Cmos - Gizmodo

posts about #cmos more →
Flash Memory Sensors: 100x Smaller Than CCDs, Better at Low Light
RollingShutter Reminds Us That While Jello Wiggles, Videos Should Not
Eyeglass-Mounted Display Tracks Eye Movements To Manipulate Data
Samsung Micro-Shutter Means Better Phone Cameras, Someday
Canon Adopting dSLR Chips for a New Pro Camcorder?
What's the Difference Between CMOS and CCD? Giz Explained It
Samsung Webcam Sensor Handles 720p, Fits Inside Your Laptop Bezel
Scalado Promises to Finally Kill Irritating Phone Camera Lag
Sony Sets 2012 Goal For 12MP Cell Cameras, Meets it in a Week
9-Megapixel Cameraphones Coming; Pics Still Likely To Suck

Your version of Internet Explorer is not supported. Please upgrade to the most recent version in order to view comments.

Dsmvwl Admin Promote to frontpage Approve user Ban user ×

dp
10/09/09

In reply to Flash Memory Sensors: 100x Smaller Than CCDs, Better at Low Light
All this talk of cramming pixels into a smaller sensor is useless unless the
lens technology can keep up. DSLR lenses are already reaching their limit. My hope is not about shrinking sensors and cramming pixels but for more optically clear lenses that are affordable. Optics aren't crystal clear. They distort, refract, separate light. A pocket cam will always shoot a softer image
than a DSLR, which will shoot softer than a medium format.

Reply

Navin R Johnson promoted this comment dp was starred dp was unstarred

Navin R Johnson
10/12/09

@dp: Agreed. Many people don't realize that the ability of a lens to resolve light onto a pixel is as important as having a lot of pixels.

I think we're soon going to reach a point where sensor resolutions are so high no one cares anymore and the optics will become the limiting factor.

Canon and Nikon better start working on cheaper better optics (if they are not already).
Reply

Navin R Johnson was starred Navin R Johnson was unstarred

adamrice
10/09/09

In reply to Flash Memory Sensors: 100x Smaller Than CCDs, Better at Low Light
Nice touch, showing that chip in front of a bit of core memory.
Reply

adamrice was starred adamrice was unstarred

ELPARTO
10/09/09

@adamrice: Is that REALLY core memory? I probably could've gone my whole life knowing what it was but not seeing it.
Reply

fuchikoma promoted this comment ELPARTO was starred ELPARTO was unstarred

fuchikoma
10/09/09

@ELPARTO: Yep, that's what it used to look like. You'd run a stong current one way to magnetize the toroids, and... I'd imagine it was by resistance that each one was read... I once saw a memory "core" from an old IBM mainframe that was about the size of a basketball!

So, I wonder what kind of service light a flash image sensor would have, or if the write cycles issue would even apply at all...
Reply

fuchikoma was starred fuchikoma was unstarred

LittleJon
10/09/09

In reply to Flash Memory Sensors: 100x Smaller Than CCDs, Better at Low Light
It's a zero-sum game. They're shrinking the pixels by 100x, but then their algorithm derives a single super-pixel gray level from 100 pixels.

They're also going to burn a lot of power in their back end processing in order to replace the ADC in conventional CMOS sensors. It's just not true that these burn a lot of power any more.

I strongly suspect that this approach will yield a significantly lower quantum efficiency (QE) than conventional approaches. QE is measure of how many of the photons hitting the sensor get converted in to an electrical signal.

A high QE with high noise is pretty useless, but modern, conventional CMOS sensors have a read noise of just a couple of electrons. That getting very close to high-end CCDs.

You just can't say that CMOS sensors perform poorly in low light anymore. Sure when you make the pixels very small like in cell phones, there's just not enough photons to get a good signal to noise ratio, but large pixel sensors are a different matter.

BTW, this isn't a new idea. People tried this with DRAMs as far back as the 70s.
Reply

SjN promoted this comment LittleJon was starred LittleJon was unstarred

Benzido
10/08/09

In reply to Flash Memory Sensors: 100x Smaller Than CCDs, Better at Low Light
If they're up to 100x smaller, that should mean you can maintain pixel density and take 100 binary samples per pixel. Using microfilters, I guess you can change the colours and brightness of light that trigger those binary bits, so 100 binary samples per pixel should be roughly capable of producing four 24-bit colour samples.

The question is, how much noise is there, and if you average those 4 colour samples together, do you get a nice pixel with low enough noise?
Reply

SjN promoted this comment Benzido was starred Benzido was unstarred

PorkchopFlavoredCupcake
10/08/09

In reply to Flash Memory Sensors: 100x Smaller Than CCDs, Better at Low Light
This was inevitable.
But I'm not sure this would be adopted by any of the major camera makers. They've all got their own R&D sectors that come up with some crazy advances we don't see for 10 years or so. I know Fuji does interesting work with sensor technology, as does Sigma-Foveon, Sony-Nikon and Canon. They've all made advances that should be even better than this, or at the very least complimentary to it.

Once they've accomplished condensing down the image sensor, the image processor, the memory, and the power source into one single chip, then that's when it gets wild.
Oh and btw, it's uncharacteristic of Canon to name their cameras with the D before the digit, that's what Nikon does (D80, D300, D3x, etc.) Canon was always (40D, 5D, 1D, etc.) Just clarifying.
Reply

SjN promoted this comment

dingus
10/08/09

In reply to Flash Memory Sensors: 100x Smaller Than CCDs, Better at Low Light
I remember an old article by Steve Ciarcia where he took an off-the shelf DIP style DRAM (remember those?) that came in a lidded package and crammed it in a box with control electronics and an old SLR lens and made a 1-bit depth digital camera.
Reply

dingus was starred dingus was unstarred

MyPetFly
09/03/09

In reply to RollingShutter Reminds Us That While Jello Wiggles, Videos Should Not
Just as an interesting aside, the same thing could happen with film cameras that have focal plane shutters. The shutter moves a slit across (and in some cameras, vertically) the film.

There's a famous photo of an old race car taken by a French photographer (I can't remember his name), and the car, especially the wheels, appear to be slanted forward. The shutter was a upward-traveling one, so the early part of the exposure was at the bottom of the frame, as as the latter part of the exposure was made, the car had moved forward.
Reply

spannu promoted this comment MyPetFly was starred MyPetFly was unstarred

Bandit
09/03/09

@MyPetFly: Here's that photo:
[image.guardian.co.uk]
Reply

Bandit was starred Bandit was unstarred

MyPetFly
09/03/09

@Bandit:

Yep, that's the one! I wish I could remember who shot it.
Reply

MyPetFly was starred MyPetFly was unstarred

thedarkhorse
09/02/09

In reply to RollingShutter Reminds Us That While Jello Wiggles, Videos Should Not
It is the biggest issue by far of the HD video DSLR cameras. That then recording format/bitrate, then live HD output for monitoring.
Reply

Rosa Golijan promoted this comment thedarkhorse was starred thedarkhorse was unstarred

TheCrudMan
09/03/09

@thedarkhorse: Except for the GH1 which has somewhat crummy codec implementation and a lack of live output (at least after hitting record) but also has the least rolling shutter jello of any vDSLR and even less than most CMOS camcorders, even on shots with lots of fast, lateral movement.

It's really not at all there or noticeable with that camera. In fact the only time I've ever really seen it was when doing motion-stabilization in post production, wherein the motion of the shots is removed, and we're left looking at a static shot...then, (and even then only sometimes), do you see rolling shutter with the GH1.
Reply

Eugenia promoted this comment Edited by TheCrudMan at 09/03/09 12:12 AM TheCrudMan was starred TheCrudMan was unstarred

JoeLikesRamen!
09/02/09

In reply to RollingShutter Reminds Us That While Jello Wiggles, Videos Should Not
Sounds like one of those fancy diet plans to me.

Reduce tummy jiggle in three easy clicks!
Reply

Rosa Golijan promoted this comment JoeLikesRamen! was starred JoeLikesRamen! was unstarred

spannu
09/03/09

@JoeLikesRamen!: Even if the camera adds 10 lbs, you can always edit it out. And only $500 a pill!
Reply

spannu was starred spannu was unstarred

Curves
06/03/09

In reply to Eyeglass-Mounted Display Tracks Eye Movements To Manipulate Data
Get an involuntary eye tick and end up wiping your hard drive clean.
Reply

Curves was starred Curves was unstarred

GitEmSteveDave_OverSleptThisMorn
06/02/09

In reply to Eyeglass-Mounted Display Tracks Eye Movements To Manipulate Data
Yes please. I will totally try this out. Of course, I forsee many more incidents like Tree-hitting Twitter guy, but pain is temporary and comments on Giz are forever!
Reply

SigmundTheSeaMonster
05/15/09

In reply to Samsung Micro-Shutter Means Better Phone Cameras, Someday
ah. but do not forget they need Zeiss lenses...
Reply

frigg
05/15/09

In reply to Samsung Micro-Shutter Means Better Phone Cameras, Someday
All those tiny little rolls of curled film that replicate a shutter look fragile. How practical is that? The first time I hurl my phone against the wall after a heated conversation, I wouldn't be surprised if they break.
Reply

frigg was starred frigg was unstarred

zsakul2
05/15/09

In reply to Samsung Micro-Shutter Means Better Phone Cameras, Someday
quick question whered the heart thread go..
Reply

zsakul2 was starred zsakul2 was unstarred

Kaiser-Machead
05/15/09

@zsakul2: It went into cardiac arrest.
Reply

Kaiser-Machead was starred Kaiser-Machead was unstarred

zsakul2
05/15/09

@Kaiser-Machead: lol.. but seriously was it removed because of *too intense* for gizmodo?
Reply

zsakul2 was starred zsakul2 was unstarred

Hello Mister Walrus
05/15/09

@zsakul2: I think it's because it was posted before.
Reply

Purple Umpteenth
05/15/09

In reply to Samsung Micro-Shutter Means Better Phone Cameras, Someday
will my phone come with a countering charm to ward off the evil eye?
Reply

Purple Umpteenth was starred Purple Umpteenth was unstarred

Hello Mister Walrus
05/15/09

@Purple Umpteenth: I SEE YOU!

Reply

Earlier threads | All threads | Show hidden threads | Show featured threads only | Start a new discussion

Gizmodo Team

SUBSCRIBE TO Gizmodo

Login

Reset Password

Register

Submit Your Comment