The Chinese Solar Machine Layer by Layer Fire in the Library The Mystery Behind Anesthesia
Fifty megapixels: Kodak’s new 50-million-pixel camera sensor manages to squeeze more pixels onto an array while simultaneously increasing the speed and reducing the power consumption of the device.
Kodak
Kodak brings digital cameras into the 50-megapixel range.
Last week, Kodak launched the first ever 50-megapixel camera sensor. While such high resolution goes beyond the needs of most consumers, for professional photographers the new sensor will enable photographs to be taken at an unprecedented level of detail.
For example, in a picture taken of a field one-and-a-half miles across, the sensor would make it possible for a viewer to detect an object measuring just one foot across.
This sort of resolution is only really essential for and targeted at high-end professional photography, in which high-quality images often need to be blown up large. But it could also be useful for some other applications, such as aerial photography as used for services like Google Earth. "The ability to have more pixels lets the plane fly higher, so you don't need as many pictures," says Mike DeLuca, marketing manager for Kodak's Image Sensor Solutions, based in Rochester, NY.
The sensor, which produces an array of 8,176-by-6,132 pixels, further closes the gap between traditional film and digital photography. "We're really close to how film was operated," DeLuca says. "It's very close." Now, he says, it's just a matter of the photographer's personal preference.
Normally, the smaller you make a pixel, the poorer the quality, says Albert Theuwissen, a digital-imaging expert and founder of Harvest Imaging, based in Bree, Belgium. "That is true for consumer as well as professional devices." DeLuca claims that in the case of Kodak's breakout sensor, new pigments actually increase the color quality rendered by the sensor, while other mechanisms enable the pixels to be just as sensitive as larger ones--and yet they're processed faster than in previous designs. What's more, he claims that the new sensor uses less power than its predecessors. "Every solution or step that makes the sensor faster and less power hungry is a step forward," says Theuwissen.
Kodak already has a sensor on the market with a resolution of 39 million pixels. But to further increase the resolution, the company had to not only reduce the size of each pixel from 6.8 microns to 6 microns, but also radically change the way that these charged coupled device (CCD) sensors work, says DeLuca.
"It's relatively straightforward to make the pixels smaller," he says. But because these devices comprise much more than just light-detecting elements, DeLuca says, they can suffer drops in performance if everything inside them is not shrunken along with the pixels.
"Each pixel has multiple structures," he says. Some are designed to pass a charge from one pixel to the next, to enable the image to be read off the device. Other structures ensure that any excess charge produced by bright lighting conditions doesn't spill out into neighboring pixels.
Another challenge is to maintain the dynamic range of the sensor--that is, its ability to detect light and dark simultaneously. In the sensor, this is basically a signal-to-noise issue, says DeLuca. "When you make the pixel smaller, there is less signal you are able to capture, because physically there is less ability to store electrons in that pixel. If we don't do anything else, what we end up with is a smaller signal with the same noise profile." To counteract this, Kodak has had to improve the amplifier at the output of the device, which reduces the noise.
Manufacturing in the United States is in trouble. That's bad news not just for the country's economy but for the future of innovation.
This document is part of the “How-To Guide for Most Common Measurements” centralized resource portal. This tutorial provides a detailed guide for measurement and device considerations to take temperature measurements using thermocouples. Get an introduction to thermocouples, which are inexpensive sensing devices widely used with PC-based data acquisition systems. Also review some specific thermocouple examples and learn how thermocouples work and ways to integrate them into a data acquisition measurement system.
View full PDF >Our list of the 50 most innovative companies, including the following:
djs
25 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.
Reply
microbill
2 Comments
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.
Reply
ecota
1 Comment
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?
Reply
MatthiasF
1 Comment
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.
Reply
tygrus
2 Comments
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.
Reply