OmniVision claims 8 megapixel OmniBSI sensor turns cellphone imaging world "upside down"

Digital Camera 101: As manufacturers continue pushing the Megapixel Myth by stuffing more and more pixels onto rapidly shrinking sensors, the outcome is poor performance on top of poorly lit images of increasingly low quality. Now OmniVision, the largest CMOS image sensor manufacturer today, says they've solved the pixel size problem though backside illumination (BSI) technology. In essence, BSI helps maximize photon collection by circumventing obstructive metal and dielectric layers on the top-side of the sensor die. The result is improved light absorption, thinner overall camera modules, and increased sensitivity and F stops with reduced crosstalk. However, as EETimes' crack staff of Electrical Engineering super-nerds point out, BSI is not a new technology. In fact, several manufacturers lay claim to BSI patents. However, OmniVision seems to be the first to take the tech to mass production for consumers. To prove it, they'll release an 8 megapixel OmniBSI CameraChip sensor brimming with the new tech for sample in June. Couple it with a decent cameraphone lens and image processing circuitry and we might be in for a treat.

[Via EETimes]

[Colin Potter @ May 27th 2008 3:32AM]

I wouldn't mind a high quality 2MP camera in my phone... it takes good pics as-is but they could be better... anything much more than 2MP in a phone is a bit unnecessary... unless of course its one of the big ones that's essentially a camera with a phone built in... otherwise bring a camera with you.

[Ace b @ May 27th 2008 3:38AM]

I think having a 5-8 megapixel cam phone that can take good night shots would be well loved.Especially from concert goers like me who like to photograph the night.

[maball54 @ May 27th 2008 3:47AM]

Agreed.

[Ayle @ May 27th 2008 4:22AM]

n82

[Darkest Daze @ May 27th 2008 3:45AM]

I'd take a phone-cam that takes non-blurry shots...yea, thanks Samsung.

[Ville Wilson @ May 27th 2008 4:04AM]

I really have no idea why the manufacturers push the pixel limit that much in compact and prosumer cameras at the cost of noise and image degradation. I really wonder who needs that many megapixel. I still do commercial works with my 6 Megapixel Nikon D70 (actually I'm correcting some shots of cookies for a commercial in Lightroom right now), and from my experience I know that 6 Megapixel is enough for quality letter-size (or A4 size) print, while 3 Mpix is enough for standard-size photos. So why to they insist on 8 Mpix monsters with noise levels from hell even at ISO 200? Would it be that hard to produce a 3-4 Mpix compact model with decent quality of images and color up to ISO 1600? I mean, how many of you develop your pictures on letter-sized (or A4 sized) format on regular basis? Who needs those megapixel at the cost of quality?

[Michael LaFramboise @ May 27th 2008 4:11AM]

Who needs even 3-4MP when you're shooting though a piece of plastic :/

...is it really that hard to atleast make that tinyass lens from glass? I mean thats an additional what? half cent?

[Engadgetluvsappl @ May 27th 2008 5:29AM]

Nokia use Carl Zeiss.

Yahhh trick yahhhhhhhhhh!

[BloodyGerman @ May 27th 2008 4:17AM]

WOW, backside illumination is a great thing, previously it was mostly used for astronomy application (where cost of the sensor is minor compared to the rest). This mobile phone sensor is probably not as efficient as these expensive stuff. But this should really increase the sensor efficiency.
Another advantage is that these should not need any micro lenses anymore.

I would prefer to see this technology in sensors with less megapixels or even better bigger sensors, like DSLRs :)

5D Mk II with backside illumination sensor? :)

[BloodyGerman @ May 27th 2008 4:25AM]

Here is an example how the efficiency could be improved:

http://www.ccd.com/ccd101.html

I doubt this omnivision sensor will show that much improvement, but still :)

[Wolfticket @ May 27th 2008 4:38AM]

OK, take that technology, put it in a small 4MP sensor. Allow it to capture said photons through something vaguely optically sound. Then sell it to me.

[Ihar `Philips` Filipau @ May 27th 2008 4:53AM]

I'd say the image stabilization is much much more important than gigapixels.

They should try to develop "sensor shake resistance" for mobile phones - might be then the CrapCams (tm) and BlurCams (tm) might become relevant.

[loosely_coupled @ May 27th 2008 5:54AM]

I'm almost positive that many cam phones in Japan and Korea already have OPTICAL image stabilization.. Just us western world wankers with the blurred party pics...

[j.d.ripper @ May 27th 2008 5:43AM]

I'd would really love a phone that can take high quality pics.

iPhone + Richo GR DIGITAL = Love at first sight

[j.d.ripper @ May 27th 2008 5:44AM]

that'd be Ricoh GR Digital

[Cpt.BC @ May 27th 2008 6:43AM]

Backside illumination. Heh.

[Pat @ May 27th 2008 7:35AM]

I've always wanted to illuminate my backside.

[ray @ May 27th 2008 8:05AM]

Image quality is mostly about The Glass (lens). No good Glass, no Glass at all (in cell phone) - no quality, even with 25MPx sensor. That's all.

[Ian @ Jun 11th 2008 8:23AM]

^^^True with film. Not necessarily true with digital cameras. Good lenses couple to a bad sensor will still create a bad photo. With digital, you need both the lens and sensor to be good.