Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Canon Shows the Most Sensitive Camera Sensor In the World

Unknown Lamer posted about a year and a half ago | from the so-many-stars dept.

Input Devices 218

An anonymous reader writes "Canon announced today that it successfully developed a super high-sensitivity full-frame CMOS sensor developed exclusively for video recording. The new Full HD sensor can capture light no other comparable sensor can see and it uses pixels 7.5 larger than the best commercial professional cameras in existence today." There doesn't seem to be a gallery of images, but the video demo (direct link to an mpeg4) makes it seem pretty sensitive.

cancel ×

218 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

PRON in the dark (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43076615)

I guess the world is ready for those PRON in the dark

Great, Canon (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43076625)

It'll be packaged in a camera with features a few generations behind but with today's price, and then it will fail within weeks of the warranty expiring.

pixels 7.5 larger (1)

mwvdlee (775178) | about a year and a half ago | (#43076639)

pixels 7.5 feet larger... that's quite a lot. No wonder it can capture so much light.

Re:pixels 7.5 larger (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43076701)

Surely it should be 7.5 times as many, not larger. Otherwiise the resolution would be 7.5 times worse.

Re:pixels 7.5 larger (1)

pahles (701275) | about a year and a half ago | (#43076759)

The object was to build a sensitive sensor. The larger the pixels the more sensitive they get... Who cares about resolution?

Mo it is 7.5 time larger larger (5, Informative)

Chrisq (894406) | about a year and a half ago | (#43076777)

from TFA:

The newly developed CMOS sensor features pixels measuring 19 microns square in size, which is more than 7.5-times the surface area of the pixels on the CMOS sensor incorporated in Canon's top-of-the-line EOS-1D X and other digital SLR cameras.

I guess this is to collect more photons in low light conditions. Of course this means that sensor is physically larger, but that's not a problem for Canon, they have made medium format cameras in the past.

Re:Mo it is 7.5 time larger larger (4, Insightful)

Viceice (462967) | about a year and a half ago | (#43076897)

That need not even be the case. You could still do it in 35mm, 1080p HD video is roughy 2.1 megapixels, where as the EOS1DX is 18.1mp.

So there is definitely enough room to make pixels 7 times larger than a EOS1DX

Re:Mo it is 7.5 time larger larger (1)

girlinatrainingbra (2738457) | about a year and a half ago | (#43076929)

Wouldn't it make more sense to use a system with a larger width lens to gather and capture more photons to increase the ability to get imagery in low-light conditions? Funnel more photons captured with a larger lens onto the same focal plane: more photons come onto the same pixel areas, leading to higher signal levels for the same stop and exposure time, right?

Re:Mo it is 7.5 time larger larger (4, Informative)

Zouden (232738) | about a year and a half ago | (#43076965)

Yes, but then you would need special lenses. This sensor works with 35mm (full-frame) lenses.

Re:Mo it is 7.5 time larger larger (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43077637)

Well yes. Bigger lens. More light. But CMOS sensors are not very good. CCD's can be but they are not exactly cheap.

Re:Mo it is 7.5 time larger larger (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43077711)

If you have to cool a CCD camera you could be looking at silly money. I did astronomy so sticking cameras on the back end of telescopes.

Re:Mo it is 7.5 time larger larger (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43077945)

Are people seriously still arguing that. There's nothing wrong with CMOS sensors. It really depends upon how well the particular chip is designed, yes you can make cheap sensors, but you can also make some really nice ones as well.

Re:Mo it is 7.5 time larger larger (3, Informative)

walshy007 (906710) | about a year and a half ago | (#43077667)

By "larger width" lens are you meaning larger aperture, smaller focal length or larger image circle?

All of these things have effects on the image and have practical limitations. (for example change the image circle area to be larger and you need a new format, all the old 35mm lenses they have can't be used for the larger frame unless you like black edges).

Re:Mo it is 7.5 time larger larger (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43077743)

Think stupidly large optics. And no a 35 mm camera could not cope. 24-inch may work (lowell telescope)

Re:Mo it is 7.5 time larger larger (4, Informative)

jimicus (737525) | about a year and a half ago | (#43076903)

It's a 35mm full-frame sensor.

It's also explicitly intended "exclusively for video recording" and mentions "full HD". Which would mean - assuming I'm reading between the lines correctly - that the resolution is 1920x1080 - ie. 2 megapixels.

Re:Mo it is 7.5 time larger larger (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43077719)

If this is put in super high end video cameras, it doesn't make sense that it is only 2 MP not 4, so you can't do 4K video like the Red cameras.

Re:Mo it is 7.5 time larger larger (4, Insightful)

bieber (998013) | about a year and a half ago | (#43076925)

Of course this means that sensor is physically larger

The sensor isn't physically larger. The specs say it's a full-frame 35mm sensor, and the photo of the prototype camera shows it with a standard EF lens mounted: a larger sensor would need medium or large format lenses, and it would be pretty much dead on arrival in the market if you had to go out and start buying medium or (God forbid) large format lenses to feed the thing. Half of the allure of Canon for video, after all, is that you can reuse your still EF lenses, and demanding huge format glass for HD video would be absurd.

The reason the photo sites are so much bigger in this sensor, presumably, is because the resolution is much lower than Canon's still SLR cameras. It doesn't give the resolution, but since it was only described as capturing "HD video," I wouldn't be surprised to find that the sensor's native resolution is that of 1080p video: 1920x1080 pixels, or about 2 megapixels. The 1Dx, on the other hand, has a native resolution of 18 megapixels.

So far, Canon (and more recently Nikon), have been allowing users to record HD video on their SLR cameras by scaling their massive native resolutions way down to a size that you can reasonably encode and cram onto a memory card in an SLR form factor. This approach, on the other hand, seems to be to build a sensor with a lower native resolution suitable for HD video at the same size as the larger SLR sensors, so you don't have to do any down-scaling and you get massive photo sites, which gives you a huge advantage in sensitivity.

Re:Mo it is 7.5 time larger larger (3, Interesting)

Guspaz (556486) | about a year and a half ago | (#43077007)

Could not doing 3x3 binning on the existing 18MP sensor (if the controller supported it) produce similar results?

Re:Mo it is 7.5 time larger larger (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43077351)

That's the comparison you saw in the video. Binning is generally how the down-sampling is done.

Re:Mo it is 7.5 time larger larger (1)

L1mewater (557442) | about a year and a half ago | (#43077685)

CMOS sensors do not use their full surface area for photosites, unless something fundamental has changed in the last five or so years. For each photosite, there are other surface area needed for things like providing data paths off the sensor. I'm making an educated guess here and saying that having physically larger photosites allows a larger proportion of the sensor area to actually be used to collect light in this case, since less of the surface area needs to be used for other purposes. Additionally, larger photosites are less prone to noise. These are the reasons that 3x3 binning is not equivalent.

Re:Mo it is 7.5 time larger larger (5, Informative)

Entropius (188861) | about a year and a half ago | (#43077901)

They use another trick to take care of this, though: "microlenses", miniature optics in front of each pixel that channel light away from the insensitive regions (the data paths) and onto the actual light-sensitive pixels. A recent advance is "gapless microlenses", where nearly all of the light incident on the sensor winds up falling on some pixel or other.

Re:Mo it is 7.5 time larger larger (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43077749)

No, becuase of at least 2 problems (may be more I can't think of)
1) With binning, you lose the ability to detect photons that hit between the individual detectors
2) Each individual detector has a certain noise level, and the fewer photons you detect, the lower your S/N (signal-to-noise ratio) becomes. So when you bin smaller detector, you are binning a bunch of low S/N data, giving you a a results that is low S/N. If you have a single larger detector, your S/N is much better.

Re:Mo it is 7.5 time larger larger (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43077525)

Don't they say its a video only sensor? If its consumer grade then most consumer cam corders do not have changeable lenses.

Re:Mo it is 7.5 time larger larger (4, Interesting)

Shag (3737) | about a year and a half ago | (#43077019)

19-micron pixels seem big if you're comparing them to DSLRs, where everything has to fit into a nice little portable package. But it's not at all an unusual size in science-grade detectors used for astronomical instrumentation. At work [naoj.org] our instruments [naoj.org] use detectors with pixel sizes ranging from 13.5 to 50 microns.

I might be a little more impressed that they're doing this at video frame-rates, and without cryogenics...

Re:Mo it is 7.5 time larger larger (1)

zenith1111 (1465261) | about a year and a half ago | (#43077251)

I'm not familiar with the instruments described in your link, but they don't look either cheap or suitable to use in a consumer video camera. The clips of the meteor shower and the guy with the incense looked like they were taken at video frame rates, that prototype camera looks like it can be hiding a Peltier cooler, thoughttp://hardware.slashdot.org/story/13/03/05/0219240/canon-shows-the-most-sensitive-camera-sensor-in-the-world#h.

Re:Mo it is 7.5 time larger larger (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43077775)

If you are talking about the size of the camera, I doubt it's that large because of cooling. My guess is, being a prototype, the electronics aren't all refined yet to fit neatly into a compact space.

Re:pixels 7.5 larger (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43076825)

Obviously they didn't mean feet, but light-years. The only sensible unit.

Freaking Amazing (1)

noobermin (1950642) | about a year and a half ago | (#43076643)

This is just so awesome. As a Nikon fan, I'm a little upset it's canon, lol. But no, this is awesome.

(in before paranoia about big gubermint surveillance, etc, please go away, just enjoy the cool tech)

Re:Freaking Amazing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43076723)

We can't have nice things here. :)

It really is cool, though. I'm sure it won't be in my price range for another 500 years, but it'd be really cool to have that on my telescope.

Re:Freaking Amazing (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43077047)

We can't have nice things here. :)

It really is cool, though. I'm sure it won't be in my price range for another 500 years, but it'd be really cool to have that on my telescope.

500 years? When I read the title summary, the first thing my Moore's-law tuned brain thought of was "in the world? Pfft, yeah, until 3PM when Nikon announces theirs."

This tech will be old hat and 50% off by Christmas at the rate we're pumping out gigapixels today.

Re:Freaking Amazing (2)

jtownatpunk.net (245670) | about a year and a half ago | (#43076743)

Canon fo' life, yo!

Re:Freaking Amazing (1)

Ford Prefect (8777) | about a year and a half ago | (#43076827)

I'm more worried that a zombie Stanley Kubrick [wikipedia.org] will rise from the grave, wanting to shoot another film with available light.

(Lit by candlelight? Yeah, okay. Lit by a single stick of burning incense? That's just taking the proverbial.)

Re:Freaking Amazing (3, Insightful)

dwywit (1109409) | about a year and a half ago | (#43077049)

Well, the credits of Barry Lyndon include a special thanks to Zeiss for the lenses.
 
Just goes to show, it's all in the glass - you can have as many megapixels as you want in the sensor, but if your lens isn't up to it, you're throwing away the potential of all those pixels.

Re:Freaking Amazing (3, Insightful)

walshy007 (906710) | about a year and a half ago | (#43077691)

And you can have the best glass in the world, but if your sensor is from say a kodak dcs 620, that is just a complete waste. The whole system has to be suited, one weak link kills quality.

That "full moon" "after" shot... yeah... no. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43076645)

I'm not gonna trust that until I have seen it myself.

Especially with the sky being blue from the full moon alone.

There's just that much area in a full frame. So there can only be that amount of photons coming in, no matter how sensitive your sensor is.
And of course it's just a low-resolution chip. (We have 2013. There are phones doing full HD. Anything below 4K is low resolution. Period.) Which improves the amount of light not blocked, but means it's still only HD. (I reject saying "Full" HD, since it's the only one that's actually HD, and everything else is fake/fraudulent "HD".)

Re:That "full moon" "after" shot... yeah... no. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43076717)

Gosh, you're so full of, well, the latest, most hip, wonderful.... STUFF. You must be a PRO! You know so much about light and stuff.

Re:That "full moon" "after" shot... yeah... no. (5, Informative)

Trapezium Artist (919330) | about a year and a half ago | (#43076771)

Err, of course the sky is blue under moonlight: it's just reflected sunlight, after all (but see below).

The problem is that the Moon is much fainter than the Sun and thus the overall light level is low. So low that it doesn't significantly activate the colour-sensitive cones in the human eye, meaning that you only really see with the rods in black-and-white.

But take a long exposure with a camera (or a video frame rate with this Canon sensor), and the blue will most definitely come through.

(Actually, the moonlight-illuminated sky is slightly bluer than a sunlight-illuminated one, as the Moon's slightly brown-ish colour first imprints its spectral dependence on the sunlight which bounces off it. That light is then Rayleigh-scattered off the molecules in the Earth's atmosphere, imprinting the well-known 1/lambda^4 dependence which makes the sky blue).

Re:That "full moon" "after" shot... yeah... no. (2)

sjwt (161428) | about a year and a half ago | (#43076851)

Also to your full HD comment, the 5D Mk II shoots pictures in 3861 × 2574 which is larger then 4K... so if you can take the shoots as per my other post, 4K video is possible looking like daytime under a full moon if you can get something to store that data for you..

4K = 4096 × 2160 = 8847360 pixels
5D MKII = 3861 × 2574 = 9938214 pixels

--
You have 5 Moderator Points!
Which Helpless Linux zealot/MS basher do you want to mod down today?

Re:That "full moon" "after" shot... yeah... no. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43077001)

I obviously didn't object to it being that hue, dumbass. I objected to it being *that* bright. It was a day shot. And obviously so.

Are you stupid, or just intentionally creating a straw-man?

In any case, I'm not surprised an American is gullible as fuck. I mean you guys still believe in a God. lol. Hello dark ages!

Re:That "full moon" "after" shot... yeah... no. (3, Insightful)

Trapezium Artist (919330) | about a year and a half ago | (#43077109)

Since you are posting as an AC, I have no idea whether you are one or two people, but under the assumption that the AC who posted this line:

Especially with the sky being blue from the full moon alone.

is the same as the AC who then posted this one:

I obviously didn't object to it being that hue, dumbass. I objected to it being *that* bright. It was a day shot. And obviously so.

then I'd say that's exactly what you did say.

And as for your assumption that I'm an American ... well, you haven't got a clue, mate. You're many thousands of kilometres off. There are other countries in the world where English is the native language, after all. "We have 2013" indeed.

Sometimes I really do wonder whether /. is worth the trouble.

Re:That "full moon" "after" shot... yeah... no. (2)

sjwt (161428) | about a year and a half ago | (#43077227)

no you sir are as gullible as fuck, go look at what a decent 7 year old DSLR can do under a full moon and report back.. Those of us that have them know its not staged at all.

Re:That "full moon" "after" shot... yeah... no. (2)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about a year and a half ago | (#43077431)

I objected to it being *that* bright. It was a day shot. And obviously so.

What else would you expect a night shot from a highly sensitive camera to look like? What differences would you expect to see which you are not seeing?

Re:That "full moon" "after" shot... yeah... no. (3, Interesting)

sjwt (161428) | about a year and a half ago | (#43076823)

Have you ever taken a shoot with a 50mm f:1.5 on one of today's pro cameras? If you multiple the light available by 56 times (increasing the pixle size by 7.5) you are looking at a shit load of light.

  I can shoot nice outdoor night pics under a full moon with just an F5 @ 5 seconds, drop that down to a F1.5 and that's more than 8 times the light, add this new sensor and that's 280 times more light! or about 6 FPS and note this is on a canon 5D MK I that's almost 7 and 1.2 years old..

Add in the current 3 and half year old generations improvement on the ISO and that goes from the 1600 I shoot at, to 6400, or 4 times the light and you get 24 FPS..

So thats with jsut the sensor.. If they where using F1.2 or even F1 lens and one would expect when showing such a beast and 30 FPS seems like no issue at all..

Re:That "full moon" "after" shot... yeah... no. (2)

Guspaz (556486) | about a year and a half ago | (#43077017)

Should not a 7.5x larger pixel collect 7.5x more light? It's 7.5x the area, not the linear dimensions.

Re:That "full moon" "after" shot... yeah... no. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43077929)

Should not a 7.5x larger pixel collect 7.5x more light? It's 7.5x the area, not the linear dimensions.

You are correct on that. From the article:

The newly developed CMOS sensor features pixels measuring 19 microns square in size, which is more than 7.5-times the surface area of the pixels on the CMOS sensor incorporated in Canon's top-of-the-line EOS-1D X and other digital SLR cameras

Re:That "full moon" "after" shot... yeah... no. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43077131)

Indeed on the latest pro cameras you already get ISO sensitivities of up to 204800. With f/1.4 and exposure time of 1/25s you'd get good images for illuminations of about

  50 * 1.4^2 / (1/25*204800) = 0.01 lux

There are some quite impressive videos already out there, e.g.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqwbABVxoC8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXOsueKwjOY

Re:That "full moon" "after" shot... yeah... no. (2)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about a year and a half ago | (#43076837)

Let me rewrite that for you.

There's just that much area in a pixel. So there can only be that amount of photons coming in, no matter how sensitive your sensor is.

Here's the clue: these pixels are BIGGER than before.

Quite aside from that, I don't think we're anywhere near the point where we can detect every single incoming photon, so there's still room for improvement regardless. You may as well argue that there's nothing interesting about better solar panels, because there are only so many photons htiting them.

Re:That "full moon" "after" shot... yeah... no. (2)

maeka (518272) | about a year and a half ago | (#43077447)

Quite aside from that, I don't think we're anywhere near the point where we can detect every single incoming photon, so there's still room for improvement regardless.

We're a lot closer than most people think. A hell of a lot closer than we are with solar panels.

Re:That "full moon" "after" shot... yeah... no. (1)

maeka (518272) | about a year and a half ago | (#43077467)

Bah! Forgot link.

http://www.sensorgen.info/ [sensorgen.info]

Long exposures of full moon often turn out "blue" (2)

tanveer1979 (530624) | about a year and a half ago | (#43076969)

Make it long enough, and the moon will look like the sun
Here you go, an example shot
http://tanveer.smugmug.com/Travel/Ladakh-2012/TSR/i-v7ZtdHc/0/L/DSC_5964_LR-L.jpg [smugmug.com]

Its all in the exposure

Re:Long exposures of full moon often turn out "blu (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43076999)

Re:Long exposures of full moon often turn out "blue"

Unless it's a video; in which case it will just turn "boring".

Re:That "full moon" "after" shot... yeah... no. (3, Informative)

opusman (33143) | about a year and a half ago | (#43077407)

Moonlight is just reflected sunlight, you just need more of it to make the colours come out.

E.g. see http://www.flickr.com/photos/dansdata/3074862610/ [flickr.com] for an example - this photo was taken under a full moon, 30 second exposure.

Impressive (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43076647)

My friend will love this for his strip club shots.

"comparable sensor" (1)

SteveAstro (209000) | about a year and a half ago | (#43076677)

....and all CMOS sensors are inferior to CCDs for noise at low light levels, so this is just a good CMOS sensor. CCD noise, when cooled, is measured in electrons per hour.

Re:"comparable sensor" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43076751)

....and all CMOS sensors are inferior to CCDs for noise at low light levels, so this is just a good CMOS sensor. CCD noise, when cooled, is measured in electrons per hour.

If you watch the video, they are comparing it to CCDs, specifically a three electron-multiplying CDD (EMCCD) sensor system.

7.5 what? (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about a year and a half ago | (#43076687)

You accidentally the units. 7.5%, 7.5x, 7.5nm...

Re:7.5 what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43076715)

7.5 times, according to TFA.
With standard slashdot quality TFA could have been about MRI machines 7.5 years ago so you always need to check it to make sure that the question is relevant.

Sex 3ith a sponge (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43076689)

nati1onal gay 8igger argued by Eric

This will be great... (1)

dohzer (867770) | about a year and a half ago | (#43076705)

... for when my 'subject' turns off her bedroom light.

Re:This will be great... (1)

Chrisq (894406) | about a year and a half ago | (#43076787)

... for when my 'subject' turns off her bedroom light.

Next time I'm with your mum I'll be sure to close the curtains

Re:This will be great... (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about a year and a half ago | (#43076957)

How is your mom?

Terrible Video (1)

technix4beos (471838) | about a year and a half ago | (#43076709)

Whats up with the 1990's 640 x 360 video resolution? This is 2013 for fucks sake. Also, tripods exist.

Re:Terrible Video (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43076803)

The canon article refers to full hd video.

Amazing but (2)

hcs_$reboot (1536101) | about a year and a half ago | (#43076711)

something was missing in the sample video: a scene having a high contrast - eg a dark area + the Moon above, or an interior scene where the sun shines through a window + the back of the room in the dark, or a well-lit city + milky way above. How does the camera behave in that case? Does it record enough information (very HDR) to allow the post processing software to balance areas (using complex algorithms, like current HDR programs on DSLR), resulting in both areas clearly visible to the naked eye? Or, instead, the dark area will be clean visible whereas the well lit area will be burned - ie white? That has been (and still is) the problem even with DSLR, and that could be worse with a ultra-sensitive sensor.

Re:Amazing but (4, Interesting)

ADRA (37398) | about a year and a half ago | (#43076739)

That's the fundamental rule of how cameras function. Without such a limitation, you'd need incremental exposure timing/capture which I don't believe any sensor's can perform, then you need to actually process the HDR'ness of the image, which is quite frankly very subjective. One may choose to blind the viewer with the light shining through the window, or one may want to see the house across the street. This is an artisitic quality that needs to be supported regardless of which technology you choose. In the down to earth point of view, you may look into bracketing, which can at least support HDR from most decent SLR's, but of course even those techniques require two shots, meaning basically absoltely still shots. The real HDR shots are taken with prism splitters into two bodies, but that means two identical cameras with a custom expensive setup... Well, nobody said the perfection was cheap.

Re:Amazing but (1)

locater16 (2326718) | about a year and a half ago | (#43077257)

This true, even the most sensitive cameras can't capture nearly the range of the human eye, or the resolution per millimeter for that matter. But as pixel size gets larger the range of light captureable tends to increase, with such large pixels I wonder how this stands up. It might do quite well with a single exposure all on its own, at least versus other comparable full frame sensors.

Re:Amazing but (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43076761)

Good question.
I'd say that at the High ISOs they're shooting (maybe 1 000 000!), dynamic range should be be poor and only include a few stops.
I you want high DR, shoot at 100 ISO or lower!

You are confusing it with dynamic range (4, Informative)

tanveer1979 (530624) | about a year and a half ago | (#43076947)

Sensitivity and dynamic range are separate things. You can have an extremely sensitive sensor, pushing an equiv of ISO 12800 or even more, but dynamic range may only be 8-10EV
Even the best of the best have around 13EV of dynamic range(eg Nikon D7000) at ISO 100. As you increase ISO, the dynamic range suffers, and noise increases. Getting to above 14-15EV is very very difficult. You can do it in post processing(HDR combination of multiple exposures)

Re:Amazing but (4, Interesting)

dinfinity (2300094) | about a year and a half ago | (#43076987)

If dynamic range is important to you, you may be interested in Rambus' new technology:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/2013/02/27/rambus-shows-binaryt-pixel-sensor-technology-for-expanded-dynamic-range [dpreview.com]

Re:Amazing but (1)

jools33 (252092) | about a year and a half ago | (#43077025)

The problem with the binary pixel solution is that it requires essentially a multiple exposure - so you will not get a clean single image. You can equally just take multiple exposures and use Photomatix or similar for HDR processing for the equivalent effect.

Re:Amazing but (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43077061)

The problem with the binary pixel solution is that it requires essentially a multiple exposure - so you will not get a clean single image. You can equally just take multiple exposures and use Photomatix or similar for HDR processing for the equivalent effect.

Multiple exposures?

You know every now and then, it seems they "discover" a tech and try and re-market it as something else. Sure, higher quality images, but this sure as hell sounds a lot like bracketing to me. Hardly a new concept.

Re:Amazing but (1)

Njovich (553857) | about a year and a half ago | (#43077507)

I'm no fan of Rambus, but where do you get that? The link you are replying to repeatedly talks about single exposure, and a quick Google gives similar results.

End of MegaPixel race ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43076725)

TFA do not say anything about pixel count.
But a simple computation (24mmx36mm , 19mu/pixel) give 2.5 Mpx.
Probably not a value that Canon want to show too prominently, "Full HD" is better for marketing.

Re:End of MegaPixel race ? (1)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about a year and a half ago | (#43076821)

That's about 1200 lines and this sensor is designed for video recording.

Pics or it didn't... (1)

caspy7 (117545) | about a year and a half ago | (#43076795)

Oh...I guess it did happen.

Re:Pics or it didn't... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43077435)

But that's video! Video isn't pics!

Re:Pics or it didn't... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43077779)

Actually, video is pics. A lot of pics. NTSC video is approximately 30 pics per second!

Still CMOS (1)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about a year and a half ago | (#43076815)

Still has the potential for tearing during fast motion recording, as the pixels are scanned one by one, not captured all at once. Apparently global shutters for cmos sensors is uncommon.

Re:Still CMOS (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43077409)

Apparently global shutters for cmos sensors is uncommon.

No, the sensor parts are common. ASICs powerful enough to read them - less so.

Re:Still CMOS (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43077713)

Apparently global shutters for cmos sensors is uncommon.

No, the sensor parts are common. ASICs powerful enough to read them - less so.

Available, yes, common, no. And these high frame rate global shutter sensors are used in specific applications with 'special needs' that are best served by an fpga.

Youtube link (1)

Card (30431) | about a year and a half ago | (#43076857)

The same video is also available at youtube [youtube.com] , which presumably has more bandwidth than Canon's poor server.

Si, my first thought... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43076917)

...is there a still version for astronomy?

Re:Si, my first thought... (1)

ledow (319597) | about a year and a half ago | (#43077895)

Canon already do two still astronomy cameras (well, one since they discontinued the 20a), so it's quite possible this could form the technology of the next one they produce.

However, the 60da is already 30% more expensive despite having nothing more than a firmware change and the removal of an IR filter from the 60d. God knows what this would cost in a consumer technology, let alone a specialist astronomical version.

I think you'd be better off with a bigger telescope, to be honest.

Not the most sensitive camera sensor in the world. (1)

serviscope_minor (664417) | about a year and a half ago | (#43076933)

Perhaps the most sensitive in its class.

It's a CMOS sensor. The sop end SCMOS ones are capable of photon counting with a quantum efficiency in the high 70%s. The best EMCCDs push that up to about 85% or so. With cooling, the readout noise is very low.

This may be an excellent standard sensor, but more sensitive ones certainly exist.

Large pixels are great for standard photography though.

Still photography? (1)

Viceice (462967) | about a year and a half ago | (#43076949)

I would actually like to see them implement this in a still camera. Cut the megapixels down to 2 or 3 (this is more then enough to put online and ), and make it 7x more sensitive than today's still cameras.

Useful for more than just cinema (1)

Zouden (232738) | about a year and a half ago | (#43076983)

This sensor would be fantastic for microscopy. The current range of "scientific" cameras are woefully under-specced even compared to consumer DSLRs (tiny sensors, small pixels, high noise level even with peltier cooling). Canon can eliminate Leica from that market with a product like this.

Sensitive sensor (1)

Compact Dick (518888) | about a year and a half ago | (#43077011)

Hopefully, it won't plead for too many trips to the psychotherapist.

Re:Sensitive sensor (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43077741)

Hopefully, it won't plead for too many trips to the psychotherapist.

.. complaining about insensitive clods.

So much colour (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43077137)

How can the camera capture all those colours in full moon, that makes no sense to me. In low light conditions it should be almost black and white, can anyone more knowledgeable explain this to me?

Not impressed with HF G10 (0)

Tasha26 (1613349) | about a year and a half ago | (#43077153)

Bought a Canon Legria HF G10, very pricey! It comes with same claims that it is very good in low light conditions. I didn't find that to be true. Noisy and pixely is more like it. Don't know what to believe in now and who regulates their claims.

Re:Not impressed with HF G10 (1)

EmagGeek (574360) | about a year and a half ago | (#43077523)

I dunno, I might expect a camera that took pictures in discrete pieces called "pixels" to take pictures that were "pixely," since those pictures would inevitably be constructed out of those "pixels."

But, one big complaint I have is that my house looks really "bricky." I'll have to get someone on that right away.

Re:Not impressed with HF G10 (1)

ledow (319597) | about a year and a half ago | (#43077923)

About the only claim on the Canon website I can find to that effect is:

"The light gathering area of the pixels is 160% greater than a conventional CMOS, for wider dynamic range and better low-light performance."

Nowhere does it promise some miraculous low-light effect. And it very much depends on what you class as a "conventional" CMOS.

And you can pay the same price for even a basic SLR Canon nowadays, let alone a HD camcorder, so I wouldn't be expecting anything miraculous from such a product.

My TV claims to offer a "better picture" and all sorts. I paid £200 for it. Chances are that it would never do anything miraculous. Same thing.

Contrarily to most of the wailers here... (1)

vikingpower (768921) | about a year and a half ago | (#43077259)

... I tend to think that is an important R & D intermediary result, somewhere between 5 and 6 when speaking in Technology Readiness Levels. Canon is not going to sell this "as is", methinks. But it is important proof to them that they are on the right way. Which is typically what you want from reaching TRL 5 or 6....

Re:Contrarily to most of the wailers here... (1)

gatkinso (15975) | about a year and a half ago | (#43077395)

NASA managers developed the TRL concept to cushion the statement "we're not finished yet." It is by far the most useless metric in industry, which is probably why DOD adopted it.

Nice... (1)

Lumpy (12016) | about a year and a half ago | (#43077375)

So why have the not been upgrading sensors? Nikon is eating their lunch lately with Sony's latest also beating them. You have to hang your head low when Sony beats you.

All of the camera lines have been stagnant in the sensors and MP for years. the Rebel should be 24MP, the 5D MK III should have been 30+MP and the 1DS should have been upgraded to ungodly nearly medium format resolutions by now.

Nikon is doing that, Sony is catching up.... What the hell is wrong with canon? All I can see is they are busy adding flip out touchscreens and trying to convince people that its a "feature"

Re:Nice... (1)

walshy007 (906710) | about a year and a half ago | (#43077849)

Nikon is eating their lunch lately with Sony's latest also beating them. You have to hang your head low when Sony beats you.

You do realize that the nikon d800 and d600 use _sony_ sensors right?

All I can see is they are busy adding flip out touchscreens and trying to convince people that its a "feature"

All they've been doing is making their sensors more sensitive yielding better noise at the same iso and higher iso settings to use.

The really interesting thing is canon are _still_ on a 500nm fab process for their full frame sensors. The old nikon d3s used a 350nm process and still couldn't beat canon. The sony sensors used in the d800 use a 180nm process.

This makes me wonder what kind of crazy things canon will come up with once they do switch process.

Please don't critisize the sensor (1)

feedayeen (1322473) | about a year and a half ago | (#43077381)

... and avoid sharply worded questions.

I thought the lossy part of MPEG... (2)

gatkinso (15975) | about a year and a half ago | (#43077387)

...eliminates much of the information that humans cannot see.

(Which is why the big view screen on Star Trek probably does not use an MPEG codec... Klingons would think humans were weirdly colored blocky beings).

Video demo (1)

flimflammer (956759) | about a year and a half ago | (#43077465)

Would have been nice to see the video demo in HD.

Am I the only one (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43077655)

who read that headline in Jeremy Clarkson's voice?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>