Panasonic patents sensor with white pixels to eliminate the IR cut filter

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, Apr 10, 2012.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    RichA, Apr 10, 2012
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. "RichA" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Good idea I guess.
    >
    > http://www.freepatentsonline.com/EP2434761A1.html


    A filter is still needed to stop the "white" pixels from having a response
    into the IR, so those pixels (at least) still need the filter, although if
    they have well-designed colour filters, only the "white" pixels will need
    a filter. But surely you could do that with well-designed RGB filters?

    It's about improving sensitivity.

    Sounds remarkably like the CMY filters which have been done before.

    David
    David J Taylor, Apr 10, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <jm1a05$50d$>, David J Taylor
    <> wrote:

    > > http://www.freepatentsonline.com/EP2434761A1.html

    >
    > A filter is still needed to stop the "white" pixels from having a response
    > into the IR, so those pixels (at least) still need the filter, although if
    > they have well-designed colour filters, only the "white" pixels will need
    > a filter. But surely you could do that with well-designed RGB filters?


    a quick skim of the patent says that infrared is removed mathematically.

    > It's about improving sensitivity.


    it's about removing the infrared cut filter, which they claim impacts
    sensitivity. i don't think it's as big of an issue as they suggest.

    > Sounds remarkably like the CMY filters which have been done before.


    thats what the w-r, w-g and w-b pixels are.
    nospam, Apr 10, 2012
    #3
  4. "nospam" <> wrote in message
    news:100420120904128840%...
    > In article <jm1a05$50d$>, David J Taylor
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> > http://www.freepatentsonline.com/EP2434761A1.html

    >>
    >> A filter is still needed to stop the "white" pixels from having a
    >> response
    >> into the IR, so those pixels (at least) still need the filter, although
    >> if
    >> they have well-designed colour filters, only the "white" pixels will
    >> need
    >> a filter. But surely you could do that with well-designed RGB filters?

    >
    > a quick skim of the patent says that infrared is removed mathematically.
    >
    >> It's about improving sensitivity.

    >
    > it's about removing the infrared cut filter, which they claim impacts
    > sensitivity. i don't think it's as big of an issue as they suggest.
    >
    >> Sounds remarkably like the CMY filters which have been done before.

    >
    > thats what the w-r, w-g and w-b pixels are.


    Yes, it's been done before. The problem with removing IR mathematically
    could be that with the larger number of photons incident on the sensor,
    the signal to noise ratio would be degraded. I agree that it's no a major
    issue, and would be surprised if anything significant results. Having
    said that, I would like to see what response a current IR cut-off filter
    actually has, to know what its impact on sensitivity actually is.
    Judgment reserved.

    David
    David J Taylor, Apr 10, 2012
    #4
  5. RichA

    RichA Guest

    Re: Panasonic patents sensor with white pixels to eliminate the IRcut filter

    On Apr 10, 11:07 am, "David J Taylor" <david-
    > wrote:
    > "nospam" <> wrote in message
    >
    > news:100420120904128840%...
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > In article <jm1a05$>, David J Taylor
    > > <> wrote:

    >
    > >> >http://www.freepatentsonline.com/EP2434761A1.html

    >
    > >> A filter is still needed to stop the "white" pixels from having a
    > >> response
    > >> into the IR, so those pixels (at least) still need the filter, although
    > >> if
    > >> they have well-designed colour filters, only the "white" pixels will
    > >> need
    > >> a filter.  But surely you could do that with well-designed RGB filters?

    >
    > > a quick skim of the patent says that infrared is removed mathematically..

    >
    > >> It's about improving sensitivity.

    >
    > > it's about removing the infrared cut filter, which they claim impacts
    > > sensitivity. i don't think it's as big of an issue as they suggest.

    >
    > >> Sounds remarkably like the CMY filters which have been done before.

    >
    > > thats what the w-r, w-g and w-b pixels are.

    >
    > Yes, it's been done before.  The problem with removing IR mathematically
    > could be that with the larger number of photons incident on the sensor,
    > the signal to noise ratio would be degraded.  I agree that it's no a major
    > issue, and would be surprised if anything significant results.  Having
    > said that, I would like to see what response a current IR cut-off filter
    > actually has, to know what its impact on sensitivity actually is.
    > Judgment reserved.
    >
    > David


    According to Leica and a few prostitutes supporting them, no impact
    which is ridiculous. They said this when the M8 flaw was discovered
    and they had to slap those cyan filters on the front of their
    cameras. A hot mirror filter (one that rejects IR) won't work, I've
    tried it.
    RichA, Apr 10, 2012
    #5
  6. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article
    <>,
    RichA <> wrote:

    > They said this when the M8 flaw was discovered
    > and they had to slap those cyan filters on the front of their
    > cameras. A hot mirror filter (one that rejects IR) won't work, I've
    > tried it.


    their fix was a hot mirror filter, not cyan filter.
    nospam, Apr 10, 2012
    #6
  7. RichA

    RichA Guest

    Re: Panasonic patents sensor with white pixels to eliminate the IRcut filter

    On Apr 10, 4:52 pm, nospam <> wrote:
    > In article
    > <>,
    >
    > RichA <> wrote:
    > > They said this when the M8 flaw was discovered
    > > and they had to slap those cyan filters on the front of their
    > > cameras.  A hot mirror filter (one that rejects IR) won't work, I've
    > > tried it.

    >
    > their fix was a hot mirror filter, not cyan filter.


    Interesting because I have a Tiffen hot mirror filter for IR rejection
    and I've tried it on cameras where I've removed the IR rejection
    filter from the front of the sensor and it doesn't work the same way.
    The IR rejection filter is cyan, the hot filters appear clear face-on
    (at least the one I have and one I saw on a Sigma DSLR) have and red
    if you tilt them, the red being the dielectric rejection coating.
    RichA, Apr 11, 2012
    #7
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. jeff liss
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    485
    Andrew
    Sep 5, 2003
  2. sobriquet
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    3,685
    NYCGRIFF
    Dec 12, 2009
  3. Bubba

    Can a CMOS Sensor Eliminate Red Flare?

    Bubba, Apr 13, 2010, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    690
    Ray Fischer
    Apr 16, 2010
  4. Wolfgang Weisselberg

    Re: Dotcom titan funds 'Mark Cuban Chair To Eliminate Stupid Patents'

    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Dec 25, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    170
    Wolfgang Weisselberg
    Jan 10, 2013
  5. RichA
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    188
    RichA
    Dec 27, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page