Sony's new sensor. "white" pixel filtering?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, Jan 23, 2012.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    RichA, Jan 23, 2012
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Mxsmanic
    <> wrote:

    > > Notice most of these "innovations" like back-lit sensors end up in
    > > camera phones and crappy P&S's?

    >
    > If they aren't reliable or performant enough to be used in pro equipment, they
    > might be used in consumer equipment first, in order to get the bugs out.


    the reason is that cameras with tiny sensors such as cellphones have
    significantly more limitations than pro cameras with larger sensors,
    therefore, these innovations are needed a whole lot more with the
    smaller sensor. eventually, they'll migrate to other systems. there's
    no conspiracy here.
    nospam, Jan 23, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. RichA

    RichA Guest

    Re: Sony's new sensor. "white" pixel filtering?

    On Jan 23, 5:03 pm, nospam <> wrote:
    > In article <>, Mxsmanic
    >
    > <> wrote:
    > > > Notice most of these "innovations" like back-lit sensors end up in
    > > > camera phones and crappy P&S's?

    >
    > > If they aren't reliable or performant enough to be used in pro equipment, they
    > > might be used in consumer equipment first, in order to get the bugs out..

    >
    > the reason is that cameras with tiny sensors such as cellphones have
    > significantly more limitations than pro cameras with larger sensors,
    > therefore, these innovations are needed a whole lot more with the
    > smaller sensor. eventually, they'll migrate to other systems. there's
    > no conspiracy here.


    Think those new technologies will compensate for noise now that
    they've gone in three years from 1-2 megapixels to 8 in cellphones?
    RichA, Jan 23, 2012
    #3
  4. RichA

    nospam Guest

    Re: Sony's new sensor. "white" pixel filtering?

    In article
    <>,
    RichA <> wrote:

    > > > > Notice most of these "innovations" like back-lit sensors end up in
    > > > > camera phones and crappy P&S's?

    > >
    > > > If they aren't reliable or performant enough to be used in pro equipment,
    > > > they might be used in consumer equipment first, in order to get the bugs out.

    > >
    > > the reason is that cameras with tiny sensors such as cellphones have
    > > significantly more limitations than pro cameras with larger sensors,
    > > therefore, these innovations are needed a whole lot more with the
    > > smaller sensor. eventually, they'll migrate to other systems. there's
    > > no conspiracy here.

    >
    > Think those new technologies will compensate for noise now that
    > they've gone in three years from 1-2 megapixels to 8 in cellphones?


    have you even looked at images coming out of modern cellphone cameras?

    many of them are actually quite good, so good that in many cases, the
    images are better than from point & shoots from not that long ago.
    nospam, Jan 24, 2012
    #4
  5. RichA

    Trevor Guest

    Re: Sony's new sensor. "white" pixel filtering?

    "nospam" <> wrote in message
    news:230120121646252323%...
    > In article
    > <>,
    > RichA <> wrote:
    > have you even looked at images coming out of modern cellphone cameras?
    > many of them are actually quite good, so good that in many cases, the
    > images are better than from point & shoots from not that long ago.


    That's sometimes true if you are happy with the usual limited lens range and
    speed, flash range, (if any) and a whole lot of other serious limitations in
    anything other than *ideal* conditions. But why only compare with stuff from
    "not that long ago" rather than like with like, and dollar for dollar! I
    even know someone who bought a Nokia for it's camera and then complained
    about the Symbian OS. I did warn them!

    Trevor.
    Trevor, Jan 24, 2012
    #5
  6. RichA

    nospam Guest

    Re: Sony's new sensor. "white" pixel filtering?

    In article <jfl0nq$beb$>, Trevor <>
    wrote:

    > > have you even looked at images coming out of modern cellphone cameras?
    > > many of them are actually quite good, so good that in many cases, the
    > > images are better than from point & shoots from not that long ago.

    >
    > That's sometimes true if you are happy with the usual limited lens range and
    > speed, flash range, (if any) and a whole lot of other serious limitations in
    > anything other than *ideal* conditions. But why only compare with stuff from
    > "not that long ago" rather than like with like, and dollar for dollar!


    what about the limitation of what fits into your pocket? the best
    camera is the one you have with you.

    my cellphone slips into my pocket. my dslr does not, which means i'm
    not going to take the dslr most of the time, and certainly not with
    multiple lenses.

    nobody is claiming that a cellphone camera is the best or most flexible
    camera in all situations. the point is that cellphone cameras are now
    quite capable and always available and produce better quality than what
    was considered very good a few years ago.

    > I even know someone who bought a Nokia for it's camera and then complained
    > about the Symbian OS. I did warn them!


    like everything, there are both good and bad products. he picked a bad
    one.
    nospam, Jan 24, 2012
    #6
  7. RichA

    nospam Guest

    Re: Sony's new sensor. "white" pixel filtering?

    In article <>, David J.
    Littleboy <> wrote:

    > > what about the limitation of what fits into your pocket? the best
    > > camera is the one you have with you.

    >
    > My 5D2 with the Voigtlander 40/2.0 goes in my briefcase, and goes everywhere
    > said briefcase goes.


    do you take your briefcase with you everywhere you go, including places
    like a grocery store or going out to eat?

    > > nobody is claiming that a cellphone camera is the best or most flexible
    > > camera in all situations. the point is that cellphone cameras are now
    > > quite capable and always available and produce better quality than what
    > > was considered very good a few years ago.

    >
    > I wonder about that. Your generic, but high end, 3MP digicam (e.g. Olympus
    > 3040) 10 years ago took seriously great, sharp at the pixel level, 3 MP
    > photos. How do cell phone cameras really compare? Five years ago, there was
    > the 10MP Canon G7. Cell phones will never reach that level unless the laws
    > of physics change.


    the iphone 4s, for example, uses a 5mp backlit sensor with a 5 element
    f/2.4 lens. look at iphone 4s samples on flickr. they're quite good,
    even if you ignore the fact that it's from a camera that slips into a
    pants pocket.
    nospam, Jan 24, 2012
    #7
  8. RichA

    RichA Guest

    Re: Sony's new sensor. "white" pixel filtering?

    On Jan 24, 4:43 am, nospam <> wrote:
    > In article <>, David J.


    > the iphone 4s, for example, uses a 5mp backlit sensor with a 5 element
    > f/2.4 lens. look at iphone 4s samples on flickr. they're quite good,
    > even if you ignore the fact that it's from a camera that slips into a
    > pants pocket.


    Carry a smaller camera, but you should never feel you are treading on
    toes by carrying a real camera. People are too concerned over what
    others might "think" or of deviating from the "norm." I never thought
    I'd see the day when photography might be characterized by people
    doing the "Hitler salute" with a cellphone to capture an image. To me,
    THAT is embarrassing.
    RichA, Jan 24, 2012
    #8
  9. Re: Sony's new sensor. "white" pixel filtering?

    "RichA" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Jan 24, 4:43 am, nospam <> wrote:
    >> In article <>, David J.

    >
    >> the iphone 4s, for example, uses a 5mp backlit sensor with a 5 element
    >> f/2.4 lens. look at iphone 4s samples on flickr. they're quite good,
    >> even if you ignore the fact that it's from a camera that slips into a
    >> pants pocket.

    >
    > Carry a smaller camera, but you should never feel you are treading on
    > toes by carrying a real camera. People are too concerned over what
    > others might "think" or of deviating from the "norm." I never thought
    > I'd see the day when photography might be characterized by people
    > doing the "Hitler salute" with a cellphone to capture an image. To me,
    > THAT is embarrassing.


    Small cameras or using the one in your phone are simply a matter of
    convenience - size and weight.

    David
    David J Taylor, Jan 24, 2012
    #9
  10. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    Re: Sony's new sensor. "white" pixel filtering?

    "David J Taylor" <> wrote:
    >"RichA" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> On Jan 24, 4:43 am, nospam <> wrote:
    >>> In article <>, David J.

    >>
    >>> the iphone 4s, for example, uses a 5mp backlit sensor with a 5 element
    >>> f/2.4 lens. look at iphone 4s samples on flickr. they're quite good,
    >>> even if you ignore the fact that it's from a camera that slips into a
    >>> pants pocket.

    >>
    >> Carry a smaller camera, but you should never feel you are treading on
    >> toes by carrying a real camera. People are too concerned over what
    >> others might "think" or of deviating from the "norm." I never thought
    >> I'd see the day when photography might be characterized by people
    >> doing the "Hitler salute" with a cellphone to capture an image. To me,
    >> THAT is embarrassing.

    >
    >Small cameras or using the one in your phone are simply a matter of
    >convenience - size and weight.



    A cameraphone offers the ultimate in convenience by not having to
    carry a camera ...

    While noting people's comments here about improved sensors in the
    latest smartphones, I was more impressed with the quality of the 2 MP
    images from my old iPhone 3G than those from my 8 MP HTC Sensation or
    my partner's 5 MP iPhone 4. Cramming ever more pixels on a miniscule
    sensor plays havoc, with a huge loss in dynamic range. And who needs
    more than 2 or 3 MP for the sort of images they take with a phone?

    Polaroid's new camera looks interesting, being based on a smartphone
    that didn't reach the market, but with the phone feature removed. ;-)
    Bruce, Jan 24, 2012
    #10
  11. Re: Sony's new sensor. "white" pixel filtering?

    "Bruce" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    []
    > A cameraphone offers the ultimate in convenience by not having to
    > carry a camera ...
    >
    > While noting people's comments here about improved sensors in the
    > latest smartphones, I was more impressed with the quality of the 2 MP
    > images from my old iPhone 3G than those from my 8 MP HTC Sensation or
    > my partner's 5 MP iPhone 4. Cramming ever more pixels on a miniscule
    > sensor plays havoc, with a huge loss in dynamic range. And who needs
    > more than 2 or 3 MP for the sort of images they take with a phone?
    >
    > Polaroid's new camera looks interesting, being based on a smartphone
    > that didn't reach the market, but with the phone feature removed. ;-)


    The only cameras like that I've used, and then only on a handful of
    occasions, are my Nokia 2600 ("VGA" resolution), and those in the iPad2!
    The latter has VGA at the front, which is "OK" for Skype, and 960 x 720 at
    the back (less even than my Coolpix 900 from 1988!). So I claim no
    experience of the better examples available today. The shots which Alfred
    Molon showed were not at all bad, though. Even with just 3 MP, an
    A4-sized print can look impressive - well, until you put it next to a 12
    MP DSLR equivalent. Quite agree that for very small sensors the pixel
    density is far too high.

    [As I make less than a voice call per week I don't need a fancy phone, so
    I have the cheapest acceptable PAYG model I could get.]

    Haven't seen anything about this Polaroid. Were I to change, it would
    likely be to either a mirror-less Nikon which natively used my existing DX
    lenses, or to a more compact micro-4/3 to make for a smaller overall
    outfit, but I would want acceptable images at ISO 3200.

    Cheers,
    David
    David J Taylor, Jan 24, 2012
    #11
  12. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    Re: Sony's new sensor. "white" pixel filtering?

    "David J Taylor" <> wrote:
    <snip>
    >Haven't seen anything about this Polaroid.



    Here it is:
    http://preview.tinyurl.com/75jl59z
    or:
    <http://photorumors.com/2012/01/11/polaroid-launches-sc1630-the-worlds-first-android-hd-smart-camera/>



    >Were I to change, it would
    >likely be to either a mirror-less Nikon which natively used my existing DX
    >lenses



    Ain't gonna happen. Sadly, Nikon missed the boat here.


    >or to a more compact micro-4/3 to make for a smaller overall
    >outfit, but I would want acceptable images at ISO 3200.



    I find the images from my Panasonic LUMIX DMC-G3 are acceptable at ISO
    1600, but I think 3200 is a stop too far - for now.

    The new Olympus OM-D might take Four Thirds sensors that bit further,
    or it might not. We will know soon after February 8.
    Bruce, Jan 24, 2012
    #12
  13. RichA

    nospam Guest

    Re: Sony's new sensor. "white" pixel filtering?

    In article <>, Bruce
    <> wrote:

    > While noting people's comments here about improved sensors in the
    > latest smartphones, I was more impressed with the quality of the 2 MP
    > images from my old iPhone 3G than those from my 8 MP HTC Sensation or
    > my partner's 5 MP iPhone 4.


    bullshit. your iphone 4 is defective. the camera in the iphone 3g (and
    original iphone which had the same camera) were *horrible*. an iphone 4
    camera is in an entirely different league compared to the 3g. even an
    iphone 3gs camera is significantly better than what was in the 3g.

    > Cramming ever more pixels on a miniscule
    > sensor plays havoc, with a huge loss in dynamic range.


    except when you flip it around and have a backlit sensor, as in the
    iphone 4 & 4s.

    > And who needs
    > more than 2 or 3 MP for the sort of images they take with a phone?


    most people do.
    nospam, Jan 24, 2012
    #13
  14. Re: Sony's new sensor. "white" pixel filtering?

    In rec.photo.digital nospam <> wrote:
    > In article <jfl0nq$beb$>, Trevor <>
    > wrote:


    >> > have you even looked at images coming out of modern cellphone cameras?
    >> > many of them are actually quite good, so good that in many cases, the
    >> > images are better than from point & shoots from not that long ago.

    >>
    >> That's sometimes true if you are happy with the usual limited lens range and
    >> speed, flash range, (if any) and a whole lot of other serious limitations in
    >> anything other than *ideal* conditions. But why only compare with stuff from
    >> "not that long ago" rather than like with like, and dollar for dollar!


    > what about the limitation of what fits into your pocket? the best
    > camera is the one you have with you.


    > my cellphone slips into my pocket. my dslr does not, which means i'm
    > not going to take the dslr most of the time, and certainly not with
    > multiple lenses.


    > nobody is claiming that a cellphone camera is the best or most flexible
    > camera in all situations. the point is that cellphone cameras are now
    > quite capable and always available and produce better quality than what
    > was considered very good a few years ago.


    Several years ago I chose a P&S for its ability to snap an A4 page of
    small text, with even smaller footnotes, and capture an image in which
    all of it was clearly legible. Only the better ones could do that.

    I recently chose a cheap smartphone without giving a damn about how
    good its camera was. I was surprised and delighted to discover it
    passed that "page photocopy" test.

    --
    Chris Malcolm
    Chris Malcolm, Jan 24, 2012
    #14
  15. Re: Sony's new sensor. "white" pixel filtering?

    In rec.photo.digital Mxsmanic <> wrote:
    > RichA writes:


    >> Carry a smaller camera, but you should never feel you are treading on
    >> toes by carrying a real camera. People are too concerned over what
    >> others might "think" or of deviating from the "norm." I never thought
    >> I'd see the day when photography might be characterized by people
    >> doing the "Hitler salute" with a cellphone to capture an image. To me,
    >> THAT is embarrassing.


    > Future generations will think that people today had a strange disease that
    > made one arm hugely larger than the other, since almost every photo they see
    > will feature a person's huge arm extending towards the image border.


    A remarkable disease that always makes the nearer arm or leg larger,
    the more distant one smaller. And does the same with linear uniformity
    to chairs, plates, mugs, everything in sight. Sounds very like
    perspective to me. There's no cure, but it can be much ameliorated by
    avoiding short focal length lenses.

    --
    Chris Malcolm
    Chris Malcolm, Jan 24, 2012
    #15
  16. RichA

    nospam Guest

    Re: Sony's new sensor. "white" pixel filtering?

    In article <>, Chris Malcolm
    <> wrote:

    > > nobody is claiming that a cellphone camera is the best or most flexible
    > > camera in all situations. the point is that cellphone cameras are now
    > > quite capable and always available and produce better quality than what
    > > was considered very good a few years ago.

    >
    > Several years ago I chose a P&S for its ability to snap an A4 page of
    > small text, with even smaller footnotes, and capture an image in which
    > all of it was clearly legible. Only the better ones could do that.
    >
    > I recently chose a cheap smartphone without giving a damn about how
    > good its camera was. I was surprised and delighted to discover it
    > passed that "page photocopy" test.


    some smartphone cameras are good enough to ocr text. it may not be a
    replacement for a desktop scanner, but it works surprisingly well.
    there are even augmented reality apps that can translate words on the
    fly and replace them in the image.
    nospam, Jan 24, 2012
    #16
  17. RichA

    tony cooper Guest

    Re: Sony's new sensor. "white" pixel filtering?

    On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 10:01:13 -0800, nospam <>
    wrote:

    >In article <>, Bruce
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >> While noting people's comments here about improved sensors in the
    >> latest smartphones, I was more impressed with the quality of the 2 MP
    >> images from my old iPhone 3G than those from my 8 MP HTC Sensation or
    >> my partner's 5 MP iPhone 4.

    >
    >bullshit. your iphone 4 is defective. the camera in the iphone 3g (and
    >original iphone which had the same camera) were *horrible*. an iphone 4
    >camera is in an entirely different league compared to the 3g. even an
    >iphone 3gs camera is significantly better than what was in the 3g.
    >
    >> Cramming ever more pixels on a miniscule
    >> sensor plays havoc, with a huge loss in dynamic range.

    >
    >except when you flip it around and have a backlit sensor, as in the
    >iphone 4 & 4s.
    >
    >> And who needs
    >> more than 2 or 3 MP for the sort of images they take with a phone?

    >
    >most people do.


    I can only speak from my own experience and observation, but the
    overwhelming majority of phone images taken and sent are sent to other
    mobile phones with very small screens. With most phones, unless it's
    a close-up, the object photographed is a tiny little thing viewed on a
    tiny screen.

    Yes, I know phone images can be sent to tablets and other viewing
    mediums. Yes, I know images can be uploaded and viewed on regular
    screens. Yes, I know images can be saved to microSD cards. Yes, I
    know some mobile phones have somewhat larger screens than others.

    But, that's not what is done most of the time by most of the users.

    The phone's camera is mostly used for social or family sharing
    purposes to send someone an image of what's happening right now.

    There are exceptions, of course, but your use of "most people do" is
    ridiculous.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
    tony cooper, Jan 24, 2012
    #17
  18. Re: Sony's new sensor. "white" pixel filtering?

    "Bruce" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > "David J Taylor" <> wrote:
    > <snip>
    >>Haven't seen anything about this Polaroid.

    >
    >
    > Here it is:
    > http://preview.tinyurl.com/75jl59z
    > or:
    > <http://photorumors.com/2012/01/11/polaroid-launches-sc1630-the-worlds-first-android-hd-smart-camera/>


    Thanks, I had looked on DPReview but not seen it - I may not have looked
    back far enough, though.

    > I find the images from my Panasonic LUMIX DMC-G3 are acceptable at ISO
    > 1600, but I think 3200 is a stop too far - for now.


    I'll keep an eye on that line.

    > The new Olympus OM-D might take Four Thirds sensors that bit further,
    > or it might not. We will know soon after February 8.


    I will keep a much more distant eye on that - might sound great, but I
    really don't want a camera from a manufacturer who may be shut down or
    taken over at any instant.

    Cheers,
    David
    David J Taylor, Jan 24, 2012
    #18
  19. RichA

    nospam Guest

    Re: Sony's new sensor. "white" pixel filtering?

    In article <>, tony cooper
    <> wrote:

    > >> And who needs
    > >> more than 2 or 3 MP for the sort of images they take with a phone?

    > >
    > >most people do.

    >
    > I can only speak from my own experience and observation, but the
    > overwhelming majority of phone images taken and sent are sent to other
    > mobile phones with very small screens. With most phones, unless it's
    > a close-up, the object photographed is a tiny little thing viewed on a
    > tiny screen.


    your experience is limited. screens are no longer tiny and cellphone
    cameras are rapidly replacing compact cameras and in some cases dslrs.

    > Yes, I know phone images can be sent to tablets and other viewing
    > mediums. Yes, I know images can be uploaded and viewed on regular
    > screens. Yes, I know images can be saved to microSD cards. Yes, I
    > know some mobile phones have somewhat larger screens than others.
    >
    > But, that's not what is done most of the time by most of the users.


    actually, it is what's done.

    the most popular camera on flickr is not a compact p&s nor is it a
    dslr. it's the iphone 4, ahead of nikon and canon dslrs. you know,
    'real cameras.' there's even a mobile photoshop (and many other
    alternatives) to edit the images on the phone (or ipad) before
    uploading.

    <http://www.flickr.com/cameras/>

    open your eyes and take a look at what people are actually using
    cellphone cameras for (not just the iphone either), rather than from
    your limited experiences.

    > The phone's camera is mostly used for social or family sharing
    > purposes to send someone an image of what's happening right now.


    maybe the crappy cellphone cameras are used for that because they can't
    do anything else. the better cellphone cameras are used for a *lot*
    more. just look at flickr for some examples.

    > There are exceptions, of course, but your use of "most people do" is
    > ridiculous.


    not in the least. what's ridiculous are your unsubstantiated claims.
    nospam, Jan 24, 2012
    #19
  20. RichA

    tony cooper Guest

    Re: Sony's new sensor. "white" pixel filtering?

    On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 12:18:46 -0800, nospam <>
    wrote:

    >In article <>, tony cooper
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >> >> And who needs
    >> >> more than 2 or 3 MP for the sort of images they take with a phone?
    >> >
    >> >most people do.

    >>
    >> I can only speak from my own experience and observation, but the
    >> overwhelming majority of phone images taken and sent are sent to other
    >> mobile phones with very small screens. With most phones, unless it's
    >> a close-up, the object photographed is a tiny little thing viewed on a
    >> tiny screen.

    >
    >your experience is limited. screens are no longer tiny and cellphone
    >cameras are rapidly replacing compact cameras and in some cases dslrs.
    >
    >> Yes, I know phone images can be sent to tablets and other viewing
    >> mediums. Yes, I know images can be uploaded and viewed on regular
    >> screens. Yes, I know images can be saved to microSD cards. Yes, I
    >> know some mobile phones have somewhat larger screens than others.
    >>
    >> But, that's not what is done most of the time by most of the users.

    >
    >actually, it is what's done.
    >
    >the most popular camera on flickr is not a compact p&s nor is it a
    >dslr. it's the iphone 4, ahead of nikon and canon dslrs. you know,
    >'real cameras.' there's even a mobile photoshop (and many other
    >alternatives) to edit the images on the phone (or ipad) before
    >uploading.
    >
    ><http://www.flickr.com/cameras/>
    >
    >open your eyes and take a look at what people are actually using
    >cellphone cameras for (not just the iphone either), rather than from
    >your limited experiences.
    >
    >> The phone's camera is mostly used for social or family sharing
    >> purposes to send someone an image of what's happening right now.

    >
    >maybe the crappy cellphone cameras are used for that because they can't
    >do anything else. the better cellphone cameras are used for a *lot*
    >more. just look at flickr for some examples.
    >
    >> There are exceptions, of course, but your use of "most people do" is
    >> ridiculous.

    >
    >not in the least. what's ridiculous are your unsubstantiated claims.


    And your claim of what "most" people do is substantiated how? Another
    airplane survey?

    I specified that there are exceptions, but "most" means "something
    over half of all the users of camera phones". Just the vast number of
    high school kids snapping photos of each other negates your claim.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
    tony cooper, Jan 24, 2012
    #20
    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. Abrasha

    Hot pixel vs. stuck pixel

    Abrasha, Aug 2, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    8,468
    Steven Buglass
    Sep 2, 2003
  2. Tom Thackrey

    Re: Pixel size of individual Pixel

    Tom Thackrey, Sep 14, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    810
  3. Robert E. Williams

    Re: Pixel size of individual Pixel

    Robert E. Williams, Sep 14, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    536
    Don Stauffer
    Sep 16, 2003
  4. Peter H

    Fuji S3000 - 3.2 m/pixel or 6 m/pixel?

    Peter H, Nov 18, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    686
  5. Peter H
    Replies:
    43
    Views:
    1,155
    Bill M
    Dec 4, 2003
Loading...

Share This Page