Originally posted by stewart_photo 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.