Canon Patent Application: Full Frame Quad Pixel Sensor

[Canon Rumors Guy]

In this patent application (JP2023-166867) Canon looks to improve the performance and accuracy of a Quad Pixel autofocus capable sensor. If you have not been following sensor developments, Canon right now splits the pixel in half and uses the difference in the signal from the one half and the other half to determine how far

See full article...

 

[sanj]

All this is beyond my understanding. But if this improves the focus in R1, I will be delighted.

 

[Bahrd]

There are two ways of combatting this, one method is to change the direction of the split for half of the pixels. So in other words, half the pixels are vertically aligned and the other half are horizontally aligned.

Beyond my understanding is why they just haven't utilized this idea?

 

[Richard CR]

Beyond my understanding is why they just haven't utilized this idea?

well.

take 45mp R5 sensor, that now becomes a 180MP sensor for AF operations. That's a hard problem. There's sensor efficiency, heat, AF performance in the outer zones, etc,etc,etc. to deal with that you just don't have to deal with as much when it's a mere 90MP.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

The description sounds like DPAF would be fine with a square sensor.
Maybe that just means portrait vs landscape.

 

[David - Sydney]

I would have thought that the alternating vertical/ horizontal pixel split would make AF calculating easier and use less real estate in the pixel than making them all quad pixel…. But cleverer people than me are looking at the problem

 

[Richard CR]

The description sounds like DPAF would be fine with a square sensor.
Maybe that just means portrait vs landscape.

I am on the fence with that. i think it would be easier to engineer without a doubt (a square sensor) but I think QPAF would still be better.

my no gut feeling is that i'm not sure that would cause quasi-AF less optimum zones or problems with tracking. consider if you lock focus on a vertical, then pan to a horizontal, it could report back a bad AF value and so forth, it could certainly confuse the tracking algorithm.
whereas if they are all horizontal and vertical, it would make the calculations for tracking easier.

 

[Bahrd]

well.

take 45mp R5 sensor, that now becomes a 180MP sensor for AF operations. That's a hard problem. There's sensor efficiency, heat, AF performance in the outer zones, etc,etc,etc. to deal with that you just don't have to deal with as much when it's a mere 90MP.

I must've written my part ambiguously, because this is what I really wanted to point out...

 

[Pixel]

well.

take 45mp R5 sensor, that now becomes a 180MP sensor for AF operations. That's a hard problem. There's sensor efficiency, heat, AF performance in the outer zones, etc,etc,etc. to deal with that you just don't have to deal with as much when it's a mere 90MP.

Which makes it ideal for the flagship camera because they almost always have dual processors and or maybe quad processors for this?

 

[David - Sydney]

Which makes it ideal for the flagship camera because they almost always have dual processors and or maybe quad processors for this?

In these days of SoC processors with many cores (efficiency, power, GPU, etc) on one piece of silicon then the days of multiple discrete processors may be over.
On the other hand, multiple processors would spread heat hot spots and given the relatively low quantities used, it may be cheaper overall to use two in parallel rather than multiple types of processors. eg the volume for R1 would be very low but sharing a processor amongst a number of bodies (2 in R1) would mean having one SKU to order and keep in stock.

The recent Apple M3 series shows at least 10 variants and they have sufficient volume to warrant them but the volume of M3 max 16 CPU/40 GPU/16 neural cores with 128GB shared memory is going to be much lower than the more basic versions.
M3 => 8/16/24GB shared memory => 3 SKUs
M3 pro => 12 core (2 memory options), => 2 SKUs
M3 max => 14 core (2 memory options), 16 core (3 memory options) => 5 SKUs

Reducing lithography line width makes processors more power efficient (and more transistors per area). Canon is relatively less power efficient compared to Sony (battery life using CIPA measurements). Mirrorless was always going to draw more power than DLSR but it would be good to get through a day of shooting with the R5 on one battery (YMMV).
A step improvement in this regard would be appreciated by future users.

 

[vikingar]

The Canon Rumors email newsletter is different from the article and confirms R1 QPAF rumors? The article doesn't say this at the moment.

Quad Pixel AF Coming to EOS R1​

We had to sit on this information until a new patent was revealed.
One of the biggest features coming to Canon’s flagship EOS R1 next year will be the rollout of Quad Pixel Autofocus.

What are the advantages over Dual Pixel Autofocus (DPAF?)
Since image sensors are generally a 3:2 aspect ratio and not square, so the distance to the center of the image sensor is different for horizontal and vertical orientation. Quad Pixel Autofocus (QPAF) will overcome the performance difference between the two orientations.
We were told a few months ago that QPAF was ready for production for the upcoming Canon EOS R1 flagship camera, which is expected to be shown in early 2024 with availability some time later next year.
There is no mention as to whether or not the Canon EOS R5 Mark II will also receive QPAF, but we’d be surprised if it didn’t.

 

[P-visie]

The Canon Rumors email newsletter is different from the article and confirms R1 QPAF rumors? The article doesn't say this at the moment.

The Camera Insider also have an article stating that the R1 will have QPAF: “Quad Pixel Autofocus Patent Appears: Feature to appear in the EOS R1 and likely the EOS R5 Mark II”.