Kodak introduces "world's first" 1.4 micron, 5-megapixel CMOS sensor
By Joshua Topolsky 
posted February 4th 2008 12:12PM
posted February 4th 2008 12:12PM
Kodak claims to be "revolutionizing" image capture, though you always have to take press releases with a grain of salt. However, it does appear that the company has made some interesting advances in camera technology for mobile devices, which will hopefully lead to bigger and better images from our phones in the near future. The company's new KAC-05020 snaps its proprietary Color Filter Pattern technology together with a redesigned CMOS pixel for the "world's first" 1.4 micron, 5-megapixel device. The new sensor shrinks the pixels down, but manages to maintain picture quality by harnessing the aforementioned CFP. That technique adds a fourth layer of "clear" pixels to the red, green, and blue ones which already exist, thus collecting a higher proportion of light striking the sensor, improving low light photography, reducing blur, and generally making you look like Ansel Adams. The chip is also capable of 720p video at 30 FPS, as well as extreme low light settings, like ISO 3200. Kodak will be showing the new technology off at the Mobile World Congress this month, and then hopefully cramming it into phones for us very, very soon.
so at the cost of color resolution...
I don't think they should talk too much about ISO 3200 in such a small sensor. It WILL look like giant ball of fuzz. In picture form.
It's CMOS though not CCD, and it's improved hopefully.
Well CMOS is normally worse than equivalent CCD sensors so I don't think that noise is really going to be improved.
And what about the lack DOF on these new sensors? Photos are going to look even more flat, dull, and too-in-focus than ever before.
I hope that ugly quality Kodak logo jpg is up there for irony reasons, otherwise someone needs some Photoshop lessons ... badly.
The sensor sounds nice, but don't you need some quality glass in front of it to get a worthwhile image? Something better than "fixed focus"?
Speaking of which, Kodak has a new logo, in case you weren't aware:
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/corp/historyOfKodak/evolutionBrandLogo.jhtml
oh yeah, and it's a real looker, too. both kodak's logo and cameras were better in 1907.
I'd really like to see low-grain high ISO sensors start making their way into mobile devices... maybe make them worth using in any condition other than direct sunlight.
This sounds good. I hope it has a very high dynamic range.
Gee, and here I was hoping the whole camera phone thing would go away. Damn, guess we're stuck with people making shitty pics from their phones.
@sctojo, better than fixed focus????? Umm, hate to tell you buddy there is optically nothing better than fixed focus. If there's something better someone should probably let all those medium and large format guys who have been using silly primes all these years trying to get the best quality out of their giant negatives that there is something to be that fixed focal length piece of junk. Lol. Okok, so was your point really asking for a nicer fixed focal length? That I can hear you on, no dinky plastic lenses. Comission Leica to make a line of mini-m lens (fixed focal length of course!!! :-D Sorry I do love my primes, don't own one zoom in my collection!) or actually hire a dedicated optical engineer...
Sounds like you're confusing some basic photography terms. Fixed focus lenses tend to be crap. With an inability to focus, the design and implementation of the lens limits you to the depth of field that the lens is set to, usually a couple of feet to infinity. You see these fixed focus lenses in disposable cameras and basic camera phones. Adjustable focus and autofocusing lenses tend to be of better quality and nearly all of them allow you to adjust your depth of field too.
On the other hand, fixed focal length lenses can be quite good. Though you lose the ability to go from a wide angle shot to a telephoto one with the same lens, you usually more than make up for it in glass quality and weight savings.
99.99999% of all fixed focus, fixed focal length lenses are crap. 99.99999% of all autofocusing fixed focal length lenses aren't crap. In case that wasn't clear, though you used the term interchangably, fixed focus isn't the same as fixed focal length.
scotjo was right in wanting something better than a "fixed focus" lens in camera phones.
i believe sctojo means a focus free lens (fixed focal point), not focal length (prime vs zoom).
@OC: DoF is aperture dependent, not focal point.
@OC, HAHAHAHA, you are right good sir, I read fixed focal length, stupid lack of sleep inserting words that weren't there. My bad dudes.
I'm still hoping the whole crappy camera phase just goes away though.
i'd rather have a crappy phone in my camera than the opposite. all this will do is add cost. but if we must have camera phones (and there's little other choice), i wish they'd work harder on improving storage and especially transfer before cramming more megapixels behind still-crappy lenses. most people i know lose all of their pictures whenever they get a new phone.
The 720p standard at 30 fps .. for motion or sports isn't better than having it interlaced but at 60 fps -- which appears as smooth motion to the eye. Obviously 720p at 60fps would have been the ideal. Anyway, I hope they may have a 60 or 120 fps mode at an even lower resolution.
your point was clearer this time.
Yes, but for fixed focus lenses to work properly, the depth of field needs to be defined so the hyperfocal distance can be calculated and the focus set to that distance. This necessitates a fixed aperture size, typically to a high f-stop. While you're of course correct to point out that DOF is aperture dependent, I didn't say otherwise. I did imply that you won't find fixed focus lenses with adjustable apertures in consumer products, and that lack of an aperture setting is another shortcoming with fixed focus lenses.
Sure is a lot of sniveling going on here. I'm glad there's progress being made. Someday my "good" phone will have a "good' camera and the planets will align... karma.
My problem with Kodak's video support (I own two Kodak digicams that can do 720p HD), is that the frame rate is not constant. It's never 30.00 (or even better, NTSC's 29.97), it just fluctuating and gives a hard time to my video editor.
Also, they record in MPEG4-SP, while at least MPEG4-ASP or h.264 would be more desirable.