Samsung's "world's smallest" 8.4 megapixel CMOS sensor: so long CCD?

Chalk up another world's smallest title for Samsung this morning with this, their new 8.4 megapixel CMOS sensor. By implementing extended photo diode technology, Samsung has managed to squeeze higher light sensitivity and saturation levels into less space. According to Samsung, their new sensor's high signal-to-noise ratio results in the equivalent image quality found in today's CCDs while using one-tenth the power. As such, Sammy expects it to "quickly replace" the CCDs used in mobile phones, camcorders, and even digital cameras. Yeah, they wish. We'll find out soon enough as this CIS hits mass production in the second half of 2007.

[Kev50027 @ Mar 27th 2007 10:35AM]

This means nothing without a decent lens and some pictures to prove it. Honestly, that sensor is so small, it can't possibly get enough light to compare with a DSLR.

[cjameshuff @ Mar 27th 2007 11:19AM]

Sensor size makes no difference in image quality until you reach the diffraction limit. It makes no difference whatsoever in light gathering capability, that is determined entirely by the lens system.

Also, CCD sensors are widely used because they're cheap and easy to make, and more development has been done with them. A CMOS sensor such as this may have numerous advantages.

[Dan @ Jun 7th 2007 6:43AM]

smaller photodiodes are more sensitive than larger ones, if a photodiode is 1/4th the size of one in another sensor, it is 4 times more sensitive, if they both receive 10,000 photos, the smaller one is more sensitive, it in reality it'll only receive 25,000 as its area is only a quarter of the larger, thus produces the same sensitivity levels, it needs have a more refined fabrication process, the CMOS process is exactly the same, in fact it IS the process for fabrication of CPUs, making smaller photodiodes is more difficult and they need to be made more identical to the ones around them to keep noise down (same with the second photo resistor).

[Craig @ Mar 27th 2007 10:43AM]

Smaller sensors + more megapixels = crappier pictures. It's just physics...at least the physics of CMOS and CCDs. I'm much rather have 3MP in a larger sensor.

[Johan S @ Mar 27th 2007 2:18PM]

I dont see why people are not happy with this .. why is everyone complaining without seeing the picture quality. It is the sensor that matters the most .. not the lens. In any scene, there are literally trillions of photons hitting a sensor. The job of the lens is to focus the scene and send as much light onto the sensor. Efficiently refracting all the light of a given surface area down to the sensor without having the sensor located a far away .. that's a problem. However, even in a crappy camera phone, enough light is reaching the sensor ..the sensors either lack the dynamic range or the sensitivity to capture the scene.

Think about it this way, in a camera obscura the "lens" hole is the size of a pinhead, and the scene formed on the projected surface is exretemly dim .. however the scene is represented clearly (the smaller the hole the clearer the image) ..and an extremely sensitive photo surface can capture it. The reason we don't have pinhole cameras is precisely because we don't have sensitive enough sensor or photo surfaces.

[Dan @ Jun 7th 2007 6:43AM]

No sorry thats not the physics at all.

Better fabrication process = better sensors = better images, photodiodes need to be made more identical to all the others on the same sensor, the more identical they are, the less noise they produce, as they'll produce more identical results, smaller photodiodes need to be even more indentical to maintain same noise levels of larger sensors, which is harder to do, as CPU tech increases and uses smaller fabrication processes, so will CMOS sensors, they can be smaller, or higher resolution or both (ie: smaller photodiodes), CMOS is the same process used for CPUs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CMOS
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_pixel_sensor

[Evan @ Mar 27th 2007 10:50AM]

This is crap. We need improved sensitivity far more than we need more pixels.

[Nick @ Mar 27th 2007 11:05AM]

did any one actually read the post? "Samsung has managed to achieve higher light sensitivity and saturation levels into less space." They have increased the light sensitivity and saturation levels for the this CMOS sensor. No one is saying that this is a replacement for DSLR sensors, but a replacement for those crappy camera phone sensors that we are all stuck with.

[stevielee @ Mar 27th 2007 12:56PM]

The Sensor size has much to do about image quality. The tiny 1/18" sensors in most P&S's
have far less DR, High ISO performance (noise), and overall resolution than the larger
DSLR sensors of 23-24mm (cropped), or the Full Frame (35mm film size) CMOS sensors on Canon's 5D and the 1DsMark II.
Difraction only comes in at extremely tight apertures (usually F16 and above), and has more to do with the lens than the sensors.
This new samsung chip is most likely going to be used for camera phones and other handheld devises and probably some P&S's.
Unless it has some "revolutionary" new kind of technology that can increase DR, IQ and still maintain high ISO performance, I don't think you'll be seing then in any pro or advanced prosumer DSLR's anytime soon...

[Kev50027 @ Mar 27th 2007 1:11PM]

As others have stated, you're wrong on this point. The larger the sensor, the most light it can physically take in, it's just physics. You can focus all the light you want on a tiny sensor, but then each CCD is seeing pretty much the same thing.

[Leoedin @ Mar 27th 2007 11:25AM]

I'd be interested. It's worth noting that the CCD's in most good digital cameras (excluding DSLR's) are 1/2.5 - 1/4 of an inch across - this is probably of similar size to them. In fact, the smaller the CCD the more light can hit it from a smaller lens. Because the CCD is so small, the crop factor is huge, and so a much wider lens can be used (eg 5mm rather than 35mm). This means that the lens can be considerably faster (it also only has to fill a circle the size of the 8x crop CCD/CMOS), resulting in small, light and high zoom lenses. Where a small CCD/CMOS loses out, however, is in noise (the more dense the pixels, the higher the noise), and in Bokeh/background blur (when you use a 5-60mm lens, you don't get anything like the blur of the equivalent 400mm lens on an SLR).

However, if the noise issue is fixed, then higher crop compact cameras are the way to go. (an SLR with a tiny 800mm equivalent zoom lens that can detach anyone?)

Leo

[Tom @ Mar 27th 2007 11:45AM]

"Higher Crop compact cameras are the way to go"
Huh? You'd lose out on the wide-angle. I've got a 20D, and my 28mm that was perfect on my EOS-1N is now almost a normal lens. The cropped sensor cameras reduce functionality greatly, unless you like taking group portraits one face at a time. I'm sick of camera makers cropping their DSLR sensors. I can barely imagine using something so small as 35mm again, let alone rely on the Kodak APS-C size sensor that nearly every manufacturer has adopted for some reason. It was a bad size for film, and it's a bad size for digital.

[Leoedin @ Mar 27th 2007 1:09PM]

I was talking about compact cameras. I love my DSLR, and for the bokeh and low noise alone, I wouldn't trade it in for anything.

However, if the issues such as DR, noise etc can be overcome, using smaller sensors and (crucially) much wider lenses (5-10mm), the crop factor would mean that the lens would seem like a 28mm.

I am not talking about simply cropping the sensors without changing the focal length.

[Dan @ Jun 7th 2007 6:43AM]

You're comparing a mass produced small sensors from consumer plants, versus expensive professional sensors, they're bigger and more expensive, and more refined in their R&D process, smaller photodiodes are much more difficult to process, and they have less R&D and are much cheaper cameras, and using a cheaper fabrication process. duh.

[paul @ Mar 27th 2007 3:35PM]

read this post as: this is great for cell phones!

not: this will make a great camera even smaller.

[cjameshuff @ Mar 27th 2007 1:34PM]

Tiny sensors are generally made for tiny cameras, with tiny lenses, and are not made to be high quality sensors. There is nothing inherent in small size that means low quality, however, and a CMOS sensor might be quite a bit smaller than a CMOS sensor while retaining the same quality. I mentioned diffraction as an ultimate limit in sensor size...this sensor comes nowhere near it, as pixel size is a few micrometers, larger than the longest wavelengths of visible light. Noise and such are more a result of operating on very low amounts of light...due to the small size of the lens, not the sensor itself. A photodiode based sensor like this might be inherently less noisy...

Kev50027: I'm sorry, but no, you are incorrect. Sensor size has absolutely nothing to do with light gathering power in a camera. The light that hits the sensor is determined entirely by the amount of light that can enter the camera through its lens. If the sensor is halved in size and the lens modified to focus the image onto a sensor of that size, the sensor will receive exactly the same amount of light and record the same image. If "each CCD is seeing pretty much the same thing", then your lens just sucks. I will admit that smaller sensors require better lenses, but sensor size means nothing with respect to light gathering ability.

[david @ Mar 27th 2007 4:04PM]

Good job samsung. Keep up the good work.

[Richard Lai @ Mar 29th 2007 10:56AM]

I think they are more likely to be referring to the pixel density rather than the overall size of the sensor. It is true that each photodiode on a small sensor will receive less amount of light compared to a larger sensor of the same resolution, hence a naturally noiser and less vibrant picture, which can be improved by post-processing or using a different material for the semiconductor.

[dia @ May 15th 2007 9:27PM]

I am looking for a 5MP or more still, only, digital camera that weighs 1 1/2 ounce or less. Is this now feasible with Samsung's 8.4 CMOS technology. I do not want a flash or a screen; just a feather light still camera. Any ideas out there on this? Can you point me in the direction of a distributor or designer or manufacturer? Thank you.