Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
06-14-2007, 04:30 AM   #1
Ed in GA
Guest




New low light filter to be produced by Kodak

I wonder if this technology will be available for DSLRs

ROCHESTER, N.Y. (AP) - A year from now, capturing a crisp, clear image of a candlelit birthday party could be a piece of cake - even with a camera phone. Eastman Kodak Co. (EK) said Thursday it has developed a color-filter technology that at least doubles the sensitivity to light of the image sensor in every digital camera, enabling shutterbugs to take better pictures in poor light.

"Low light can mean trying to get a good image indoors of your kid blowing out the birthday candles. It can mean you want to take a photograph on a street corner in Paris at midnight," said Chris McNiffe, general manager of the photography company's image sensor business. "We're talking about a 2-to-4-times improvement in (light) sensitivity."

Analyst Chris Chute doesn't doubt that the new filter system, intended to supplant an industry-standard filter pattern designed by Kodak scientist Bryce Bayer in 1976, represents a breakthrough in boosting photo quality - especially when light conditions are not ideal.

"It's often the most simple concepts that can have the most profound impact," said Chute of IDC, a market research firm near Boston. "This could be revolutionary in terms of just changing that very simple filter on top of the sensor and basically allowing companies to use it in all different kinds of cameras."

Kodak expects to provide samples of its new technology to a variety of camera manufacturers in the first quarter of 2008. The technology is likely to be incorporated first in mass-market point-and-shoot cameras and camera-equipped mobile phones beginning sometime next year.

"Typically new features like this would be more likely to show up in high-end products and then trickle down," said analyst Steve Hoffenberg of Lyra Research Inc. "But I think the biggest potential benefit of this may come in the camera phone environment. Camera phones are using smaller sensors to begin with and smaller sensors generally mean smaller pixels, which means lower sensitivity."

When the shutter opens on a digital camera, an image is projected onto the sensor, which converts light into an electric charge. Most sensors use the Bayer mask: Half of the millions of cells on a checkerboard grid are filtered to collect green light and a quarter each are filtered to let through red and blue light. A computer chip then reconstructs a full color signal for each pixel in the final image.

The new method, which has been under development for more than five years, adds "panchromatic" cells that are sensitive to all wavelengths of visible light and collect a larger amount of light striking the sensor. Tailoring software algorithms to this unique new pattern enables faster shutter speeds, which reduces blurring when capturing a moving subject, McNiffe said.

06-14-2007, 05:38 AM   #2
Veteran Member
daacon's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Alberta,Canada
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 20,914
Now that is an great idea - and if it works I am sure there will be one made for all lens sizes in the DSLR world ... Low light pictures with a camera phone is kinda like lisptick on a pig ....
06-14-2007, 05:55 AM   #3
Veteran Member
stewart_photo's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Heidelberg, Germany
Posts: 1,864
Not for several more years, at least. And perhaps not ever. Kodak is not really mentioning the real reasons why this filter will likely be adopted by lower end cameras first. Since this filter rests directly over the sensor, impact on image quality will be a major concern with high image quality, high image detail, DSLR's. So while there may be some benefits from increased light sensitivity, DSLR manufacturers will avoid this technology until image quality can be truly assured. Since existing cellphones, for example, already exhibit fairly low image quality, additional loss now would be relatively insignificant.

At the same time, this technology will be less appealing in higher end DSLR's since these cameras already have fairly sensitive sensors and excellent optics. In other words, these cameras will gain the least from this type of technology. Therefore, if image quality cannot be fully assured, this technology may never actually be incorporated into DSLR's.

stewart
06-14-2007, 06:03 AM   #4
Veteran Member
stewart_photo's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Heidelberg, Germany
Posts: 1,864
QuoteOriginally posted by daacon Quote
Now that is an great idea - and if it works I am sure there will be one made for all lens sizes in the DSLR world ... Low light pictures with a camera phone is kinda like lisptick on a pig ....
This is not a filter in the conventional sense (a round piece of glass attached to the front of a lens). This is a filter that will have to be built into the camera and incorporated into the design of the sensor and image software. My previous message states why it may not gain widespread acceptance in the DSLR market - impact on image quality combined with less pronounced benefits given the advanced sensors and optics typically found in DSLR's.

stewart

06-14-2007, 06:09 AM   #5
Veteran Member
daacon's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Alberta,Canada
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 20,914
QuoteOriginally posted by stewart_photo Quote
This is not a filter in the conventional sense (a round piece of glass attached to the front of a lens). This is a filter that will have to be built into the camera and incorporated into the design of the sensor and image software. My previous message states why it may not gain widespread acceptance in the DSLR market - impact on image quality combined with less pronounced benefits given the advanced sensors and optics typically found in DSLR's.

stewart
Thanks for bursting my bubble Stewart should have read the article more closely - I am convinced the technology for this and other huge advancements are all possible - it is a matter of RD and ROI - number crunching ...
06-17-2007, 03:15 PM   #6
Senior Member
amateur6's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Rhode Island
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 177
QuoteOriginally posted by stewart_photo Quote
Not for several more years, at least. And perhaps not ever. Kodak is not really mentioning the real reasons why this filter will likely be adopted by lower end cameras first. Since this filter rests directly over the sensor, impact on image quality will be a major concern with high image quality, high image detail, DSLR's. So while there may be some benefits from increased light sensitivity, DSLR manufacturers will avoid this technology until image quality can be truly assured. Since existing cellphones, for example, already exhibit fairly low image quality, additional loss now would be relatively insignificant.

At the same time, this technology will be less appealing in higher end DSLR's since these cameras already have fairly sensitive sensors and excellent optics. In other words, these cameras will gain the least from this type of technology. Therefore, if image quality cannot be fully assured, this technology may never actually be incorporated into DSLR's.
Now, I may be wrong, but the little research I've just done seems to contradict that -- because as the article says: "Most sensors use the Bayer mask: Half of the millions of cells on a checkerboard grid are filtered to collect green light and a quarter each are filtered to let through red and blue light. A computer chip then reconstructs a full color signal for each pixel in the final image." (I saw arguments against the Bayer as justification against DSLR's vs CCDs for astrophotography)

In other words, Kodak's "filter" (bad choice of words in this context) replaces the Bayer mask which is already present in most DSLRs (including all Pentax models) -- the exception would be DSLRs using CMOS (e.g., Foveon) which yield fewer MP from the same number of detectors.

See http://www.ddisoftware.com/reviews/sd9-v-bayer/

But a more technical-minded person could correct me if I'm mistaken.
06-18-2007, 04:54 AM   #7
Veteran Member
stewart_photo's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Heidelberg, Germany
Posts: 1,864
The research you've done contradicts "impact on image quality will be a major concern" and "if image quality cannot by fully assured, this technology may never actually be incorporated into DSLR's?" Impact on image quality is always a major concern with DSLR's. Manufacturers have spent years developing and improving the existing technology and are not likely to grab at something new until it is fully proven. At the same time, manufacturers are not exactly sitting around waiting for something new since DSLR's already have fairly sensitive sensors. The existing technology will continue to improve as Kodak's technology improves, meaning the current stalemate may continue for some time. Notice I didn't say Kodak's technology will never be adopted into DSLR's. It may someday indeed offer a significant advantage over the existing technology, just certainly not anytime soon. In the meantime, Kodak will target smaller devices (such as cellphones) because the need is greater with small sensors and image quality is somewhat less of a concern.

stewart

06-19-2007, 06:50 AM   #8
Forum Member




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Connecticut USA
Posts: 73
Go Here to See Samples of Kodaks new sensor

Here a link Imaging Resource's article on the new technology with sample images:

NEWS! - Kodak: New sensor tech promises improved sensitivity
07-07-2007, 08:21 AM   #9
Senior Member
amateur6's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Rhode Island
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 177
QuoteOriginally posted by stewart_photo Quote
The research you've done contradicts "impact on image quality will be a major concern" and "if image quality cannot by fully assured, this technology may never actually be incorporated into DSLR's?" Impact on image quality is always a major concern with DSLR's.
I'm sorry, I misread your post as implying that manufacturers would never put anything between the lens and the sensor; my mistake. Of course image quality is a major concern, and that's why I think that whatever DLSR does adopt Kodak's technology will quickly gather a lot of attention, for good reason. Bayer masks eat image information and that sucks; seems to me it would be a lot easier to replace the mask than to replace the sensor, even just with an improvement in existing sensor technology (which -- and this is just opinion -- I think is pretty close to a plateau, if not there already).
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
camera, filter, image, kodak, light, phones, photography, quarter, sensor, sensors, technology
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Low light shooting capabilities GX20 at low ISO cabstar Pentax DSLR Discussion 1 12-04-2008 11:01 AM
16-50 mm 2,8 in low light brr Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 11 07-17-2008 09:00 PM
Using MF in Low Light stormdore Pentax DSLR Discussion 12 06-09-2008 02:27 PM
Low light versus Poor light d.bradley Pentax DSLR Discussion 4 07-11-2007 07:53 AM
Low Light - Low Experience - Fix $$$ ? daacon Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 35 04-26-2007 07:52 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:36 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top