http://www.engadget.com/2008/05/23/sharp-trumpets-worlds-thinnest-5-megapixel-cmos-sensor/ Engadget Comments for Sharp trumpets world's thinnest 5-megapixel CMOS sensor http://www.engadget.com/media/feedlogo.gif http://www.engadget.com en-us Copyright 2012 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/http://www.engadget.com/2008/05/23/sharp-trumpets-worlds-thinnest-5-megapixel-cmos-sensor/http://www.engadget.com/2008/05/23/sharp-trumpets-worlds-thinnest-5-megapixel-cmos-sensor/May 23rd 2008 1:14AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/05/23/sharp-trumpets-worlds-thinnest-5-megapixel-cmos-sensor/http://www.engadget.com/2008/05/23/sharp-trumpets-worlds-thinnest-5-megapixel-cmos-sensor/May 23rd 2008 2:43AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/05/23/sharp-trumpets-worlds-thinnest-5-megapixel-cmos-sensor/http://www.engadget.com/2008/05/23/sharp-trumpets-worlds-thinnest-5-megapixel-cmos-sensor/May 23rd 2008 5:06AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/05/23/sharp-trumpets-worlds-thinnest-5-megapixel-cmos-sensor/http://www.engadget.com/2008/05/23/sharp-trumpets-worlds-thinnest-5-megapixel-cmos-sensor/May 23rd 2008 8:26AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/05/23/sharp-trumpets-worlds-thinnest-5-megapixel-cmos-sensor/http://www.engadget.com/2008/05/23/sharp-trumpets-worlds-thinnest-5-megapixel-cmos-sensor/
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.]]>May 23rd 2008 9:32AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/05/23/sharp-trumpets-worlds-thinnest-5-megapixel-cmos-sensor/http://www.engadget.com/2008/05/23/sharp-trumpets-worlds-thinnest-5-megapixel-cmos-sensor/
It was sarcasm.]]>May 23rd 2008 2:11PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/05/23/sharp-trumpets-worlds-thinnest-5-megapixel-cmos-sensor/http://www.engadget.com/2008/05/23/sharp-trumpets-worlds-thinnest-5-megapixel-cmos-sensor/May 23rd 2008 1:15AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/05/23/sharp-trumpets-worlds-thinnest-5-megapixel-cmos-sensor/http://www.engadget.com/2008/05/23/sharp-trumpets-worlds-thinnest-5-megapixel-cmos-sensor/May 23rd 2008 1:16AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/05/23/sharp-trumpets-worlds-thinnest-5-megapixel-cmos-sensor/http://www.engadget.com/2008/05/23/sharp-trumpets-worlds-thinnest-5-megapixel-cmos-sensor/You'd better hope so.]]>May 23rd 2008 1:47AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/05/23/sharp-trumpets-worlds-thinnest-5-megapixel-cmos-sensor/http://www.engadget.com/2008/05/23/sharp-trumpets-worlds-thinnest-5-megapixel-cmos-sensor/
I look forward to seeing these built into laptops..]]>May 23rd 2008 2:07AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/05/23/sharp-trumpets-worlds-thinnest-5-megapixel-cmos-sensor/http://www.engadget.com/2008/05/23/sharp-trumpets-worlds-thinnest-5-megapixel-cmos-sensor/
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

]]>May 23rd 2008 3:49AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/05/23/sharp-trumpets-worlds-thinnest-5-megapixel-cmos-sensor/http://www.engadget.com/2008/05/23/sharp-trumpets-worlds-thinnest-5-megapixel-cmos-sensor/May 23rd 2008 1:17AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/05/23/sharp-trumpets-worlds-thinnest-5-megapixel-cmos-sensor/http://www.engadget.com/2008/05/23/sharp-trumpets-worlds-thinnest-5-megapixel-cmos-sensor/May 23rd 2008 1:18AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/05/23/sharp-trumpets-worlds-thinnest-5-megapixel-cmos-sensor/http://www.engadget.com/2008/05/23/sharp-trumpets-worlds-thinnest-5-megapixel-cmos-sensor/May 23rd 2008 1:19AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/05/23/sharp-trumpets-worlds-thinnest-5-megapixel-cmos-sensor/http://www.engadget.com/2008/05/23/sharp-trumpets-worlds-thinnest-5-megapixel-cmos-sensor/May 23rd 2008 7:24AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/05/23/sharp-trumpets-worlds-thinnest-5-megapixel-cmos-sensor/http://www.engadget.com/2008/05/23/sharp-trumpets-worlds-thinnest-5-megapixel-cmos-sensor/
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]]>May 23rd 2008 1:45AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/05/23/sharp-trumpets-worlds-thinnest-5-megapixel-cmos-sensor/http://www.engadget.com/2008/05/23/sharp-trumpets-worlds-thinnest-5-megapixel-cmos-sensor/May 23rd 2008 1:49AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/05/23/sharp-trumpets-worlds-thinnest-5-megapixel-cmos-sensor/http://www.engadget.com/2008/05/23/sharp-trumpets-worlds-thinnest-5-megapixel-cmos-sensor/May 23rd 2008 1:57AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/05/23/sharp-trumpets-worlds-thinnest-5-megapixel-cmos-sensor/http://www.engadget.com/2008/05/23/sharp-trumpets-worlds-thinnest-5-megapixel-cmos-sensor/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...
]]>May 23rd 2008 3:57AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/05/23/sharp-trumpets-worlds-thinnest-5-megapixel-cmos-sensor/http://www.engadget.com/2008/05/23/sharp-trumpets-worlds-thinnest-5-megapixel-cmos-sensor/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.]]>May 23rd 2008 7:29AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/05/23/sharp-trumpets-worlds-thinnest-5-megapixel-cmos-sensor/http://www.engadget.com/2008/05/23/sharp-trumpets-worlds-thinnest-5-megapixel-cmos-sensor/May 23rd 2008 2:04AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/05/23/sharp-trumpets-worlds-thinnest-5-megapixel-cmos-sensor/http://www.engadget.com/2008/05/23/sharp-trumpets-worlds-thinnest-5-megapixel-cmos-sensor/May 23rd 2008 2:10AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/05/23/sharp-trumpets-worlds-thinnest-5-megapixel-cmos-sensor/http://www.engadget.com/2008/05/23/sharp-trumpets-worlds-thinnest-5-megapixel-cmos-sensor/May 23rd 2008 2:18AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/05/23/sharp-trumpets-worlds-thinnest-5-megapixel-cmos-sensor/http://www.engadget.com/2008/05/23/sharp-trumpets-worlds-thinnest-5-megapixel-cmos-sensor/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.]]>May 23rd 2008 2:31AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/05/23/sharp-trumpets-worlds-thinnest-5-megapixel-cmos-sensor/http://www.engadget.com/2008/05/23/sharp-trumpets-worlds-thinnest-5-megapixel-cmos-sensor/May 23rd 2008 3:13AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/05/23/sharp-trumpets-worlds-thinnest-5-megapixel-cmos-sensor/http://www.engadget.com/2008/05/23/sharp-trumpets-worlds-thinnest-5-megapixel-cmos-sensor/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.]]>May 23rd 2008 10:05AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/05/23/sharp-trumpets-worlds-thinnest-5-megapixel-cmos-sensor/http://www.engadget.com/2008/05/23/sharp-trumpets-worlds-thinnest-5-megapixel-cmos-sensor/May 23rd 2008 2:14AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/05/23/sharp-trumpets-worlds-thinnest-5-megapixel-cmos-sensor/http://www.engadget.com/2008/05/23/sharp-trumpets-worlds-thinnest-5-megapixel-cmos-sensor/
see a psychiatrist]]>May 23rd 2008 2:41AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/05/23/sharp-trumpets-worlds-thinnest-5-megapixel-cmos-sensor/http://www.engadget.com/2008/05/23/sharp-trumpets-worlds-thinnest-5-megapixel-cmos-sensor/May 23rd 2008 3:52AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/05/23/sharp-trumpets-worlds-thinnest-5-megapixel-cmos-sensor/http://www.engadget.com/2008/05/23/sharp-trumpets-worlds-thinnest-5-megapixel-cmos-sensor/
... goddamn Japanese and their upskirts.]]>May 23rd 2008 8:05PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/05/23/sharp-trumpets-worlds-thinnest-5-megapixel-cmos-sensor/http://www.engadget.com/2008/05/23/sharp-trumpets-worlds-thinnest-5-megapixel-cmos-sensor/]]>May 23rd 2008 12:57PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/05/23/sharp-trumpets-worlds-thinnest-5-megapixel-cmos-sensor/http://www.engadget.com/2008/05/23/sharp-trumpets-worlds-thinnest-5-megapixel-cmos-sensor/May 23rd 2008 8:44AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/05/23/sharp-trumpets-worlds-thinnest-5-megapixel-cmos-sensor/http://www.engadget.com/2008/05/23/sharp-trumpets-worlds-thinnest-5-megapixel-cmos-sensor/May 23rd 2008 9:34AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/05/23/sharp-trumpets-worlds-thinnest-5-megapixel-cmos-sensor/http://www.engadget.com/2008/05/23/sharp-trumpets-worlds-thinnest-5-megapixel-cmos-sensor/
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!]]>May 23rd 2008 9:52AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/05/23/sharp-trumpets-worlds-thinnest-5-megapixel-cmos-sensor/http://www.engadget.com/2008/05/23/sharp-trumpets-worlds-thinnest-5-megapixel-cmos-sensor/May 23rd 2008 1:25PM