Sharp trumpets world's thinnest 5-megapixel CMOS sensor

Every so often, we catch Sharp tooting its own horn in regard to sensor size. Needless to say, small is most certainly superior in this discussion, and the aforesaid outfit is patting itself on the back once more for the RJ63SC100. This 5-megapixel CMOS sensor is said to be the industry's thinnest at 9.5- x 9.5- x 6.6-millimeters, and it should fit snugly inside the already cramped innards of tomorrow's cellphones just fine. Samples are slated to ship out at the end of May for ¥10,000 ($96) a pop, while commercial production should get going a month later.

[Via Impress]

[Jimmy @ May 23rd 2008 1:14AM]

At that price ($96) i am beginning to lose hope in ever owning a 5-megapixel phone. I was really looking forward to replacing my phone and camera with one device in september. I guess i will just have to make do with 2-megapixels...

[Joel @ May 23rd 2008 2:43AM]

The sample is $96, but that'll come down once commercial production starts.

[Zorque @ May 23rd 2008 5:06AM]

Oh yeah, it's so hard to read a paragraph and so interesting to read two sentences. Get off the internet and eat a gun.

[Jordan @ May 23rd 2008 8:26AM]

Here it comes, too long is going to call me a moron for not detecting his sarcasm, and then everyone is going to wonder if it was really sarcasm. Then he is going to pick out my two grammar errors in my original post.

[Evan @ May 23rd 2008 9:32AM]

The production price will probably be under $1.

Prices for samples have nothing to do with the final price. At work, we have dev kits costing over $5,000 for $5 ARM CPUs.

[too long @ May 23rd 2008 2:11PM]

Jordan @ May 23rd 2008 8:26AM

It was sarcasm.

[MeatyPi @ May 23rd 2008 1:15AM]

"9.5- x 9.5- x 6.6-millimeters" is not going to impress any ladies, so Sharp no more horn tooting, please.

[Jimmy @ May 23rd 2008 1:16AM]

hey, its not all about size, its how you use it...

[Tim @ May 23rd 2008 1:47AM]

@ Jimmy:
You'd better hope so.

[ethana2 @ May 23rd 2008 2:07AM]

Those numbers give a volume around half a milliliter. Who is impressed by what here?

I look forward to seeing these built into laptops..

[Ayman @ May 23rd 2008 3:49AM]

@ ethana2

why would you want a 5 MP on a Laptop

so you can take pictures of them

"Hey guys i wanna take a picture so please look at the screen and someone press Enter. Good thing someone got this 5MP laptop to the grand canyon or else we would have any pictures to remember this place

[Jayden @ May 23rd 2008 1:17AM]

Make it half the size and build it into the iPhone

[Jimmy @ May 23rd 2008 1:18AM]

I was waiting for someone to bring that up...

[SimonRichards @ May 23rd 2008 1:19AM]

That's what she said!

[Shinigami @ May 23rd 2008 7:24AM]

iPhone with 1gb storage and 5mp camera. $699 with 20-year contract.

[Colin Potter @ May 23rd 2008 1:45AM]

so a tiny sensor that has a high pixel count but still produces about the same quality pics as a disposable camera? well i guess it could be worse...

but it should be interesting to see how it stacks up to current higher-res cellphone cameras like the LG Viewty... or even the 2 megapixel ones... my Shine takes nicer pictures in some lighting than my friend's Ericsson K850i

[Jayden @ May 23rd 2008 1:49AM]

no way man i used to have a shine and it doesnt beat any other phone camera

[Colin Potter @ May 23rd 2008 1:57AM]

if there was a way to post photos i would show you some that i've taken... when they're scaled down for browser viewing they look like they were taken with a point-and-shoot

[yui @ May 23rd 2008 3:57AM]

SHARP's mobile camera quality is impressive. Just impressive.
You may grap some samples from DoCoMo SH905i.
Its quality is more or less similar (or even better) then my SO905iCS.

Awaiting for mass production of this module....and....international release, please...

[Shinigami @ May 23rd 2008 7:29AM]

Same here, I'd love to see if its any better than Samsung's crappy 5mp that makes pictures that aren't any better than 3mp earlier generation.
By the way 5mp pictures won't look too good on 4mp monitor (30 inches).
Because they aren't crammed into smaller resolution any more.

If you want a cheap (as cheap as possible) high quality 5mp camera phone, you should look at Nokia 6220 classic. Well, at least if it has same picture quality as Nokia N82, which is said to be the best of all 5mp camera phones. Mobile-review promised to post a review of 6220 classic in a few days (possibly in a week) with picture quality comparison, so look forward to it.

[Jesse S @ May 23rd 2008 2:04AM]

Wow, I wonder how noisy and shitty the censor is.

[ethana2 @ May 23rd 2008 2:10AM]

If you had an infinite resolution sensor, 1 cm² sensor area, and 1 ms of time, how many photons would you catch under average lighting conditions? When will we have hit the wall?

[A.C.E.R. @ May 23rd 2008 2:18AM]

Hi.

[Wolfticket @ May 23rd 2008 2:31AM]

My guess, it'll be a whole world of noisetastic shittyness.
Seriously; adding megapixels doesn't necessarily make for better photos. 3.2meg with reasonable optics and sensor size would be better. Not that that is ever going to happen.

[photon @ May 23rd 2008 3:13AM]

ethana2, ideally you'd catch all the photons that came into the lens, so it would be about the lens size, not the sensor size. (That's why good cameras have big lenses and good telescopes have huge mirrors.) Anyway, the answer is "a lot" -- your eye's not huge, and think of the resolution that gives you.

[Evan @ May 23rd 2008 10:05AM]

@photon
The size of the sensor is important because not all of the surface of the sensor is sensitive to light. See my post below for a technical explanation. Think of there being gaps between pixels. Some of the light captured by the lens is lost into the gaps between pixels. The gaps are always the same thickness, but in larger or lower resolution sensors, the gaps account for a smaller portion of the surface area, so more of the light from the lens is captured.

[JohnMayerHere @ May 23rd 2008 2:14AM]

Upskirts, here I come !

[JMMGoalster @ May 23rd 2008 2:41AM]

you have issues

see a psychiatrist

[Almighty- @ May 23rd 2008 3:52AM]

haha, that made me laugh! :)

[deepBlue @ May 23rd 2008 8:05PM]

Why the hell was I thinking the same damn thing?

... goddamn Japanese and their upskirts.

[Wwhat @ May 23rd 2008 12:57PM]

Most shrinks are sex-obsessed though, so I guess you mean see one for a bulk wholesale?

[Patrick @ May 23rd 2008 8:44AM]

Hmm, that size doesn't really seem small for phones. It seems rather thick to me. How big are they now?

[EricR @ May 23rd 2008 9:34AM]

Looks more like the world's thinnest coin.

[Evan @ May 23rd 2008 9:52AM]

Higher Resolution = Lower Sensitivity

The quality will suck, guaranteed. On CMOS sensors, every pixel is surrounded by 3 or more transistors masked out on the surface of the sensor, so the area that collects light is smaller than the pixel's overall dimensions. The transistors don't shrink as the resolution increases, so a greater portion of the sensor's surface area is occupied by transistors and a smaller portion is sensitive to light. A similar size sensor with 640x480 (0.3 Megapixel) resolution would take superior pictures in low light because almost all of the sensor's surface area is sensitive to light, on a 5 Megapixel sensor, only half of the surface area is sensitive!

[victor @ May 23rd 2008 1:25PM]

Does anyone know how to use these cameras once you take the out of a cell phone. I have had 2 cell phone died and I disected them for parts. Would like to use the camera part I took out even if they are 1.3 megapixels.