New Sony CMOS promises higher resolution on smaller sensor
By Marc Perton 
posted Jan 24th 2006 10:38AM
posted Jan 24th 2006 10:38AM
Sony has rolled out a new CMOS that the company claims will be able to pack more pixels into smaller sensors
without degrading image quality. The ClearVid sensor, already available in some Sony camcorders, rotates pixels 45
degrees, which Sony says allows the company to squeeze more pixels onto a small sensor without shrinking the pixels. If
the technique (which is also used by Fuji in its SuperCCD) catches on, we may see 10-megapixel compact cameras that
actually take decent pictures.
Why does no one understand this is the wrong direction of development entirely? Packing more pixels into smaller space means more noise, and if the lenses don't improve, the only consequence is: larger files with no better quality.
The only ones to profit from this are the cell phone providers, because now every picture you send by MMS has like 3 Megabytes.
I predict a megapixel backlash on the consumer side pretty soon. Currently the marketing spiel is "more megapixels = better", but I think once consumers see how much actual physical filespace the picture takes up, how email/upload unfriendly it is, and the fact that the friend with half as many megapixels has pictures that look just as good, they'll start settling for what's practical.
A perfect example is the Fuji Finepix Z2. Its a great looking camera, but packing in the megapixels can not make it a great picture. The Super CCD that Fiju has is great, but still needs work when it comes to ultra compacts. Optics are very important.
Im still glad to see technology changes. Hopefully one day there will be a compact camera that can take pro quality pictures. (by todays standards)
No no, places like Engadget will continue to spew that More MP is Mo Betta.
Like I guess a 10MP cameraphone will take great pictures with its distorted plastic lens? Yeah.... Uh huh.
#1. MMS messages are usually limited in size. This is netowrk dependant, but from what i can tell it usually between 30KB and 100KB. I know my K750i resizes the 2MP shots down to VGA (if not lower) when sending as an MMS.
There is however an over emphasis on megapixels and not on the quality of the optics or the associated electronics. The upshot of this development is that we could see the same tech. filter *up* to larger sensors used in dSLRs which do have good glass and electronics.
CMOS != CCD Although the 45-degree technique may be the same as Fuji, this device is only CMOS which is less light-sensitive.
There is another issue is at play here that is usually missed entirely. -The SIZE of the sensor in relationship to the size of the lens has a huge affect on prespective, wide angle distortion and Depth Of Field. A small sensor (in relation to the size of peice of film) behind a 20mm lens may have the same Angle of View as an 80mm lens on a 35mm film camera but the depth of field and perspective will likely be radical different. Depth of field is one of the key creative factors normally controled by the photographer. With a small sensor/wide lens (
I agreee with the comments above. A larger sensor with fewer larger pixels and good optics is a much better way to go.
Maybe the extra pixles are needed to install a rootkit in every picture taken?
Preaching to the choir here but honestly, anything over 2 megapixels is a waste unless you're going to be printing in large format. The Mars Rovers both have 1 megapixel cameras (behind some stupendously expensive optics) and if you take a look at the raw, unshrunken images from NASA, they scale up to desktop background size flawlessly.
Fact: a 10mm sensor can only gather 1/4 the light of a 20mm sensor, no matter how many megapixels it has.
#1 Light - How much light is your lens letting in?
How big is that sensor that's capturing the light?
#2 Lens - Quality of and zoom ability. Don't forget to keep it clean.
#3 The photographer. If you cannot frame/focus a photo, you'd better learn. Read a book, take a class.
#4 MP - Mega Pixel. Only now at #4 do we concern ourselves with the digital aspect. Yes, at this point Bigger Is Better. Why? You can always reduce the image size with the camera settings, or post capture via software. RAW capture is nice as well for the dynamics it allows when manipulating the photo in a digital format.
2 cents deposited - enjoy