Re:Sony Releases Stacked CMOS Sensor for Smartphones with 48...
by snowwrestler on Tuesday July 24, 2018 @09:01AM
(#17600583)
Some previous examples of "effective" megapixels:
- The Nikon D1x had about 6 million rectangular photon wells on the sensor. But by doubling them up in processing (to make square final pixels), Nikon claimed about 10 million effective pixels. Needless to say, when actual 10 MP sensors debuted (sensors with 10 million photon wells), everyone stopped using their D1x's.
- Fuji used a diagonal array of photon wells on the sensor in the Finepix S2 camera, and claimed that through interpolation, this provided 12 megapixels of effective resolution. Again, once actual 12 MP sensors debuted, the difference was obvious.
- Sigma used a Foveon sensor with about 3.5 million photon wells in their S9, but because each photon well independently sensed red, green, and blue wavelengths (at different depths in the well), Sigma claimed a "3x factor" that allowed their software to produce about 10 million effective pixels in the final image. How'd that go... you guessed it, the vast majority of people preferred sensors with 10 million photon wells.
In short, there are plenty of examples of using computer processing to produce a high number of "effective" pixels, but that doesn't mean the final image will meet user expectations. I predict a pretty obvious difference between an "effective" 48 MP image from this stacked sensor array, vs. an image from, say, a Nikon D850.
That said, even though it's a compromise... compromises sometimes make sense. A D850 is very heavy and very expensive.
EDIT to add: The D1x was good enough to convince National Geographic to use that camera for their first all-digital photo story. I went to the live event at Nat Geo headquarters where they had some 20x30 prints on display, and they did look amazing. I believe they took the D1x 10MP image and sized it up using Genuine Fractals.
- The Nikon D1x had about 6 million rectangular photon wells on the sensor. But by doubling them up in processing (to make square final pixels), Nikon claimed about 10 million effective pixels. Needless to say, when actual 10 MP sensors debuted (sensors with 10 million photon wells), everyone stopped using their D1x's.
- Fuji used a diagonal array of photon wells on the sensor in the Finepix S2 camera, and claimed that through interpolation, this provided 12 megapixels of effective resolution. Again, once actual 12 MP sensors debuted, the difference was obvious.
- Sigma used a Foveon sensor with about 3.5 million photon wells in their S9, but because each photon well independently sensed red, green, and blue wavelengths (at different depths in the well), Sigma claimed a "3x factor" that allowed their software to produce about 10 million effective pixels in the final image. How'd that go... you guessed it, the vast majority of people preferred sensors with 10 million photon wells.
In short, there are plenty of examples of using computer processing to produce a high number of "effective" pixels, but that doesn't mean the final image will meet user expectations. I predict a pretty obvious difference between an "effective" 48 MP image from this stacked sensor array, vs. an image from, say, a Nikon D850.
That said, even though it's a compromise... compromises sometimes make sense. A D850 is very heavy and very expensive.
EDIT to add: The D1x was good enough to convince National Geographic to use that camera for their first all-digital photo story. I went to the live event at Nat Geo headquarters where they had some 20x30 prints on display, and they did look amazing. I believe they took the D1x 10MP image and sized it up using Genuine Fractals.
http://www.robgalbraith.com/multi_pageff3f.html?cid=7-6450-6...