get less and pay more. And they were caught by surprise that people finally stopped buying a new phone every year for twelve hundred bucks when it was not much different than the one they already own.

Loving the tech advancements!

1 week ago
carton

We need to invert this entire trend and put a radio and basic web browser in cameras, something like ChromeOS that's updated frequently, not bloated or fragmented, and boots instantly. Some people don't want to be on their phones all the time, don't want to spend a lot of effort comparing phones or installing privacy-insensitive "apps," but for now do need to carry a phone to do basic things like receive texts or tether a laptop that could be handled by camera hardware.

We have EVFs with 1600x1200 resolution and pocket cameras like Ricoh GR III. ChromeOS is useful with only 2GB RAM. People will pay $300 premium for this.

Unfortunately Japanese companies will reach too far and miss the point, similar to what has happened in the auto industry: clunky low-quality screens and abandoned forked-Android with weird ugly apps pretending to be a lame Soviet iPad. Understand the user's time preference overrides everything, be humble and stick to straight ChromeOS, and it could be fine.

1 week ago
Sir 7

Zeiss ZX1 is kinda like that but Android. But omg, what a stupid camera that is. Not because of what you're saying, but its design and ergonomics, etc..

Connectivity and computational photography will be working their way into ILCs soon. I'd bet on it. I look forward to it.

1 week ago
jxh

Reading all the hubbub here that you can tell at a glance how bad phone photos are.... (just sayin'). Not claiming there's no difference, if you're pixel peeping the same scene shot at the same time, probably be right much of the time. Different scenes.. probably no better than chance.

https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2014/08/the_most_infamous_study_on_wine_tasting.html

https://www.buzzfeed.com/lukelewis/10-facts-that-prove-wine-experts-are-completely-clueless

2 weeks ago*
marks123

16 stops of dynamic range!

2 weeks ago
PhilippeC95

LOL ... of course totally impossible with 0.8 µm pixel :-) !

1 week ago
NetMage

You may want to educate yourself on Quad Bayer to see how wrong you are.

1 week ago
Stanchung
Stanchung

I wonder when they are going to do this with DSLR's. start with 12-16MP models first.

Maybe the artifacts are still a problem.

2 weeks ago
NetMage

This would have fewer artifacts,

1 week ago
brycesteiner
brycesteiner

record 8k video - 10bit h.265 ?

2 weeks ago
zodiacfml

read somewhere that the GW1 is a 1/1.7" sensor. that is quite something despite the useless megapixel bump.

2 weeks ago
vadims

> GW1 is a 1/1.7" sensor. that is quite something

Main cameras in even prev. generation Huawei phones use 1/1.7" sensors. And yes, they are crazy good.

2 weeks ago
zodiacfml

thanks. i simply forgot how large Huawei's main camera sensor was in the P20 Pro, thinking it was 1/1.9" or smaller.

2 weeks ago
madeinlisboa
madeinlisboa

More reasons to waste money on a gadget that will be outdated a few months later. I feel sorry for whoever spends so much on these toys. I'll rather use that money for traveling...

2 weeks ago*
Richmondthefish

Hilarious the negativity on advancements in technology.

2 weeks ago
kierenlon
kierenlon

Any purchase that is good enough for your needs today is still good enough tomorrow. It doesn't become outdated. Your needs may change or you may want to keep up with the Jonese's.

Speding on traveling / experience is definitely a better choice than spending on non-essential consumer goods

2 weeks ago
madeinlisboa
madeinlisboa

Hilarious is what people spend on them. And companies are laughing hard on you (plural) with the money they are making. All in the name of self-indulgence and vanity.
S16:E18 of Family Guy is an amazing portrait of this ridiculous reality

2 weeks ago*
Richmondthefish

Ain't laughing hard at me. I bought Apple stock years ago! Keep buying people!

2 weeks ago
ToiletDuck

I make a very good living so if I want it I’ll go f’ing buy it. That’s the point. What gelatinous is your butthurt and ignorance. I bought the top model iPhone X (coming from a 6) and it revolutionized my work and personal life. I barely use a computer now and I don’t carry a camera most the time because of its ability.

1 week ago
UllerellU

working is very sad ... I pity you. On the other hand it is not about earning a living and being able to afford it, there is a thing called social conscience, there is also an ecological conscience, but if an Iphone X "revolutionized your life" I think they are alien concepts to you. Keep consuming why you can, not why you need it, I love your logic, it is the one that is taking us along an uncertain path. But what's more, you get a good life, do not you?

1 week ago
ToiletDuck

Everything about your statement is stupid. It’s a product with a price point. To someone like you it might not be worth it, to someone like me it is. Yes the iPhone X changed everything for me. I’m a pilot and use to carry 35lbs of gear with me on every flight. Now I carry an iPhone and an iPad. I can track and manage my receipts, do invoicing, check weather from the cockpit prior to takeoff, notify passengers of delays, file flight plans, everything I need to do from this phone. I became a self employed contractor making $20k/month simply because of everything I could do with my phone. My ability to network, contact, schedule, etc on the move changed everything. Before most people can even get to their computers I’ve already accepted a contract, sent all of my pilot documents, and made my travel arrangements. It’s why people like you end up coming to people like me looking for work. Some of us see the value in it.

$10 you’re a democrat

1 week ago
UllerellU

I do not care about your arguments, to affirm that an electronic device has changed your life is something sad, as it is to presume of social status or purchasing power. I guess the pilots' lives were hell a few years ago, when there was no Iphone X ... I do not intend to argue, I just did not like your arrogance, there are many ways of saying things.

1 week ago
ToiletDuck

You spoke up for a reason. Your argument really drips with butthurt. I mean you are really, really, sore

1 week ago
Mariano Pacifico

Smartphone Camera technology is going leap and bounds. Goodbye Mirrorless & dSLRs. They are just behind the curb. Yes, Virginia, behind the curb.

2 weeks ago
Bhima78

Eh, we are still a ways away from smartphones offering the shooting flexibility and ergonomics of a real camera even if the IQ is good enough for some. Zooming, tracking focus, and just holding a phone vs. a camera are all issues that aren't resolved yet with current technology.

2 weeks ago
Mariano Pacifico

Smartphone camera real-time video streaming and video conferencing in our pocket.

My 12 year old cousin asked me about grains & HDR and focus tracking. If he cannot know these so are the rest of his groupies and they are not bothered at all.

2 weeks ago*
madeinlisboa
madeinlisboa

Words coming from someone who never used a dslr in his life. Tell me how you change settings fast without looking at the smartphone or how do you use it with a flash? Go try shooting a corporate event or a wedding with your puny smartphone...

2 weeks ago
T. L. Rutter

The sensor is only one part of the equation. The other part of the equation is the optics and that, thus far, is something that smart phones won't have for quite some time. You also have to understand the intent of the sensor. In a P&S and smart phone, the larger sensor is used for cleaning up crappy images and providing you a reduced image size. In a mirrorless or DSLR, the intent is to provide you with 100% image size in RAW and allow you to do your own corrections on images so basically, you have to follow photographic rules that have been around for decades. Don't get me wrong, I encourage and applaud the 64 megapixel sensor because it basically does a lot of the work for me in creating a very beautiful image in the end. DSLR doesn't replace smart phones and smart phones don't replace DSLR's. They compliment each other and will continue to do so for decades to come.

2 weeks ago
steveTQP
steveTQP

Well, I'm all for advances in technology, but as a landscape and product photographer concerned with ultimate sharpness and image detail, for serious work I would use only a dedicated "camera", with the advantages of ergonomics, larger sensors, lenses, and the resulting image quality, especially at large printed output. That said, phone camera output is certainly proving adequate for online use and/or small prints.

2 weeks ago
ultimoInfierno

SteveTQP: You are of course right; the only trouble is, that 99.9% (or more) users are not product photographers.

Much of the current discussions are akin to F1 drivers and ordinary car users discussing which car is best; and then in from the side lines comes the single gravel truck enthusiast.

In the big picture, it does not matter, what the F1 driver needs. Just like the needs of DSLR users are utterly irrelevant to several billion cameras in the hands of the current smartphone user crowd. How many DSLR’s were sold last year? Compare that to somewhere around 1.5+ billion smartphones of varying quality.

There’s nothing wrong with professionals having high standards on the gear they use. But it does not help anybody if the facts of everyday (photographic) life is ignored. Or...?

Re: “small prints”. Who’s using prints in a world, where it’s no problem to display images on 40, 50 or more inches large screens with a quality surpassing print quality available to ordinary mortals.

2 weeks ago
NetMage

Is a $300 printer too expensive for ordinary mortals?

1 week ago
ultimoInfierno

NetMage A USD 300 printer is not really all, you need. You need a lot of extra tools, experience, paper and time for fiddling with this that and the other to get something even faintly resembling the quality you get for “free” by just displaying your image on a modern TV.

For reasonable results - I’m not talking good to very good - you can probably get away with a few USD per sheet in production cost - not calculating the time invested. Now, start contemplating showing several, maybe even 25 to 50 images. Using TV instead of print will suddenly seem quite enticing; even if you complete ignore the time going into producing each print.

How many quality prints do you produce a year? In all honesty?

From time to time I view a few (less than 100) images from one of my many travels through the last 15 years (between 70 and 80 travels with a total of approx. 130.000 images and uncounted videos). I doubt, that I would live long enough to print up to said 7000-8000 images - ignoring costs.

1 week ago
Toselli

I expect that everyone is now throwing away their 50 megapixel full frames and medium format cameras!

2 weeks ago
jxh

No, not throwing them away, but they're spending much more time on the shelf (or going to ebay)

2 weeks ago
PhilippeC95

Well, not really : pixels with 0.8 µm size do not worth anything from an IQ viewpoint, unless you do "binning" with neighbor pixels and then the resolution drops to 16 Mpx. So what's the point with FF and medium format ?

1 week ago
LoSPt1

@PhilippeC95, I'm pretty sure Toselli was being sarcastic here.

1 week ago
IamJF

Since I used an A7s I hope this technology comes for FF sensors. 48/64MP which you can automaticly demosaic on the sensor to 2x2 "superpixels" - cool stuff.

12-16MP are often good enough. If they are tack sharp without moier and artefacts - perfect. And if you need the higher resolution just flip a switch.

Add a multi aspect ratio sensor and I will buy my next body (hope it takes some time, no need for a new body at the moment ;-))

2 weeks ago
noisephotographer

Pixel binning doesn't demosaic. You still need to demosaic the large 16 megapixels. Pixel binning is not downsampling in this case.

2 weeks ago
IamJF

So the 4 combined pixels are with the same colour filter - just 4 green pixels in a square? Then I got it wrong ... would make it it way less useful.

2 weeks ago
Alec
Alec

We already have that. It's called "export files from your raw processing software at a smaller resolution". No need to move this in-camera. It's like a better jpeg (or a nicer shoulder strap) on a top of the line full frame cam. Nice, whatever.

2 weeks ago
Revenant

"So the 4 combined pixels are with the same colour filter - just 4 green pixels in a square?"

Yes, that's exactly how Quad Bayer works. Think of it as a regular Bayer sensor, where each pixel has been divided into four with the same colour filter.

1 week ago
IamJF

😓
Let's see how long it takes them to deliver real, full colour pixels.... (I think combining 4 pixels of a highres sensor is the way to go)

1 week ago
Mortal Lion
Mortal Lion

they do this just to sell more more memory chips to store all those pixels below the diffraction limit.

2 weeks ago
riveredger

Read carefully.

2 weeks ago
LoSPt1

It acts as a regular 16MP sensor in its default shooting mode, which is pixel binning mode. It's funny to see those people critisizing Samsung for trying to trick consumer with higher MP count, when in reality they are the one who are only looking at the MP count on the spec sheet and misunderstanding how this sensor really works.

1 week ago
Mortal Lion
Mortal Lion

you calling me stupid buddy?

1 week ago
aris14
aris14

Gadget staff...

2 weeks ago
khunpapa
khunpapa

So many photo tech gurus who know all, except two facts.

First : no camera company hires these guru.
Second : no camera company's engineer interets in these guru's thoughtand idea.

###

Third, no anyone of the camera company's business unit knows these guru.
Fourth ...

2 weeks ago
T. L. Rutter

so which of the three are facts?

2 weeks ago
Paulusz
Paulusz

Well, maybe it's good to embrace some ''fantasy technology'' in this sad world.
Samsung at least does, the name of their vice president LSI marketing; Ben Hur!

2 weeks ago
Gesture

Interesting developments. Do any of these smart phones with advanced photo and video capabilities display histograms.

Yes, many smart phone photos look great on camera or in small form on the web, but don't hold up to enlargement. But it doesn't matter. Smartphones are democratizing photography and I see some great stuff by regular "citizens." This is all re-invigorating photography and making it as relevant as ever.

I do carry a standalone camera with me at all times, but don't look down at what is being accomplished.

2 weeks ago
Bobthearch
Bobthearch

To get much out of an iPhone like mine, you have to buy third-party software separately. But yes, there are some apps with zebra-striping capability. Haven't tried it myself.

2 weeks ago
Karroly

"Smartphones are democratizing photography"
I do not share this vision. For the majority of people, especially young people, pictures taken with a smartphone are just a support to communicate some visual informations that come along, or instead of, emails/chats. And like emails, there are thrown into the trash bin or oblivion as soon they are read/watched. Cameraphones have just allowed kleenex photography...

2 weeks ago*
badi

"pictures taken with a smartphone are just a support to communicate some visual informations" - excellent way to phrase it, i always thought among these lines, but failed to write it down in such a concise and clear way :) - thank you!

But, apart from that they are also a way of easy recording memories. Which is a part of "real photography".

2 weeks ago
ultimoInfierno

Histogram display is only the beginning (and not dependent on the phone as such, but on the app you choose to employ). Here are just a few examples covered by one, single app:

https://www.shootmavis.com/pro-camera

Forget the typical “camera centric” view. On smartphones you have the hardware, and depending on the “freedom factors” available, your App delivers the actual camera capabilities within that framework (most Android smartphones are rather limited on that front compared to iPhones - I have both, and prefer the more flexible iPhone App’s - YMMV ;-)

The “freedom factor” compared to ordinary cameras is huge. Need an app, that eases catching lightning? Check. Need programmable states? Check. Need super low noise stacking in the region of several seconds hand held? Check. Need freely defined frame rates - individually selectable from 1 to 240 in steps of one independently defined for recording speed and playback speed? Check. Need this, that and the other? Probably check.

2 weeks ago*
Revenant

"The “freedom factor” compared to ordinary cameras is huge."

Yes, this is one of the areas in which the camera manufacturers have failed. Sony introduced apps, but didn't allow third parties to develop any. And now they have scrapped the app system, either for commercial or technical reasons, I don't know.
Another area of failure is connectivity and workflow. Often awkward WiFi implementations, and no way to upload images directly to social media.

Simply put, dedicated cameras don't quite live in the modern world.

2 weeks ago
Gesture

I'm not sure some folks are paying attention to all the incredible (and, some, sad) that have been captured on smartphones by ordinary citizens. Including society changing captures. I wouldn't sneer at smart phone photography.

With respect to apps, there are some great free apps for editing photos that do levels, curves, on and on, quite powerful.

I would welcome standalone cameras with larger LCDs and more full-featured in-camera photo editing. The OEMs just don't get it and not even a few different things are offered. This site sneered at the new Zeiss Ikon-what's wrong with a camera with an advanced sensor and processing but simpler shooting interface and in-camera editing. The same thing could be done at a more affordable price point. Years ago, Olympus consumer compacts had some of this, but it was reduced greatly.

The modern Nikon, Canon, etc. camera is amazing, but no one is streamlining the interface or breaking free from every camera has to have everything.

2 weeks ago
Karroly

@badi,
"But, apart from that they are also a way of easy recording memories. Which is a part of "real photography".
I do not deny the fact that some people use cameraphones to record memories, take beautiful pictures and eventually sell them. But the widespread usage is sharing visual informations on social networks where creativity, even in its simpliest form, like a good composition, is most of the time inexistant.

2 weeks ago
steveTQP
steveTQP

Well said, Gesture! (see my earlier post on my thoughts about this smartphone technology.)

2 weeks ago
Mike Griffin

Yes, my Huawei smartphone displays histograms

2 weeks ago
Dpreviewmember
Dpreviewmember

Gesture and Karroly, I think both of you have very good points since democratizing a device that takes better pictures is actually better for both clients, the ones that mainly communicate info as well as the ones that communicate their vision of reality.
As far as I know all this started with Nokia's PureView tech back in the 808 and 1020 days. It is a practical way of solving low light image quality and zoom with one lens, what probably are the main weakness of phone-photography.
They could go further and allow the oversampling to reach 8x producing 8MP pictures to get better results with even less light, taking into account that most people don't own 8k TV, so 8MP with higher dynamic range would be preferable in many situations.

1 week ago
Leicalika

another nail...,,,,,ducking, weavin & talkin trash

2 weeks ago
noisephotographer

I hope that Google will use such a sensor because nearly no other smartphone company gives you a dng file with multi frame noise reduction (though Adobe offers HDR raw for some phones). But Google doesn't offer a dng file in Night Sight mode (which improves the demosaicing, this would be important here).
If no smartphone company offers good 48/64 megapixel dng files, I would like to see some Aps-c cameras with 40 or 50 megapixels.

2 weeks ago*
ewelch

Next they'll be putting in 8K screens too.

2 weeks ago
thx1138
thx1138

And a portable 100000mAh battery to give you two hours of running time.

2 weeks ago
Kondamin

TSA will shoot you if you try to board a plane with that.

2 weeks ago
Nikon1977k

I am avoiding iterative upgrades (early adopter syndrome victim since 1977...betamax, VHS, media disc, laser disc, DVD...Mavica, Fuji P&S, Kodak P&S, Nikon D40, D300, pair of D700, D7500)....has cost me a fortune) and will save my money until the optical implants are available.

2 weeks ago
T. L. Rutter

I can relate! I used to upgrade computers to get the new version of Windows because a license to upgrade was way too expensive. As far as the camera systems go, I've been through so many. My a6500 is the only one that I have kept for so long.

2 weeks ago
jambalawa

I weep for the data centre sysadmins... having to store all those 64MP pics of Aunty Gertrudes holiday to th the grand canyon, sydney harbour bridge and Uncle Bill's 40th that no one will ever look at :)

2 weeks ago*
ultimoInfierno

Why would that be a problem?

The sysadmin only has to secure a reliable and safe environment, and as long as no laws are broken and occupied space is paid for, the content stored is no business of his/hers.

2 weeks ago
IamJF

They should be happy - cause these customers are paying their wage.

2 weeks ago
NetMage

It normally takes 16MP pictures like most of today's smartphones.

1 week ago
GRUBERND
GRUBERND

I have not given up hope yet that one day a manufacturer will build all that phone-photography-hightech into a decent and dedicated CAMERA.

yes, it can be connected and have social apps and whatnot but it must be a camera.

if it is off, it consumes almost not power.
if you turn it on, it takes less than a second to shoot the first picture.
it has customizable physical buttons for various functions.
etc etc.

ah, well, one can still dream.

2 weeks ago
otto k

You mean like an APSC ILC with android and 4G connectivity? They did it, people didn't buy it, they left the dedicated camera market.

2 weeks ago
Chris59

They already had a killer APSC camera in the NX1 and then dropped it for no good reason. I've had the camera now for over four years and it still produces images with its premium kit zoom that are better than APSC cameras today. 4K video, 15 frames per second and as many "bells and whistles" as most cameras today, Samsung should have persevered.

2 weeks ago
Merida

Wait for it ... Zeiss ZX1

2 weeks ago
GRUBERND
GRUBERND

too large sensors, too much overhead, too big.. not sexy. that's why noone bought it.

i want an actual phone sensor with all it's advantages. plus a good zoom built without the constraints of a phone body.
all the computional photography power of phones.
but get a grip on the OS part with all its slow startup times and/or constant battery drainage. i want to charge my camera and know it will be ready to shoot for months (if i don't shoot).

put that into a small, grippable body with some physical controls.

2 weeks ago
otto k

I guess you will find some other issue with S4 Zoom and K zoom as well. They have been experimenting for a long time. People still want normal phones.

2 weeks ago
jxh

"i want an actual phone sensor with all it's advantages. plus a good zoom built without the constraints of a phone body."

Samsung tried that a few years ago, my wife uses one. Nice screen, full android, 21X zoom. Didn't really sell though.

2 weeks ago
camdoodski

so far the smartphone ISOCELL sensors with the same specs as Sony sensors deliver significantly worse IQ.

I wonder if this one will change that trend

2 weeks ago
badi

"significantly worse IQ" - i would rather say "slightly" ... but yes :)

2 weeks ago
LoSPt1

Um, I'm not sure about that. There was absolutely no difference in image quality between the IMX and ISOCELL variant of Galaxy S7 apart from a minor difference in white balance, and I'm expecting the same for IMX586 and Samsung GM2.

1 week ago
camdoodski

ive the S8 ISOCELL and Sony sensor and theres definitely a difference

1 week ago
aarif
aarif

64mp for selfies

2 weeks ago
McArchive

...but the slo-mo cliff dives will be almost as awesome as the bison gorings!

2 weeks ago
Old Cameras

No, no, cat pictures.

2 weeks ago
rmbackus
rmbackus

I'm more interested in the sensor area, is it 4 x 6 mm ? Did anybody ever know the amount of silvergrains on a 8 x 11 mm Minox film?

2 weeks ago
noisephotographer

The used sensor area should be approximately 7.4mm x 5.5mm, if it's a 4:3 aspect ratio sensor.

2 weeks ago
khunpapa
khunpapa

I don't know Minox (except its 35 GT).
The Kodak Tmax ISO 100, one of THE reference film, has 200 lp/mm resolution. That's 5 micron "size" per line -pair-, or 2.5u/pixel.

Now you'd able to calculate the pixels in the 8x11mm film?

BTW, donot confuse the "amount of grain" vs "pixel".
It's like the closeness of Horse and table : both have same 4 legs and people can sit on their back.

2 weeks ago
rmbackus
rmbackus

Minox sold in the seventies a 'Spy' camera that used 8 mm smallfilm. I worked in a photo laboratory those days and never saw a quality pictures coming out that tiny film-format. So it was a only retorical question. It's not the pixels that count but the film/sensor area. Way back in the old days there was already the quote: 'the best camera is the biggest camera'.

2 weeks ago
jxh

I remember those. Funny that in the spy movies, you could grab a quick, hand held shot on your Minox, then blow it up to read fine print....

Back in the 60s my brother had a Minolta like that which used 16mm film. It was 'cool' but in truth a good 120 box camera had more detail.

2 weeks ago*
User9083371449

There is a tragedy in that both Samsung and Apple too often claim that their phones produce professional quality photos. Simply told professional photos are produced by professional photographers who have the eye to see a great composition. A good photographer can produce a great photo with a basic camera but a crap photographer can only produce a basic photo even with the best camera. I only use phone cameras to record stuff and for social media.

2 weeks ago
techjedi
techjedi

I don't think professional photos require professional photographers 100% of the time. Professional photographers can *consistently* produce quality results regardless of the medium or platform being used. That said, there are plenty of people with good compositional instinct and no formal training that produce great results on a daily basis.

I don't think its lying, and far from a tragedy, for a camera manufacturer to emphasize that their platform is capable of producing amazing results. I say this as someone who generally avoids mobile devices for photography.

2 weeks ago
dmartin92

Good lenses.

2 weeks ago
Mike Fried
Mike Fried

There are professional photographers selling their work with phones. I have a relative who sells photography from her iPhone and portable cameras. She wins awards. It's well processed and beautiful. I don't sell the work that I take with my 5D III + L series lenses + flashes and other accessories, but I do portraits in low light and telephoto and she does landscapes at sunset. We see the world differently. That's OK by me.

2 weeks ago
David610

Amateur photographers regularly take professional photographs which are used in newspapers, TV, go viral etc. The real difference is that professionals can do this almost every day. Professional equipment will in many cases give the pro an edge but skill, planning and experience are far more important. The 16mp images produced by this sensor could easily be used professionally. Even the slightly zoomed or cropped photos could also be used.

2 weeks ago
RPJG

Tragedy? Really?

2 weeks ago
badi

@David - completely agree, except i would rephrase this line: "The real difference is that professionals can do this almost every day. "
with something like "the professionals do it almost every day, and that is their main income source".

My point is that (a lot of) amateurs can do it every day too, but they don't mainly because this is not their daily job, and not because they lack skill or equipment. I know amateurs far better in skill (and also equipment) then a lot of "professional" wedding photographers ... i mean professional, because they win their full money from wedding and events photography, not because they are amazing at it (or even good).

2 weeks ago
noisephotographer

One of the main issues of the high resolution modes are the demosaicing artifacts in my opinion. Huawei's 40 or 48 megapixel results suffer from demosaicing artifacts that are as bad as Fuji's X-Trans artifacts. Though Huawei's Ultra Clarity mode or Google's Night Sight could be able to fix this issue.

2 weeks ago
khunpapa
khunpapa

Who cares?

2 weeks ago
JanMatthys

64mp = "The crop-o-matic" 3000, Tony Northcrop will be pleased

2 weeks ago
inorogNL
inorogNL

64mp thst outputs 16mp, can someone explain? Is it 64mp or 16mp?

2 weeks ago
Necip
Necip

I think it's like pixel binning combining pixels to reduce noise. so 64 mp combine four pixels to 1 to make 16mp.

2 weeks ago
noisephotographer

It can produce 64 megapixel photos or 16 megapixel photos (like a 16 megapixel sensor).

2 weeks ago
otto k

Imagine 16MP Bayer sensor in which each pixel is actually 2x2 pixels. You can read each of them for 64MP or read 16MP where each pixel is a sum of 4 pixels.

2 weeks ago
Mike Fried
Mike Fried

It's a pattern of ISO 1 and ISO 2 pairs.

Normal bayer is:
RG
GB
And for every middle point touching 4 elements, you can produce a pixel using the neighborhood values.

This is more like:
R1 G2 R1 G2
G1 B2 G1 B2
R2 G1 R2 G1
G2 B1 G2 B1

Or maybe some other organization of a repeating pattern. Basically, you set different analog gains on the 1 vs 2 pixel readouts and if ISO 1 = ISO 2 then you just have more resolution in a normal Bayer pattern. If ISO 1 != ISO 2 you can sacrifice resolution for increased dynamic range - more detail in the highlights or shadows or both.

So ISO 1 might be 100, and ISO 2 might be 800 and you get two exposures mingled together to capture the highlights in the ISO 100-800 shot.

2 weeks ago
otto k

The pattern is
GGRRGGBB
GGRRGGBB
BBGGRRGG
BBGGRRGG
and so on

2 weeks ago
RPJG

Thanks Mike Fried, I didn't know you could set different gains to achieve different balances between resolution and DR etc. Makes a bit more sense now.

2 weeks ago
khunpapa
khunpapa

@otto k, your pattern can't create the 64 mp image.

2 weeks ago
otto k

Why not?

2 weeks ago
bartjeej

Otto k: because the square sets of 4 pixels together forming RGGB are too far inbetween.

Your pattern would require 16 input pixels per output pixel to create a regular pattern where each output pixel has RGGB information in a 1:2:1 ratio. But then in order to have a 16mp output image, you would require a 16*16 = 256mp sensor.

The regular Bayer pattern is as follows:
RGRGRGRG
GBGBGBGB
RGRGRGRG
GBGBGBGB

This can have its pixels divided as follows:
RG RG RG RG
GB GB GB GB

RG RG RG RG
GB GB GB GB

Now each group of 4 pixels has full RGGB info, with no further demosaicing necessary (except perhaps when individual pixels start clipping).

In your pattern, you'd need to combine blocks of 16 pixels, rather than 4, to create a regular pattern with the desired color ratio of RGGB, hence the 256mp sensor.

2 weeks ago
otto k

Also nicely illustrated here
https://eskerahn.dk/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/IMX586.png

Regardless of this - as long as you have photosites you can reconstruct the input. You sacrifice resolution (just like with bayer and x-trans) but you can cheat around it for the most part (beware moire and maze patterns)

2 weeks ago
inorogNL
inorogNL

Is this 64mp file usable in any way?

2 weeks ago
otto k

Sure. It's 64MP file. Yoi can crop/zoom. Due to demosaicing and diffraction it's not an actual 64MP of resolution but it's still better than cropping the 16MP file.

2 weeks ago
zodiacfml

64 million hardware pixels but the color filtering is effectively equal to a 16MP conventional Bayer filter/CFA camera sensor.
The camera will capture more detail in monochromatic parts of the scene such as concrete, stones clouds but falls behind in color detail.
Regardless, its 16MP output doesn't resolve detail like an 16MP APSC camera with a sharp lens.

2 weeks ago
spatz

The key to 64 MP images from a quad Bayer pattern (as otto k illustrated) is that neighbouring pixels of the same colour still capture differences in luminosity.

2 weeks ago
wombat661

I wonder if there is a large and small pixel on the sensor with the large one taking high ISO and the small one taking low ISO. This would be similar to Fujifilm camera.

1 week ago
Necip
Necip

Samsung should team up with Canon give them a big hand would be nice for competition. Their cameras back then had better tech than the cameras Canon have today. Canon camera division seem lost in the wilderness of high tech from Sony.

2 weeks ago
ozturert

Why do you hate Canon so much? I have seen many such comments from you all around DPReview. This is a Samsung news and you still seem to be obsessed against Canon. Be careful because this may turn to be a psychological disorder. I am not joking.
Cool down, go and take some real photos with your Nikon.

2 weeks ago
Necip
Necip

I think you misunderstand me. I want to see them do well I've been a Canon user for a decade and half. Still use my 7Dmk2 and 300mm f2.8LIS. and my Nikon gear now also looking at Sony.

2 weeks ago
Love Photography 888
Love Photography 888

Anyone having a slight hint of criticism at Canon is labeled a hater, troll, Sony cult member and other rated R names. It's a very sensitive time for Canon shooters.

2 weeks ago
otto k

Even worse, some are labeled RP rated names!
I'll show myself out.

2 weeks ago
ozturert

This is a Samsung news, and it is about a phone sensor. Why would someone bring Canon into discussion? Compare old Samsung cameras with Canon cameras? What?
Plus, I have seen Necip bashing Canon in other non-related topics as well. This kind of behaviour isn't healthy. There are just too many trolls and haters at this site already. Bad-mouthing m43 under Phottix news? I've seen it. Defaming Nikon under a Sony lens topic? I've seen it. Saying Canon is bad and horrible and stuff under a Samsung news? Here it is...

2 weeks ago
onlyfreeman
onlyfreeman

64 MP on a phone ... Meanwhile M4/3 still stuck on 20 MP.

Why don't Samsung make sensors for ILCs anymore?

2 weeks ago
Rex C

But M43 can take 80mp images.

The larget megapixel sensors are coming. There is already an 8k video camera using M43.

And soon AI and continuous buffering of images will be used in combination with those sensors.

2 weeks ago
BattleBrat

I can print 24”x36” prints CLEAN from my 6D with no sharpening. Why do you need more pixels? You print larger than that? And if you do you should be using a larger format camera. It amazed me that in the 20’s and 30’s they used larger formats and printed 8x10s so the prints were actually not bad at all. And here we are expecting posters from cameras with sensors the size of postage stamps.

2 weeks ago
onlyfreeman
onlyfreeman

The cost of more megapixels on larger formats increases rapidly, it's literally the strength of smaller formats to have high pixel density. With the appropriate lenses the reach is unmatched for cost and size.

Besides pixel-shift mode doesn't count, it can't work in every situation and most of the cameras don't even have it.

2 weeks ago
Eric Hensel
Eric Hensel

"And here we are expecting posters from cameras with sensors the size of postage stamps."
Yep -and we get closer with every iteration...

2 weeks ago
noisephotographer

"I can print 24”x36” prints CLEAN from my 6D with no sharpening. Why do you need more pixels? You print larger than that?"
It's not about printing. On a smartphone you can just pinch-to-zoom and it's great when you can zoom a lot, one doesn't need to print large.

2 weeks ago*
BattleBrat

@noisephotographer, those tiny lenses will run out of resolution, you won’t gain much from more pixels except the what the article said you’ll get.
@onlyfreeman, “when matched with the appropriate lenses” it’s a PHONE! There is NO depth of field control except for some gimmicky portrait modes (they ALL leave artifacts and look unnatural) phones are great for replacing the instamatics and the point and shoots, but my issue with you was for dumping on M4/3 for the 20mp sensors, 20mp is enough, you want more? Give me sharper glass that utilizes such a sensor. My primes out resolve my 6D, a 24mp sensor would take fuller advantage of them but for what? To print bigger posters than I already don’t print? I’m satisfied with the 16mp sensor of my EM-5 give me more DR give me better high ISO performance, pixel count? We’re good there.

2 weeks ago
Huarache

I agree with you

2 weeks ago
NextShowForSure

Why not email Samsung and ask them but put in a little explanation what an ILC is as they blanked any knowledge of this medium pretty quickly and without any explanation to the users.

2 weeks ago
jxh

"It amazed me that in the 20’s and 30’s they used larger formats and printed 8x10s so the prints were actually not bad at all. And here we are expecting posters from cameras with sensors the size of postage stamps."

Things are getting smaller. A LOT. In the 70s you would pay rent of thousands of 70s dollars per month for an IBM computer that was less than 1/1000 the power of a cheap smartphone.

How small can we go and still get sharp images? How small is a hawk's eye?

2 weeks ago
spatz

Those tiny lenses deliver a much higher resolution (lp/mm) than full frame lenses - phone lenses can already reach over 0.5 at 200 lp/mm, much higher than good FF lenses or even good M43 lenses, which often struggle to reach 0.5 at 50 lp/mm.

It is easier (and of course much cheaper) to precisely manufacture a small, thin piece of glass required for a phone lens, compared to the thick, large diameter glass elements required for a full frame lens.

2 weeks ago
BattleBrat

@spatz with a heck-Ton of distortion try printing a 16x20 clean without some work from a smartphone, and even then it will be lacking. My P7800 is just 12mp and it spits out clean 16x20’s with ease, you gotta have optics. And smartphone cameras lack a LOT of control/capability needed for full creative control. They’re great for snaps but not so great for dedicated photography

1 week ago*
cosinaphile

i wish with the size of the avg fuji camera a few foward facing windows had some
tiny sensor modules alike pure bw ones embedded n the face of the camera maybe
3 side by side which might consume 20 or 25 mm... and could be pseudo rangefinder windows i a typical rf styled body or come panels in the face of an slr style body.... perhaps these could be utilized to provide pure non chroma data to supplement the apsc sensor in a computational manner..

if cell phone can do it .... so can real phones ... suppliment visual data with extra small sensors .... est bw ones

2 weeks ago
cosinaphile

holy crap .......................................................time to read about this.....

FROM EVERY ANGLE

2 weeks ago*
JimmyPragmatic

I want to see the same HDR processing technology thats in phones put in large sensor cameras!

2 weeks ago
s1oth1ovechunk

Yeah! Like micro four thirds!

2 weeks ago
jxh

Large sensors are much slower to read--'long' travel distance reduces data bandwidth. Hence you can get off the shelf phones with 960 fps

2 weeks ago
Fotoni

Diminishing returns hit hard with these. Maybe couple megapixels of actual image data and the rest is noise. That is why phone camera photos look decent with small phone screens, but if viewed at natural size, it will look like a mess. Not good stuff to view in the future.

2 weeks ago
jxh

a good phone camera works great on a 24" monitor, which is about the largest most people are likely to go with them.

2 weeks ago
LoSPt1

Right now I'm looking at the sample photos taken by Pixel 3 with Night Sight on my Macbook Pro, I have to say they look fantastic. If you display smartphone photos on a large professional external display or 40 inch TV then yeah they will start fall apart, but to say it only "look decent with small phone screens" isn't quite accurate.

1 week ago
Bobthearch
Bobthearch

Wish my iPhone had 64mp. With only a super wide-angle lens, the only way to take undistorted photos is to stand *really* far back and crop the holy heck out if the image. 12MP just isn't cutting it.

2 weeks ago
supeyugin1

Then it won't be wide angle anymore.

1 week ago
Bobthearch
Bobthearch

If I had to be stuck with a single focal length, as most cell phone users are, I would certainly *not* want it to be wide angle!

1 week ago
SandySandy

Lars Rehm should have shared the complete press release.

"GW1 supports real-time high dynamic range (HDR) of up to 100-decibels (dB) that provides richer hues. In comparison, the dynamic range of a conventional image sensor is at around 60dB, while that of the human eye is typically considered to be around 120dB.

... GW1 is equipped with a Dual Conversion Gain (DCG) that converts the received light into an electric signal according to the illumination of the environment."

This sensor will have OVER 16.5 stops of Dynamic Range via it's HDR processing. Most smartphones have in the range of 10-12 stops (12 or so I'm HDR), whereas the top end DSLRs and Mirrorless have less than 15 stops. If this could actually have over 16 stops, and if they are saved in 10-bit file sizes, this could mean absolutely class leading dynamic range. By a VERY LARGE MARGIN.

2 weeks ago
SandySandy

The 48MP GM1 and IMX586 already resolve 15-18MP equipment detail and sharpness, compared to other smartphones in their 12MP modes, so this could be more in the ballpark of excellent 20MP smartphone camera camera, and much better low light capabilities and much better signal to noise ratio (dual conversion gain) than other smartphone sensors in the market.
It also supports full HD recording at 480 frames-per-second (fps).

2 weeks ago
liquidsquid

If so, this could really invigorate the sensors on our larger camera platforms in the near future!

To get 100dB of dynamic range will require ~14-bits of useful no-noise information, which means a 16-bit data path.

I am seriously doubting the ability of the electronic environment of inside of a cell phone to be able to have a low enough noise to realize this sensor's full potential. A 1W plus RF transmitter in the same enclosure, fast CPU, and other gadgetry are all going to spew noise across the sensor, compromising performance. Even cameras with much lower dynamic range suffer from this, and most don't even have powerful radios.

Ever try compensating for an under-exposure only to see banding and other artifacts? That is electronic noise in the system being induced both on the sensor itself, and in the signal path via nearby RF sources. I have a feeling you will just get clearer pictures of how bad the noise is inside of a cell phone.

I have been surprised before though...

2 weeks ago
noisephotographer

"The 48MP GM1 and IMX586 already resolve 15-18MP"
No, in pixel binning mode I am pretty sure there is no advantage over a 12 megapixel sensor. One would need to downsample, but smartphone manufacturers don't downsample with these sensors because pixel binning leads to better dynamic range than downsampling the full resolution output.

2 weeks ago
Dragonrider
Dragonrider

Actually at 6 dB per bit, it takes 17 bits minimum to achieve 100 dB. In practice, it would require an 18 bit A/D. With slope conversion, that really slows things down a lot. Some of the widest dynamic range A/Ds are made for audio at 24 and even 28 bits, but they use some different tricks for conversion which might have to be incorporated into image sensors to get to much higher numbers than we see today.

2 weeks ago
otto k

Audio is also much less demanding as the number of channels you are sampling 48000 times a second is much lower than millions of pixels you are sampling dozens of times a second.

2 weeks ago
liquidsquid

FYI I am counting averaging across pixel binning in the equation of DR. You can increase dynamic range via accurate A/D and proper averaging. If you were attempting single-pixel (48Mp) resolution, then yes, more bits required. Another rule of thumb averaging "can" increase DR, but it also requires critical timing (clocks) and bit accuracy of the converter.

I highly doubt they will go over 16bits in the signal path, though I suppose that is possible too...

It is also possible that the AD converter or signal chain is not linear, meaning it could have more emphasis in dark areas, and less in bright areas or other such trickery. Compressing luminance DR into fewer bits.

2 weeks ago
falconeyes
falconeyes

I‘d like to have much more information before tacking the marketing bubble broadcasted by the comment here seriously.

The eye having 20 stops DR is BS. (confusing dynamic with static DR)

The FWC of a 0.8 micron pixel can NEVER be enough to support a 16.6 DR claim. Same for binned 1.6 micron pixels. There just isn‘t enough room to store enough electrons.

The ONLY way this sensor can break DR records is by reading out pixels early. That would be an engineering break thru certainly being communicated clearly enough. Or by masking many pixels of a binning group. But then binning wouldn‘t be of much value anymore.

So no, this is marketing claiming things making the engineers palmface ...

2 weeks ago*
Stanchung
Stanchung

So much was said. I feel dumb now.

2 weeks ago
liquidsquid

I was thinking their claim is probably marketing mumbo-jumbo in DR. If the sensor truly is a dual-gain design, there is likely an array of pixels at low ISO (lets say iso100) and another set with high ISO (perhaps iso800?). So the high iso pixels are read out quickly since they don't need as much exposure time, while the low ISO are still "developing". Both data-paths are 16-bit perhaps, with maybe 14 bits of actual DR best-case (80dB), but the 8 stop difference with the two images combined would provide the wider DR claim, but in practice the scenario would have to be perfect to take advantage of it.

2 weeks ago
otto k

Dual gain is ambiguous. Canon uses (used to use?) dual ISO sensors. Sony has two amplifiers, one at base ISO and the second one at ISO 640 on many of their contemporary sensors (camera ones). What Samsung meant here is not specified.
Also, due to faster readout, they can stack multiple images (many phones already do, typically 8 for 3 stops advantage).
Then again, working in research taught me that when you write a 20 page science paper the university press office will pick four sentences (at most), spin them around and then push out a release that can have very little to do with your actual work. I can only imagine how it is with a company as gigantic as Samsung.

2 weeks ago
falconeyes
falconeyes

As otto says, dual gain doesn't mean much.

To read out say 1/4 of pixels early isn't normally possible, for e.g., a 1/1000s exposure time, except at the expense of a rolling shutter effect in still. And to have dedicated low iso pixels ruins the pixel binning approach they are taking.

2 weeks ago*
SandySandy

A host of old schoolers seem to be confusing HDR dynamic range with that of the sensor. With HDR (and dual gain), one doesn't need the corresponding bitrate value for the number of stops the image can do. By under and over exposing the image from 1 to 3 stops, multiple exposures ensure that both highlights and shadows can be well preserved, in way more detail, than would be possible from just a regular image. Way faster focus coupled with higher full sensors readout speed (I am guessing this sensor does 60fps at full resolution), ensures that a lot more images can be used for the final HDR image. Also down ressing from 64MP to 16MP ensures the image is way more detailed and much sharper, and the colour detail is also a lot more.

There is neither 14-bit nor 16-bit RAW. The sensor processing would be 12-bit RAW at best. It doesn't even require it, to be fair. Though having a final 10-bit HEIF image would help make the photo easier to work with in post.

2 weeks ago
SandySandy

The new DJI Mavic 2 drones also record 13 and 14 stops of dynamic range in HDR photo mode, and the Zoom version also shoots 48MP high resultion images, by stitching together 9 images into one very high resolution image.

The advantage of 64MP could come into play here, because it could be able to to shoot extremely high detailed 64MP stills and broght sunlight, it could probably even use HDR, further enhancing the detail, sharpness and dynamic range of the image (hopefully we'll have an SoC optimised for processing 64MP HDR images).

2 weeks ago
otto k

Phones used to do HDR like cameras do: under - normal - over exposed and merged, for example Samsung calls it rich tone, it's the only mode on budget phones even today (NB This is different from tone mapping we do on single shot wide DR images fromlarger sensor cameras).

Nowadays, they (flagship ones) do same-exposure stacking with varying number of frames and region based merging (eliminating motion artefacts and noise, brightening faces in backlit shots, etc). Google has published several pieces on this topic and Pixels seem to be leading the way currently (with 9 to 15 frames and dedicated HW component). It's a nice read.
Regarding the DR - single shot is between 10 and 11 stops (depending on the exact phone sensor) and merging 8 shots will push it to ~14. This is comparable to the best APS-C and even FF sensors in single shot mode.

2 weeks ago
fotogrofur
fotogrofur

I Need a 64 MP smartphone sensor! At least until the 100 MP smartphone one comes out.

2 weeks ago
rsf3127

If all those pixels translate in better DR, low light performance and color depht, then I'm all for it.

2 weeks ago
ZeBebito
ZeBebito

All this tech would be awesome in bigger sensor cameras... shame on you Samsung!

2 weeks ago
HatWearingFool
HatWearingFool

Yes, how dare they make a product for the masses! What are they thinking targeting the largest market?

2 weeks ago
Rex C

Jxh has some good insight into why that won't happen.
See his earlier comment.
They might get this to work with 1 inch sensors and maybe M43, but no larger.

Smartphones are going to cache 5 or so images before and after the one taken and will use them in combination with AI to add high DR, details and replace noise pixels, for clean results better than from larger sensors. Those coached images do not have to be the same or have the same focus either.
Think of current multi shot modes, but exponentially more advanced.

The question is where is the balance between cost, sensor size, speed, and image quality?
Probably 1 inch sensors or M43.

2 weeks ago
onlyfreeman
onlyfreeman

If Samsung didn't leave the camera market, phone & camera tech would have fused together by now, and we would have better products for sure. Instead ILCs will now disappear!

Booo Samsung! You destroyed photography as we know it!

2 weeks ago
winkalman

The 64MP is secondary at best; the real news here is that it's a 1/1.72" sensor.

2 weeks ago
LoSPt1

What people don't realise is that this sensor is actually ever so slightly larger than IMX600/650 found inside Mate 20 Pro/P30 Pro. I guess Huawei just now lost their advantage in sensor size, as many Chinese companies like Xiaomi or Oppo will start using this sensor from 2019 Q4 - next year.

1 week ago
winkalman

Exactly, I believe it's 1/1.72" vs. 1/1.78".

1 week ago
ojos azules

All thoose pixels will come to use in algorithms.

2 weeks ago
tangbunna

if you appreciate IQ, stay away from high-counts

2 weeks ago
noisephotographer

No, due to pixel binning one can choose a low resolution mode with about the same quality as a low resolution sensor. Furthermore in low-dynamic range good light conditions all the noise you capture is basically photon noise, so the noise kind of exists before the photons hit the sensor and therefore has nothing to do with pixel size (unless you compare at pixel level). A high resolution sensor also leads to more continuous zoom.

2 weeks ago*
chriswy

You should stay away from small pixels. Pixel count only matters when sensor total size remain the same.

2 weeks ago
GoodKnight
GoodKnight

Could this be something Olympus could do with their MFT sensor cameras to get the high megapixel numbers recently rumored ?

2 weeks ago
Rob890

good question. It would put to bed a lot of things being said about 4/3

2 weeks ago
Rob890

good question. It would put to bed a lot of things being said about 4/3

2 weeks ago
Rob890

good question. It would put to bed a lot of things being said about 4/3

2 weeks ago
Tons o Glass 0 Class
Tons o Glass 0 Class

...

good question. It would put to bed a lot of things being said about 4/3

2 weeks ago
ZeBebito
ZeBebito

good question. It would put to bed a lot of things being said about 4/3

2 weeks ago
ojos azules

good question. It would put to bed a lot of things being said about 4/3

2 weeks ago
Barty L
Barty L

good question. It would put to bed a lot of things being said about 4/3

2 weeks ago
Stanchung
Stanchung

There's a glitch in the Matrix. Deja Vu.

2 weeks ago
onlyfreeman
onlyfreeman

Maybe this sensor is "The One".

2 weeks ago
TheDarmok74

I use a E-M10 Mk III and a Huawei Mate 20 pro.
It's just crazy how far ahead smartphones are in image processing. If legacy manufacturers started using some of that Huawei/Google or Samsung magic we'd be all very happy and probably not asking for more resolution or larger sensors.

2 weeks ago
Franz Weber
Franz Weber

There's a glitch in the Matrix. Deja Vu.

2 weeks ago
noisephotographer

I have calculated that theoretically (regarding diffraction) the lens of the P30 Pro's main camera could even deliver "sharp" photos with a 110 megapixel sensor (if the lens is extremely sharp) of the same size. My definition of "sharp" is that an 8 megapixel crop of the 110 megapixel sensor has the same theoretical sharpness limit as Huawei's periscope camera.

2 weeks ago*
Total: 69, showing: 1 – 50
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »