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

[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? ???

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." :-\

Oh, you mean those words. Yes, they were missing. Thanks!

 

[Loswr]

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...

You're not really losing light. In a standard Bayer-masked sensor, the exposure is taken once and each pixel is covered by a dedicated color patch (R, G, or B) on the color filter array (CFA). The demosaicing process then interpolates the color values for the neighboring pixels. With co-site sampling (what this technology is called), each pixel is exposed three times at 1/3 the duration of what would be used in the standard implementation. In that standard implementation, you're really throwing away 2/3 of the spectrum (ok, not exactly since the transmission curves of the three color patches aren't perfect and non-overlapping), and thus 2/3 of the light. Co-site sampling collects effectively the same amount light, when you consider summing across multiple pixels.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_co-site_sampling (Most of the images used in that are from Zeiss.)

You're suggesting that moving a Bayer array or the sensor two times by a distance of a few microns (one pixel over then one pixel down) would 'eat batteries like popcorn?? I suspect it would use very little power.

 

[Don Haines]

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...

You're not really losing light. In a standard Bayer-masked sensor, the exposure is taken once and each pixel is covered by a dedicated color patch (R, G, or B) on the color filter array (CFA). The demosaicing process then interpolates the color values for the neighboring pixels. With co-site sampling (what this technology is called), each pixel is exposed three times at 1/3 the duration of what would be used in the standard implementation. In that standard implementation, you're really throwing away 2/3 of the spectrum (ok, not exactly since the transmission curves of the three color patches aren't perfect and non-overlapping), and thus 2/3 of the light. Co-site sampling collects effectively the same amount light, when you consider summing across multiple pixels.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_co-site_sampling (Most of the images used in that are from Zeiss.)

Ahhhhhh.....

I misunderstood....

Do you know if anyone has tried to make a sensor with microprisms instead of microlenses? That would seem to me as an interesting way to use more of the incident light....

 

[privatebydesign]

Ahhhhhh.....

I misunderstood....

Do you know if anyone has tried to make a sensor with microprisms instead of microlenses? That would seem to me as an interesting way to use more of the incident light....

Isn't that how the three CCD video cameras do it? A single prism that splits the light three ways to the sensors that each have their own colour filter on.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

"Positive effects of such a sensor design are:
– 4 times bigger pixels compared to same resolution Bayer sensor. This means more electrons captured and therefore higher dynamic range and lower noise (crazy ISO possible…even crazier than those of the Sony A7s)."

The whole 4 pixels of foveon is the same as 1 of Bayer is QUITE an exaggeration.

"
– No moire issues anymore. No Anti Aliasing filter needed (increases per pixel sharpness)."

Absurd claim. No BAYER COLOR moire. But sure as heck you can still get moire and you sure as heck still need AA filters at the counts they are talking about.

 

[emag]

.........three pages on this 'new sensor design' topic and not ONCE has anyone mentioned DR??? Y'all are slipping......
(oops, I see it was mentioned whilst I was typing)

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

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".

so what if it can? can it magically make the full set of incoming photons re-hit after each sift?

 

[jrista]

Ahhhhhh.....

I misunderstood....

Do you know if anyone has tried to make a sensor with microprisms instead of microlenses? That would seem to me as an interesting way to use more of the incident light....

Panasonic has:


http://mikepasini.com/corners/2013/02/04-micro-color-splitters/index.htm


Not necessarily microprisms...at that scale, based on the patent, it sounded like they were using some kind of diffractive deflection, but that ultimately achieves the same thing in the end.


I think this is one of the best ideas I've seen so far. It isn't a stacked sensor, yet it still preserves all the light. Ingenious, if you ask me.

 

[Jon_D]

someone wrote he has no TTL flash options for sony... there are news:

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/1351339704/phottix-offers-two-mitros-ttl-flash-units-for-sony-multi-interface-hotshoe

 

[Jon_D]

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." :-\

nobody said that it is impossible. well i sure don´t. :

neuroanatomist is twisting words again (he does that very often) or just simply lying to make a point.

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.

 

[Loswr]

nobody said that it is impossible. well i sure don´t. :

neuroanatomist is twisting words again (he does that very often) or just simply lying to make a point.

What you said was;

i doubt they move something physically 16000 times a second.

What the linked article states is:

Every single pixel can take the full color info with the help of an electrified moving color filter!

So, apparently you believe the article you linked is lying. Or, as you also stated, the author of the article is clueless about how it works. In that case, what was the point of creating this thread? Oh yes, you're a troll...and a slanderer as well.

 

[jrista]

nobody said that it is impossible. well i sure don´t. :

neuroanatomist is twisting words again (he does that very often) or just simply lying to make a point.

What you said was;

i doubt they move something physically 16000 times a second.

What the linked article states is:

Every single pixel can take the full color info with the help of an electrified moving color filter!

So, apparently you believe the article you linked is lying. Or, as you also stated, the author of the article is clueless about how it works. In that case, what was the point of creating this thread? Oh yes, you're a troll...and a slanderer as well.

Do you enjoy emberrasing and belittling and degrading people? Honestly, dude. The whole entire article is likely a fraud, so YES, the guy who wrote it, or whoever "leaked" it to him, is most likely LYING.


I tried to head off an inevitable useless debate by linking the ISW post on this particular rumor. If you look at the comments, the guys there (who, as I stated, are very often sensor designers themselves) think the specs are fake. They also seemed to believe the design was for a layered sensor, not something "out there" like as 16Khz oscillating CFA.

 

[Loswr]

Do you enjoy emberrasing and belittling and degrading people? Honestly, dude.

Ooooo looky, maybe I'll now be awarded another yellow box for pissing off jrista. Did someone appoint you Defender of Trolls while I wasn't looking?

Maybe the moderator cleanup was fast enough that you missed Jon_D's little tantrum of posting a three-word inanity in a whole bunch of threads that had been inactive for ~4 years. I suppose that since the mods deleted it, you also missed the post where he directed profanity at me and called me a liar (again).

But hey, if I hear of an opening on the IMEL*, I'll let you know. Honestly, dude. :

* Internet Morality Enforcement League

 

[DominoDude]

Do you enjoy emberrasing and belittling and degrading people? Honestly, dude.

Ooooo looky, maybe I'll now be awarded another yellow box for pissing off jrista. Did someone appoint you Defender of Trolls while I wasn't looking?

Maybe the moderator cleanup was fast enough that you missed Jon_D's little tantrum of posting a three-word inanity in a whole bunch of threads that had been inactive for ~4 years. I suppose that since the mods deleted it, you also missed the post where he directed profanity at me and called me a liar (again).

But hey, if I hear of an opening on the IMEL*, I'll let you know. Honestly, dude. :

* Internet Morality Enforcement League

I happened to see his posts before they were removed. Couldn't report on the one directed towards Neuro, it was pulled while I wrote the report line. It was far more nasty than appropriate for this forum.

 

[jrista]

Do you enjoy emberrasing and belittling and degrading people? Honestly, dude.

Ooooo looky, maybe I'll now be awarded another yellow box for pissing off jrista. Did someone appoint you Defender of Trolls while I wasn't looking?

Maybe the moderator cleanup was fast enough that you missed Jon_D's little tantrum of posting a three-word inanity in a whole bunch of threads that had been inactive for ~4 years. I suppose that since the mods deleted it, you also missed the post where he directed profanity at me and called me a liar (again).

But hey, if I hear of an opening on the IMEL*, I'll let you know. Honestly, dude. :

* Internet Morality Enforcement League

Did you every consider that if you didn't run around antagonizing people, none of that kind of crap would happen in the first place? You purposely GOAD people to the breaking point, constantly, day in and day out. Why aren't the mods doing anything about that?


This place would be FAR more peaceful if you would just leave people alone. Regardless of how wrong they may be.

 

[privatebydesign]

This place would be FAR more peaceful if you would just leave people alone. Regardless of how wrong they may be.

Seriously, how can you say that with a straight face, are you bipolar?

We, neuro, you, and I, and a few others, are all pots and kettles, for one to call the other out as black is farcical.

 

[jrista]

This place would be FAR more peaceful if you would just leave people alone. Regardless of how wrong they may be.

Seriously, how can you say that with a straight face, are you bipolar?

We, neuro, you, and I, and a few others, are all pots and kettles, for one to call the other out as black is farcical.

And I think we all need to back the hell off of people, and stop antagonism. I've tried, I generally try to avoid you guys these days, but if you guys aren't pounding on me, your pounding on someone else. I'm backing off now. Let's see if any of the rest of our little group can just leave well enough alone and let this place be in peace, or not.

 

[DominoDude]

This place would be FAR more peaceful if you would just leave people alone. Regardless of how wrong they may be.

Seriously, how can you say that with a straight face, are you bipolar?

We, neuro, you, and I, and a few others, are all pots and kettles, for one to call the other out as black is farcical.

And I think we all need to back the hell off of people, and stop antagonism. I've tried, I generally try to avoid you guys these days, but if you guys aren't pounding on me, your pounding on someone else. I'm backing off now. Let's see if any of the rest of our little group can just leave well enough alone and let this place be in peace, or not.

It's always good to differentiate people and behaviour. I accept and tolerate people (almost all of you), but certain behaviour I don't like and I will try to make it show. It's a crucial difference, and it's important to distinguish between those two, both if you're poster, or if you're a reader.

 

[Loswr]

I've tried, I generally try to avoid you guys these days

How's that working out for you?

Do you enjoy emberrasing and belittling and degrading people? Honestly, dude.

This place would be FAR more peaceful if you would just leave people alone. Regardless of how wrong they may be.

Not so well, apparently. :

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

One way to avoid conflict is to focus on the issue and leave people out of it. Its not necessary to correct another person who has a different opinion, at least not repeatedly.

When a person refers to another as stupid, a idiot, or starts throwing insults around, the other forum members are intimidated, and it becomes a unpleasant place.

I say, go ahead and write up a nasty response to another post. Read it, and rather than posting it, delete it. I find myself doing that two or three times a day. We have a large number of talented and knowledgeable posters, but they often get into a heated discussion over fine details and the meaning of words. One thing I've learned is that language that we use is based very much on our jobs and it can be very difficult to communicate ideas.

One of my jobs involved writing assembly processes for electronics. Every time a new Quality Assurance person was rotated to the shop, he would immediately stop the production line because he read the instructions differently. We would rewrite them for him, and the same thing would happen three months later. We involved the techs in writing instructions, they are the ones who needed to understand and follow them, but a inspector coming from a different area could stop the show. No wonder US products cost so much, its all red tape.