Sony revolutionizes the sensor world? Active Pixel Color Sampling sensor (APCS).

[Jon_D]

he also wrote he has no clue how it works...

Oh, well that makes it all ok then.

do you know exactly how a rolls royce airplane engine works?
do you fly?

it´s just the usual "it comes from sony so it must suck" denial i read here every day.
who cares how exactly it is done when it works?

Kind of like saying moving something physically at 16,000 times per second is unlikely, I guess some people don't mind writing things about which they have no clue.

so you say that they move a physical filter at 16000 frames per seconds is more likely as an electronic filter of some kind?

i have an ultrasonic cleaner at home that moves at quite some speed.
but i don´t go as far as compare it to something like a RGB filter on a sensor.

you have no clue either how the sony sensor will work.... so why are you writing about it?

 

[Jon_D]

Great. So each colour is sampled at a different time, as the colour filter physically moves in front of the pixel. This will be great for tripod based static scene shots, but will result in colour tearing - much like a field sequential display does. Bad news for video, bad news for stills of anything that moves as there will effectively be three exposures taken at different times for red, green and blue, and then all merged into one.

Plus the exposure time for each colour cannot be more than 1/3rd of the total exposure time, so I'd hazard a guess that the sensitivity isn't increased either by these larger pixels for the same resolution. And as the filter can't transition instantly between the colours, its less than 1/3rd of the exposure time available to each colour.

did you read that the sensor is able to readout 16000 times a second?

i wonder how you will see color smearing.... especially when bayer sensors are all about "smearing colors".

A 1/8000 shutter speed would only allow time for two colours at that paltry speed. Three readouts, or 24,000 per second is needed for full colour and full on tearing at the shutter speeds most of us can use right now. If long shutter speeds could be made up of hundreds or thousands of frames stacked together, then it could be good - at slow shutter speeds. Forget about it for action until that figure closes in on millions per second, but then you're still left with low sensitivity due to shorter exposure times per colour. Not to mention the processing, and how to make something move millions of times a second.

you are translating bayer sensor tech to a new sensor tech.
im not sure your example works that way for a new sensor design.

but im pretty sure sony thought about it IF this sensor is a real development...

 

[Jon_D]

There's also no guarantee that it's scalable – there's a good chance this will not make it into APS-C or larger sensors any time soon. The larger the thing being moved, the more difficult it is to move it fast enough with sufficient precision.

but who says there is something mechanical moved?
could be switched electronically.

i doubt they move something physically 16000 times a second.

For reference, the dust reduction built into our sensors moves a filter at up to 50khz (50,000 cycles per second).

and precision plays no role at all in this case.
apples and oranges.

not to mention that the dust reduction is not working all the time.
i had great doubts if this RGB filter would be a mechanical construction.

Fair point, of course, but I'm fairly certain that it would be possible to synchronise the movement of a filter array via an electro-magnetic driver (think something akin to a speaker coil) with the read-out of the sensor. On the physical side, it would actually be a relatively simple transfer-function to model (essentially a spring-mass system), especially if you compare it to something like a hard-disk drive that has to move the read head with incredible precision over a disk rotating at up to 10,000rpm.

I'm not a dedicated controls engineer, so this is about all the insight I can offer, but I think I'll place my bets on something like this.

i did not say it´s impossible.

i say that it would be possible that they use something that is not physically moving.
like some layers over the photosites that change when you apply voltage.

i like to have less moving parts in my camera not more.
shutter and mirror are prone to malfunction.

and we all know how long harddisks last...... to stay at that example.

 

[Jon_D]

Like I said...not revolutionary and likely irrelevant for dSLR/MILC.

people said the same about BSI sensors.
they will only be used in smartphone and tiny sensors.

or exmor.. how many said that´s useless.

well a few years later everyone wants exmor sensors.

 

[jrista]

The guys at image sensors world were thinking the report was faked:


http://image-sensors-world.blogspot.com/2014/11/rumor-sony-to-introduce-active-pixel.html


Wonkey voltages and such.


They also seemed to believe it was just another standard layered sensor design, nothing particularly out of the park as far as electronic movable filter arrays or anything like that. The guys who comment on ISW very often ARE sensor designers...so I would take their word over some random report at sony rumors any day.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

he also wrote he has no clue how it works...

Oh, well that makes it all ok then.

do you know exactly how a rolls royce airplane engine works?
do you fly?

Do you really think most pilots know how airplane engines work? You are in for a rude awakening. Of course, some may, just as some photographers may know how sensors work.


There is no need to be defensive, the blogger provides no patent and no backup for all his assertions.

Many who post here are scientists and engineers and take claims without any backup information with a grain of salt, particularly when they seem to gush about how great it is. We've seen this type of thing too many times.

"Cold Fusion??"

 

[rs]

Great. So each colour is sampled at a different time, as the colour filter physically moves in front of the pixel. This will be great for tripod based static scene shots, but will result in colour tearing - much like a field sequential display does. Bad news for video, bad news for stills of anything that moves as there will effectively be three exposures taken at different times for red, green and blue, and then all merged into one.

Plus the exposure time for each colour cannot be more than 1/3rd of the total exposure time, so I'd hazard a guess that the sensitivity isn't increased either by these larger pixels for the same resolution. And as the filter can't transition instantly between the colours, its less than 1/3rd of the exposure time available to each colour.

did you read that the sensor is able to readout 16000 times a second?

i wonder how you will see color smearing.... especially when bayer sensors are all about "smearing colors".

A 1/8000 shutter speed would only allow time for two colours at that paltry speed. Three readouts, or 24,000 per second is needed for full colour and full on tearing at the shutter speeds most of us can use right now. If long shutter speeds could be made up of hundreds or thousands of frames stacked together, then it could be good - at slow shutter speeds. Forget about it for action until that figure closes in on millions per second, but then you're still left with low sensitivity due to shorter exposure times per colour. Not to mention the processing, and how to make something move millions of times a second.

you are translating bayer sensor tech to a new sensor tech.
im not sure your example works that way for a new sensor design.

but im pretty sure sony thought about it IF this sensor is a real development...

No. There is absolutely nothing in any bayer sensor which requires multiple readouts during the exposure time.

 

[Loswr]

do you know exactly how a rolls royce airplane engine works?

No, but I don't go talking about the details of how an airplane engine works, either.

so you say that they move a physical filter at 16000 frames per seconds is more likely as an electronic filter of some kind?

I didn't say that, the article about which you started this thread and to which you linked in the first post says that. Try to keep up...

i have an ultrasonic cleaner at home that moves at quite some speed.
but i don´t go as far as compare it to something like a RGB filter on a sensor.

As pointed out before, the 'self-cleaning sensor' system is moved by a piezoelectric motor at a higher frequency than suggested in the information which you linked. That system is moving a stack of filters over the sensor (the IR cut filter, one of the two low pass filters, and the 1/4-wave plate).

it´s just the usual "it comes from sony so it must suck" denial i read here every day.

you have no clue either how the sony sensor will work.... so why are you writing about it?

I was drawing an analogy between technology that has existed for quite some time (translational motion of the sensor under the Bayer mask so each photodiode is successively exposed to all three colors in the CFA) to the technology described in the post you quoted and linked, which is referred to as 'revolutionary' (translational motion of the Bayer mask over the sensor so each photodiode is successively exposed to all three colors in the CFA).

Read the two highlighted phrases above...the only difference is the relative position of what's being moved. This 'new' technology doesn't sound even remotely 'revolutionary' compared to the one I've been using for over 12 years.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Like I said...not revolutionary and likely irrelevant for dSLR/MILC.

people said the same about BSI sensors.
they will only be used in smartphone and tiny sensors.

or exmor.. how many said that´s useless.

well a few years later everyone wants exmor sensors.

What people said about backlit sensors in 2008 were that it was more effective for small sensors, but with a few years of development, that might change. Its still true, as the sensor gets larger, given the same pixel sizes, backlight technology is not as useful. For very high MP sensors where there is not enough room for wiring on the front side, than moving the wiring to the back allows for larger photosites which is a definite help.

So, yes, years later, BSI technology is finding its way into larger sensors each generation.

 

[jrista]

Like I said...not revolutionary and likely irrelevant for dSLR/MILC.

people said the same about BSI sensors.
they will only be used in smartphone and tiny sensors.

or exmor.. how many said that´s useless.

well a few years later everyone wants exmor sensors.

What people said about backlit sensors in 2008 were that it was more effective for small sensors, but with a few years of development, that might change. Its still true, as the sensor gets larger, given the same pixel sizes, backlight technology is not as useful. For very high MP sensors where there is not enough room for wiring on the front side, than moving the wiring to the back allows for larger photosites which is a definite help.

So, yes, years later, BSI technology is finding its way into larger sensors each generation.

It's already found it's way into a 1.5x crop APS-C sensor with Samsung's NX1 camera.

 

[Larry]

As Coldhands points out, your suggestion that moving something the size of a sensor at 16 kHz is proven false by existing technology.

Is/are there one or more words missing from the above sentence? ???

 

[Don Haines]

......
– Records 2K with 16,000 frames per second.

So a 7D2 at 2K 60Hz video cranks out 440Mbytes per minute.... At 16000 fps that becomes 117,333Mbytes per minute or a mere 1,956Mbytes per second. My 32Gbyte CF card would hold 16.3 seconds worth of video....

I think I need a bigger card

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

......
– Records 2K with 16,000 frames per second.

So a 7D2 at 2K 60Hz video cranks out 440Mbytes per minute.... At 16000 fps that becomes 117,333Mbytes per minute or a mere 1,956Mbytes per second. My 32Gbyte CF card would hold 16.3 seconds worth of video....

I think I need a bigger card

The camera would melt down into a pile of ashes in 5 seconds at that rate, so your card would be big enough

 

[jrista]

......
– Records 2K with 16,000 frames per second.

So a 7D2 at 2K 60Hz video cranks out 440Mbytes per minute.... At 16000 fps that becomes 117,333Mbytes per minute or a mere 1,956Mbytes per second. My 32Gbyte CF card would hold 16.3 seconds worth of video....

I think I need a bigger card

Are those values for RAW video? Generally speaking, you can gain massive compression ratios with video, and at such high frame rates, the differences between frames are going to be quite small, so I would expect the compression ratio to be even higher.

 

[rs]

......
– Records 2K with 16,000 frames per second.

So a 7D2 at 2K 60Hz video cranks out 440Mbytes per minute.... At 16000 fps that becomes 117,333Mbytes per minute or a mere 1,956Mbytes per second. My 32Gbyte CF card would hold 16.3 seconds worth of video....

I think I need a bigger card

Are those values for RAW video? Generally speaking, you can gain massive compression ratios with video, and at such high frame rates, the differences between frames are going to be quite small, so I would expect the compression ratio to be even higher.

That would take some pretty impressive processing power to achieve a good level of compression in real time at that frame rate.

 

[Loswr]

As Coldhands points out, your suggestion that moving something the size of a sensor at 16 kHz is proven false by existing technology.

Is/are there one or more words missing from the above sentence? ???

No. Is/are there one or more words you were expecting to see, but don't? ???

 

[Don Haines]

As Coldhands points out, your suggestion that moving something the size of a sensor at 16 kHz is proven false by existing technology.

Is/are there one or more words missing from the above sentence? ???

No. Is/are there one or more words you were expecting to see, but don't? ???

This whole thing is a joke..... a scam.... trolling.....

What you will do with a movable sensor at 16Khz is to drain batteries quickly and shake the sensor apart.

If the sensor moved instantly from one colour to the next, you are only reading the light for a colour a third of the time. This would cancel out having the sensor pixels three times larger. What happens in the real world is that you will have time elapsed while you move from one place to another and the light is wasted while the move is going on..... you now have less usable light than before.

and where does the lens not in use go when it is not in use..... it is still physically present and blocking something else.... or if you move the sensor, same problem..... and you have reduced the amount of usable light by another factor of 3.....

You would be creating a system that was mechanically complex and would decrease the amount of usable light by at least 2 stops... a complex system that would eat batteries like popcorn...

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Like I said...not revolutionary and likely irrelevant for dSLR/MILC.

people said the same about BSI sensors.
they will only be used in smartphone and tiny sensors.

or exmor.. how many said that´s useless.

well a few years later everyone wants exmor sensors.

What people said about backlit sensors in 2008 were that it was more effective for small sensors, but with a few years of development, that might change. Its still true, as the sensor gets larger, given the same pixel sizes, backlight technology is not as useful. For very high MP sensors where there is not enough room for wiring on the front side, than moving the wiring to the back allows for larger photosites which is a definite help.

So, yes, years later, BSI technology is finding its way into larger sensors each generation.

It's already found it's way into a 1.5x crop APS-C sensor with Samsung's NX1 camera.

Yes, Samsung was one of the early companies to start working on BSI. I think that we will eventually see it even on MF sensors when the MP count climbs so high the the wiring is causing a issue.

I think that the 35MP point on FF starts to see a slight advantage, and at 50-60MP, it might be enough to make a big difference. I hope Canon does it before then, even a small reduction in noise helps.

 

[jrista]

Like I said...not revolutionary and likely irrelevant for dSLR/MILC.

people said the same about BSI sensors.
they will only be used in smartphone and tiny sensors.

or exmor.. how many said that´s useless.

well a few years later everyone wants exmor sensors.

What people said about backlit sensors in 2008 were that it was more effective for small sensors, but with a few years of development, that might change. Its still true, as the sensor gets larger, given the same pixel sizes, backlight technology is not as useful. For very high MP sensors where there is not enough room for wiring on the front side, than moving the wiring to the back allows for larger photosites which is a definite help.

So, yes, years later, BSI technology is finding its way into larger sensors each generation.

It's already found it's way into a 1.5x crop APS-C sensor with Samsung's NX1 camera.

Yes, Samsung was one of the early companies to start working on BSI. I think that we will eventually see it even on MF sensors when the MP count climbs so high the the wiring is causing a issue.

I think that the 35MP point on FF starts to see a slight advantage, and at 50-60MP, it might be enough to make a big difference. I hope Canon does it before then, even a small reduction in noise helps.

If Canon is moving to layered sensors, I believe they will be BSI. The more recent patents we have seen from them regarding layered sensors showed BSI designs.

 

[Larry]

As Coldhands points out, your suggestion that moving something the size of a sensor at 16 kHz is proven false by existing technology.

Is/are there one or more words missing from the above sentence? ???

No. Is/are there one or more words you were expecting to see, but don't? ???

Examples: "As Coldhands points out, your suggestion that moving something the size of a sensor at 16 kHz [ is impossible/can't be done/etc. ] ... is proven false by existing technology." :-\