Canon crams 50 megapixels into a CMOS prototype

You won't be seeing one of these sensors in your fashioncam any time soon. Canon has built a 50 megapixel CMOS monstrosity, which is reportedly almost twice the resolution of its nearest competition, and is prepping it as a sort of large format surveillance camera for monitoring large, busy areas such as parking lots and theme parks, along with detailed work like factory part inspections. Despite the sensor's clear industrial-end aims, Canon has managed to build its prototype at 19 x 28mm in size, the same dimensions of the sensors in its DSLR cameras, so who knows where this tech could end up in the long run. So far Canon hasn't even announced release plans for this current incarnation, so we aren't going to go hawking our existing shooter just yet.

[Warning: subscription required]

[Owen V @ Jun 4th 2007 11:47AM]

I'm gonna say megapixels matter when you hit 50 in a DSLR. I'm just surprised at the physics of putting so much on such a small area.

[craig @ Jun 4th 2007 11:59AM]

Canon makes DSLR sensors in three sizes and this would be the obscure, middle size for which there is no competition. Considering that it has a 3:2 aspect ratio and such a ratio is only used in 35mm format photography, I think their intended use is clear. 3.3 micron pitch is not out of the question for a DSLR and I'd certainly expect Canon to build some prototypes like this. Why they didn't do the smaller sensor size is an interesting question.

[Ray @ Jun 5th 2007 11:21PM]

And the answer to that question is noise.

[Leoedin @ Jun 4th 2007 1:00PM]

because canon use the smaller one in their cheaper cameras.

This sensor, or the children of it, will appear in a 1D model, not a xxD or an xxxD model with the smaller sensor.

[craig @ Jun 4th 2007 1:10PM]

Prototype development doesn't need the pro body for testing. The only reasons to make the large sensor is to work out fab issues and to integrate development into a product. 50MP in a 1D camera does not make sense any time soon and a 3:2 format doesn't make any sense in industrial applications. Perhaps a big sensor doesn't really cost more than a small one in prototype quantities so they just made the size that their internal development equipment was already designed for.

[craig @ Jun 5th 2007 11:45PM]

Huh? What does sensor size have to do with noise? 3.3um pixels are the same regardless of how many you make.

[Futile @ Jun 4th 2007 12:24PM]

Wowser, I wants one!

[Darnell @ Jun 4th 2007 1:06PM]

Costs. That's the reason they'd go with a smaller chip. The bigger the size the more it costs to fabricate.
Anyway--this bodes well for their next-gen 1Ds Mark III. I wonder what kind of lenses they're working on in conjunction with this new chip because it's gotta be some sweet glass!

[jj @ Jun 4th 2007 1:16PM]

Won't cramming more megapixels into the same space result in the noise and sensitivity issues that currently plague digital cameras? They need to make a sensor the size of medium format film (60mm x 60mm) for "50 megapixels" to be worth it's weight.

[stretchsje @ Jun 4th 2007 1:18PM]

This sensor would still have larger photosites than a modern 8 megapixel point-and-shoot, so it's well within the realm of possible. However, as is always a problem with increased pixel counts, noise will almost certainly become problematic. However, at 50 megapixels, we're talking about noise with such a fine grain to it that it wouldn't be visible in normal prints. For surveillance use, however, full-res noise is an important issue (why else have the resolution?)

Personally, for digital photography, I'd rather see an emphasis on dynamic range, like what Fuji is doing. Currently, that's a digicam's biggest problem, IMO.

[DURRPPP @ Jun 4th 2007 4:33PM]

I couldn't imagine the kind of bandwidth you would need to use this in surveillance cameras. It would need to be compressed and recorded in real time. And we thought 1080p was rough ....

They should put these suckers all over the Mars rover, even if it takes a month to send back a single picture.

[UltraBird @ Jun 4th 2007 5:55PM]

The problem is that 50mp far exceeds the resolution of any commercial SLR lens, so the extra resolution may be moot without completely new, and no doubt very expensive, optics.

However, having all of those superfluous pixels with a underpowered lens may be useful for noise reduction; if a *single* pixel is distinctly different from its neighbors, it must be noisy,making noise detection that much easier for the camera.

[nj @ Jun 4th 2007 10:36PM]

They don't exceed it. Good lenses have an aerial resolution of several hundred lp/mm. They must have this much higher resolution than either film or sensors because the final image is an optical copy and there is generation loss (copying something with its own resolution halves it). What will happen is that the image the sensors outputs won't be as near its theoretical maximum resolution as before.
High res black & white film (microfilm emulsion, single digit ISO speed) has reached much higher resolution with good fixed focal length lenses.

[wwwusel @ Jun 17th 2007 7:04AM]

It is a common misunderstunding or "urban legend" that chemical films had reached more then 30MP resolution. The "Kodak Royal Gold 25" and "Kodak Ektar 25 Professional" were color film with the highes resolution. There were (are?) also some B&W film with 6ASA that reached a theoretical very high film resolution. But it was not usable for B&W pictures (realising only black and white with almost no grey), only for contact prints.
The resolution values given by the manufactures were measured with contact prints having a line pattern scratched in a glass. It was never possible to reach these values in real live photography.
In real live you can't go much further then 80 line pairs per mm (lp/mm). However some high end lenses reach 90 lp/mm (around 30MP).

There is a very nice (but german) articel about his topic at http://sprec000.lima-city.de/Digicam4.html

[purezerg @ Jun 5th 2007 12:12AM]

if cacnon ever makes them into 1D series it's gonna be 1DS MK4

there are already rumours that canon is doing a 21Mp 1Dsmk3 while nikon D3x is 24Mp.

[AUDIOGURU @ Jun 12th 2007 2:15PM]

I geuss i am confused. Why are they saying this is Canons large sensor? It is not. This is the middle size. The big one they use on the D1 is 36mm x 24mm. And if they are truly going to use this sensor in a EOS D body, wouldnt it be the big sensor and wouldnt they try to use the largest pixel size possible in order to eliminate much of the noise problem you have with higher iso settings sue to small pixels??

Again, a newb question, but just curious. Bigger is always better when it comes to gathering light and especially when you are trying to come anywhere near the qaulity you would get with an analog representation of the image rather then a digital one.

[craig @ Jun 7th 2007 2:02PM]

It does seem like an odd sensor. The 28mm size is used for high frame rate shooting which 50MP would not be suited for. Since Canon hasn't developed sensors with pixels that small, it seems to me they'd use a smaller sensor size for testing. If they wanted 50MP in a 1D body, they'd do 36mm like you say. I really don't get it either. Perhaps Canon is concerned about lens performance at that pixel count.

[omr @ Jun 13th 2007 1:05PM]

http://www.advancedimagingpro.com/article/printer.jsp?id=4133

[Eric @ Jul 29th 2007 12:35PM]

Chuck Westfall, at Canon USA, has said in the past that they saw sensors in the 20 megapixe range to be as far as most would want to go. Nikon's head of NPS (Nikon Professional Services) said at a workshop last fall that "The Megapixel wars about to be over." Of course, we're still waiting for Nikon to even really join that race. :-D

Canon has the technology to do 100 megapixels, according to what Westfall said, but who would want to handle all that data? My 1Ds Mark II at work produces 96 meg 16 bit tif files. And that's 16.7 megaixels. Who would want to pay for storage of 50 or 100 megapixel images? Not my employer! I'm thinking of getting a 10.2 megapixel 1D Mark III for a backup camera next year. Next year for two reasons. Captial purchase budget, and the AF problems that are still on-going with that camera. But for most things I photograph, wiht my photos rarely going over 30x40 inces in print, the 16.7 megapixels is just fine. Even one photo they blew up to about five feet wide, it held up really nicely. And that was a low-light shot hand-held at about 1/60 second!