Technology Review - Published By MIT
Advertisement

Pushing Pixels

Continued from page 1

By Duncan Graham-Rowe

Wednesday, July 16, 2008

smaller text tool iconmedium text tool iconlarger text tool icon

Also, by increasing the number of pixels, it becomes more challenging to access the information once it has been detected. "Fifty million pixels is a lot of data," says DeLuca, and a photographer needs to be able to read it off the sensor in a reasonable amount of time.

Until now, Kodak has used a process that involved dumping the information from one row of pixels onto the next and shifting the information along the row, reading it off at the edge, one pixel at a time. This is a relatively slow process, normally carried out two rows at a time. So to cope with the additional amount of data, the new sensor comes with four output channels so that four times the amount of data can be read at once. This enables the sensor to increase the rate at which images can be captured from 0.9 to 1.0 frames a second, even though more information is being captured. And yet this also allows the clock cycle at which the data is read off to be reduced for each output, which further improves the signal-to-noise ratio.

Power savings are achieved by the way that the sensor is reset before each picture is taken. This is carried out just before a shot is taken to ensure that there is no residual charge or electrical noise in the pixels that could reduce the quality of the new image. In previous sensors, Kodak has simply read out each of the pixels row by row, as if collecting the data for a picture, but then it dumped the information instead of storing it. "What we've included now is a new structure in the pixel which allows all the pixels in the array to be cleared out in a single clock pulse," says DeLuca. So instead of having to flush the entire sensor row by row, you flush the entire array in one go, he says.

This dramatically improves the "click to capture" time--the delay between pressing the shutter down and the sensor capturing the image. "Instead of being milliseconds, it takes microseconds," says DeLuca. And in addition to saving time, it also reduces the power that is required to perform a reset.

This technology doesn't come cheap. The sensor alone will cost at least $3,500. But that doesn't appear to have put off one camera manufacturer. Hasselblad has announced plans to launch a new camera featuring the sensor in the coming months. Nor is 50 megapixels going to remain on the cutting edge for long. Just this week, a few days after Kodak's announcement, another digital-imaging firm, DALSA, based in Waterloo, Canada, announced that it has developed a 60-megapixel sensor.


Comments

  • still a long way to go
    Pixels of 6x6 micrometer remain very much larger than the silver halide crystals in film. I also note that a high end SLR digital camera with an 18x24 mm sensor is about as big and weighs about the same as a 45x60 (in fact 42x56) mm SLR camera that uses film. As usual, ease of use (in this case ability to e-mail pictures very quickly after making the exposure) trumps quality for most consumers. Perhaps not so much for professionals.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    djs
    07/16/2008
    Posts:24
    Avg Rating:
    3/5
    • Re: still a long way to go
      The pixel size difference is true but film grain is binary so it requires lots of silver halide grains to produce gray shades. CCD pixels, even though larger (6um vs 2um), can each produce a gray level - so although the pixels are bigger than the film grain the resolution may, in reality, actually be higher for the CCD.
      Rate this comment: 12345

      microbill
      07/16/2008
      Posts:2
      Avg Rating:
      5/5
      • Re: still a long way to go
        A naive question: has anybody measured at which point a digital detector has more resolution than photographic film?
        Rate this comment: 12345

        ecota
        07/19/2008
        Posts:1
        • Re: still a long way to go
          Complicated question, since it depends on the film size.

          If you are comparing against the best 35mm film, digital cameras have already surpassed the quality of film cameras.

          Here's a site with Roger Clark's testing results.

          http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.1.html

          The rest of his site is worth a browse.
          Rate this comment: 12345

          MatthiasF
          07/20/2008
          Posts:1
          Avg Rating:
          5/5
        • Re: still a long way to go
          Another limiting factor is the limitations of the lens. There is currently no point doubling the resolution of DX based cameras and smaller.

          Smaller pixels mean more noise and high noise reduces apparent resolution. Just because you can chop the picture up smaller doesn't mean it's better. Film nicely rolls-off the highlights but the darker regions losses detail because of film grain and noise. DSLR beat film around 400ISO and faster.
          Rate this comment: 12345

          tygrus
          07/22/2008
          Posts:1

Log In

Forgot your password?     Register »
Advertisement

Videos

Laser-Triggered Chemical Reactions
Featured Content
Sponsored by:
White Papers

Twelve ways to reduce costs with SQL Server 2008
Find out how to reduce costs and get more efficient

Download

Total Economic Impact of SQL Server 2008 Upgrade
Forrester reports on increasing productivity and management capabilities

Download 

Achieving Cost and Resource Savings with UC
How Office Communications Server R2 and Exchange Server can make your business smarter and more efficient

Download 

The Compelling Case for Conferencing
Read how you can improve workload support and find IT efficiencies

Download

How Windows Server 2008 R2 Helps Optimize IT and Save you Money
Read how you can improve workload support and find IT efficiencies

Download

Windows Server 2008 R2 Hyper-V Live Migration
See how Windows Server 2008 R2 and Hyper-V enable virtualization and Live Migration

Download
Advertisement
Subscribe to Technology Review's daily e-mail update. Enter your e-mail address

TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES
Advertisement
MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology © 2009 Technology Review. All Rights Reserved.