Corsair K57 RGB Wireless keyboard review
AMD Ryzen 7 3800X review
PowerColor 5700 RED DEVIL review
MSI Radeon RX 5700 XT Evoke review
ASUS Radeon RX 5700 XT ROG STRIX review
ViewSonic Elite XG240R Monitor Review
Promo: URCDKey Summer Sale Windows 10 Pro for $11
X570 Aorus master review
Cooler Master Silencio S600 review
AMD Ryzen 5 3400G review
Sony Releases new IMX586 smartphone sensor - 48 megapixel
Sony announced a camera sensor for smartphones with a staggering 48-megapixel resolution, that would be a photo of 8000x6000 pixels. The new product achieved compact pixel size of 0.8 μm, making it possible to pack 48 effective megapixels onto a 1/2-type (8.0 mm diagonal) unit, thereby supporting enhanced imaging on smartphone cameras.
The new Sony sensor features 48 effective megapixels, a pixel count which rivals that of high-performance SLR cameras, making it possible to capture high-resolution images even with a smartphone.
The new sensor uses the Quad Bayer color filter array, where adjacent 2x2 pixels come in the same color, making high-sensitivity shooting possible. During low light shooting, the signals from the four adjacent pixels are added, raising the sensitivity to a level equivalent to that of 1.6 μm pixels (12 megapixels), resulting in bright, low noise images.
In addition to these advantages, original Sony exposure control technology and signal processing functionality are built into the image sensor, enabling real-time output and a superior dynamic range four times greater than conventional units. Even scenes with both bright and dark areas can be captured with minimal highlight blowout or loss of detail in shadows. Generally, miniaturization of pixels results in poor light collecting efficiency per pixel, accompanied by a drop in sensitivity and volume of saturation signal. This product was designed and manufactured with techniques that improve light collection efficiency and photoelectric conversion efficiency over conventional products, resulting in the world’s first 0.8 μm pixel size, with both high sensitivity and high saturation signal level. This smaller pixel size allows the new product to deliver 48 effective megapixels on a compact unit with 8.0 mm diagonal, which can be fitted on many smartphones. The increased pixel count enables high-definition imaging even on smartphones which use digital zoom.
By adopting the Quad Bayer color filter array, where the adjacent 2x2 pixels come in the same color, the new sensor delivers both high sensitivity and high resolution. In low light situations, such as shooting at night, the signal from the four adjacent pixels are added, raising the sensitivity to a level equivalent to that of 1.6 μm pixels (12 effective megapixels), to capture bright, low-noise photos and videos. When shooting bright scenes such as daytime outdoors, the built-in, original signal processing function performs array conversion, making it possible to obtain high-definition 48 effective megapixel images in real time.
fry178
Senior Member
Posts: 1061
Joined: 2012-04-30
Senior Member
Posts: 1061
Joined: 2012-04-30
#5567384 Posted on: 07/23/2018 06:12 PM
sony makes about 50% of world wide cam sensors, and about 70% of video sensor,
so most stuff that takes nice pics, has one in it.
as there arent many making 48MP phone sensor, just look for its cam res ;-)
sony makes about 50% of world wide cam sensors, and about 70% of video sensor,
so most stuff that takes nice pics, has one in it.
as there arent many making 48MP phone sensor, just look for its cam res ;-)
GlennB
Senior Member
Posts: 197
Joined: 2009-12-12
Senior Member
Posts: 197
Joined: 2009-12-12
#5567438 Posted on: 07/23/2018 08:58 PM
Just too bad there is basicly no room for half a decent lens in a phone
Just too bad there is basicly no room for half a decent lens in a phone
Silva
Senior Member
Posts: 893
Joined: 2013-06-04
Senior Member
Posts: 893
Joined: 2013-06-04
#5567457 Posted on: 07/23/2018 09:28 PM
I think 48MP is ridiculous and just a full frame or medium format camera can take full advantage of so many pixels..
4K (3840 x 2160) is just 8.3MP wile 8K (7680 × 4320) 33.2MP.
Wile many people are starting to adopt 4k displays, the most used resolution is still just 1920x1080 (2.1MP).
Then comes the low light performance: the more MP the less low light performance it has.
I'd very much prefer a 9 to 12 MP sensor with good low light performance and use the CPU processing power for 60/120/240/480/960 fps video capture.
I think 48MP is ridiculous and just a full frame or medium format camera can take full advantage of so many pixels..
4K (3840 x 2160) is just 8.3MP wile 8K (7680 × 4320) 33.2MP.
Wile many people are starting to adopt 4k displays, the most used resolution is still just 1920x1080 (2.1MP).
Then comes the low light performance: the more MP the less low light performance it has.
I'd very much prefer a 9 to 12 MP sensor with good low light performance and use the CPU processing power for 60/120/240/480/960 fps video capture.
yeeeman
Member
Posts: 25
Joined: 2015-02-25
Member
Posts: 25
Joined: 2015-02-25
#5567465 Posted on: 07/23/2018 09:54 PM
Hope that they can make a great firmware/image processing algorithm for this sensor on their own phones.
With old sensors, somehow all the other manufacturers could do wonders, but Sony always failed to impress even though they make the sensors.
Hope that they can make a great firmware/image processing algorithm for this sensor on their own phones.
With old sensors, somehow all the other manufacturers could do wonders, but Sony always failed to impress even though they make the sensors.
fry178
Senior Member
Posts: 1061
Joined: 2012-04-30
Senior Member
Posts: 1061
Joined: 2012-04-30
#5567546 Posted on: 07/24/2018 05:23 AM
@Silva
? the sensor switches to 12MP for low light, so not sure what the problem is.
outside that, take pictures in 24/20/16/12MP and compare on a 1080p screen and you can still tell the difference.
maybe not on a 4x6, but most people now view things on larger things like monitors and tvs..
@Silva
? the sensor switches to 12MP for low light, so not sure what the problem is.
outside that, take pictures in 24/20/16/12MP and compare on a 1080p screen and you can still tell the difference.
maybe not on a 4x6, but most people now view things on larger things like monitors and tvs..
DLD
Senior Member
Posts: 805
Joined: 2002-09-14
Senior Member
Posts: 805
Joined: 2002-09-14
#5567583 Posted on: 07/24/2018 08:41 AM
After some 40 years of being an amateur/semi pro photographer I feel it's my duty to help you, dear colleagues.
Pixel count does not have any direct impact (or: it is not related in any way) to the overall image quality (be it photos or a moving pics). Unless one is intending to cover a mural with a single photo, without the need of post-processing in order to avoid visible artifacts.
Things that DO make the major differences are:
1. physical size of the cell and it's (cell's) degree of technological refinement (purity of the material, certain aspects of the production process etc.) which defines cell's light sensitivity/conductivity, level of "grain" (noise), recovery time etc.
2. quality of a lens (total % of aberrations, light capability etc.)
3. punctuality of the device's mechanics (correctness of the exposure etc.).
So, this is just another gimmick/dirty trick played upon the targeted customers - people whose mind follows the so-called linear logic and have a wrong perception of the quality vs quantity problem... And, by the way, the trick is soooo typical of Sony, the company that is capable of making the best cells...and average cameras (why do I think of Nikon/Canon?Olympus...?); best displays...and average phones and tv sets (why do I think of Nokia/Motorola/Samsung/Hitachi/Philips...?)...lots of inventions...very few successfully finalized products. And all that at HIGHEST retail prices.
After some 40 years of being an amateur/semi pro photographer I feel it's my duty to help you, dear colleagues.
Pixel count does not have any direct impact (or: it is not related in any way) to the overall image quality (be it photos or a moving pics). Unless one is intending to cover a mural with a single photo, without the need of post-processing in order to avoid visible artifacts.
Things that DO make the major differences are:
1. physical size of the cell and it's (cell's) degree of technological refinement (purity of the material, certain aspects of the production process etc.) which defines cell's light sensitivity/conductivity, level of "grain" (noise), recovery time etc.
2. quality of a lens (total % of aberrations, light capability etc.)
3. punctuality of the device's mechanics (correctness of the exposure etc.).
So, this is just another gimmick/dirty trick played upon the targeted customers - people whose mind follows the so-called linear logic and have a wrong perception of the quality vs quantity problem... And, by the way, the trick is soooo typical of Sony, the company that is capable of making the best cells...and average cameras (why do I think of Nikon/Canon?Olympus...?); best displays...and average phones and tv sets (why do I think of Nokia/Motorola/Samsung/Hitachi/Philips...?)...lots of inventions...very few successfully finalized products. And all that at HIGHEST retail prices.
AlmondMan
Senior Member
Posts: 473
Joined: 2007-09-03
Senior Member
Posts: 473
Joined: 2007-09-03
#5567590 Posted on: 07/24/2018 09:20 AM
But, pixel count certainly does matter, though. Can have all the lenses and other things you want and it won't make a good or useful picture on a sensor with a tiny pixel count.
In phones it also makes some sense to use sensor and software tricks to try and alleviate as many of the limitations of being without a proper lens as possible.
But, pixel count certainly does matter, though. Can have all the lenses and other things you want and it won't make a good or useful picture on a sensor with a tiny pixel count.
In phones it also makes some sense to use sensor and software tricks to try and alleviate as many of the limitations of being without a proper lens as possible.
DLD
Senior Member
Posts: 805
Joined: 2002-09-14
Senior Member
Posts: 805
Joined: 2002-09-14
#5567614 Posted on: 07/24/2018 10:34 AM
You're free to believe. Believers, keep on believing (Stevie Wonder).
You're free to believe. Believers, keep on believing (Stevie Wonder).
Silva
Senior Member
Posts: 893
Joined: 2013-06-04
Senior Member
Posts: 893
Joined: 2013-06-04
#5567658 Posted on: 07/24/2018 12:42 PM
@Silva
? the sensor switches to 12MP for low light, so not sure what the problem is.
outside that, take pictures in 24/20/16/12MP and compare on a 1080p screen and you can still tell the difference.
maybe not on a 4x6, but most people now view things on larger things like monitors and tvs..
So why does Sony releases 3 different models of the A7 with different MP number?
And why does the Panasonic GH4 is only 16MP and the GH5 is 20MP?
And why does any dedicated video camera, like the the Sony FDR-AX100, only have 14MP?
It's marketing, more MP doesn't mean a better image, unless you're viewing it on a screen that supports that image. Unless you have an 8K screen at home, you can't see a difference up to 4k (8MP).
For stills, bigger isn't always better. But for video, bigger is actually worse.
@Silva
? the sensor switches to 12MP for low light, so not sure what the problem is.
outside that, take pictures in 24/20/16/12MP and compare on a 1080p screen and you can still tell the difference.
maybe not on a 4x6, but most people now view things on larger things like monitors and tvs..
So why does Sony releases 3 different models of the A7 with different MP number?
And why does the Panasonic GH4 is only 16MP and the GH5 is 20MP?
And why does any dedicated video camera, like the the Sony FDR-AX100, only have 14MP?
It's marketing, more MP doesn't mean a better image, unless you're viewing it on a screen that supports that image. Unless you have an 8K screen at home, you can't see a difference up to 4k (8MP).
For stills, bigger isn't always better. But for video, bigger is actually worse.
fry178
Senior Member
Posts: 1061
Joined: 2012-04-30
Senior Member
Posts: 1061
Joined: 2012-04-30
#5567825 Posted on: 07/24/2018 10:37 PM
@DLD
And i have yet to see an non full frame 6MP camera with a 5000$ lens that takes better pics than lets say an a6300 with stock lens.
To a certain degree, MP DO matter.
@Silva
Because they dont want to sacrifice overall performance by having one cam doing everything "mediocre".
The a7 is the regular one, the R is for resolution (40 vs 24MP) and S is for sensitivity (12MP and 400000 iso).
And as far as screen goes, everything up to 20MP i can tell the difference between 4/8/12/20 on any 55/65 4k tv i have in the shop..
As soon as you look at details and especially plants/trees.
Given that we are not talking about pro grade cam/lens.
They have different chips, as they use different sizes (chip) and sometimes older ones (16/20MP), and lower resolution sensors to improve low light performance, which is more important than res on video, especially since 4K needs only 8MP, which will also help quality a bit,
as the sensor isnt maxed out.
Most cams improve a bit going with resolution below the top one (e.g. 16/18/20 vs 18/20/24).
@DLD
And i have yet to see an non full frame 6MP camera with a 5000$ lens that takes better pics than lets say an a6300 with stock lens.
To a certain degree, MP DO matter.
@Silva
Because they dont want to sacrifice overall performance by having one cam doing everything "mediocre".
The a7 is the regular one, the R is for resolution (40 vs 24MP) and S is for sensitivity (12MP and 400000 iso).
And as far as screen goes, everything up to 20MP i can tell the difference between 4/8/12/20 on any 55/65 4k tv i have in the shop..
As soon as you look at details and especially plants/trees.
Given that we are not talking about pro grade cam/lens.
They have different chips, as they use different sizes (chip) and sometimes older ones (16/20MP), and lower resolution sensors to improve low light performance, which is more important than res on video, especially since 4K needs only 8MP, which will also help quality a bit,
as the sensor isnt maxed out.
Most cams improve a bit going with resolution below the top one (e.g. 16/18/20 vs 18/20/24).
Aura89
Senior Member
Posts: 7561
Joined: 2008-07-31
Senior Member
Posts: 7561
Joined: 2008-07-31
#5567838 Posted on: 07/24/2018 11:37 PM
It's marketing, more MP doesn't mean a better image,
More MP doesn't necessarily mean a better image, you are correct, but it does mean it captures more data, more detail, and that is important. Even viewing a very large picture on a smaller screen will utilize that extra data in the best way possible, you'll get less blurryness. Again, that doesn't mean the quality will be any better, like you said, but more data is never bad. it also allows you much better control over making a digital picture into a physical picture. I have seen people take pictures for an event and want it on a banner, feet long and high etc. And though it looks good on their phone, it looks pixelated when printed, ESPECIALLY if it has to be cropped.
Plus, it also allows you to take pictures, and crop stuff out of those pictures and still retain the detail since you have so much information to make it work
If i had a low pixel device i would not have been able to get this decent of a picture of these yellowjackets without having to use the macro or install a macro lense and get up very close to the bees i had no desire to get closer to. Though if i had done that i could have captured even more detail, ofcourse, but there's not a huge lack of detail here.
It's marketing, more MP doesn't mean a better image,
More MP doesn't necessarily mean a better image, you are correct, but it does mean it captures more data, more detail, and that is important. Even viewing a very large picture on a smaller screen will utilize that extra data in the best way possible, you'll get less blurryness. Again, that doesn't mean the quality will be any better, like you said, but more data is never bad. it also allows you much better control over making a digital picture into a physical picture. I have seen people take pictures for an event and want it on a banner, feet long and high etc. And though it looks good on their phone, it looks pixelated when printed, ESPECIALLY if it has to be cropped.
Plus, it also allows you to take pictures, and crop stuff out of those pictures and still retain the detail since you have so much information to make it work
If i had a low pixel device i would not have been able to get this decent of a picture of these yellowjackets without having to use the macro or install a macro lense and get up very close to the bees i had no desire to get closer to. Though if i had done that i could have captured even more detail, ofcourse, but there's not a huge lack of detail here.
Clawedge
Senior Member
Posts: 2437
Joined: 2006-09-02
Senior Member
Posts: 2437
Joined: 2006-09-02
#5567845 Posted on: 07/25/2018 12:06 AM
i think they are hornets/wasps
i think they are hornets/wasps
Aura89
Senior Member
Posts: 7561
Joined: 2008-07-31
Senior Member
Posts: 7561
Joined: 2008-07-31
#5567859 Posted on: 07/25/2018 01:08 AM
Yellowjackets i believe, which is what i meant to type, haha
i think they are hornets/wasps
Yellowjackets i believe, which is what i meant to type, haha
Silva
Senior Member
Posts: 893
Joined: 2013-06-04
Senior Member
Posts: 893
Joined: 2013-06-04
#5568359 Posted on: 07/26/2018 01:05 PM
@fry178
I know what each a7 is for, that's why I gave their example.
I agree with you that for a big TV you'd notice sharpness differences. But for monitors below 32'' not so much.
It's a phone we are talking about, not a cinema camera.
@aura89
I would prefer better low light performance over detail on a mobile device, or any camera at all.
To capture detail, you need to have control of the light. As an amateur, I almost never have.
You need to think about who uses this technology: pros who pixel peep, or amateurs who just wanna snap a couple pictures?
Beautiful pic btw, but if you want detail: fill the frame with the subject aka use a bigger lens.
Oh, wait: you used a phone? You can't ever get DSLR/Mirrorless quality on a phone, it's not possible due to space and lack of lens.
@fry178
I know what each a7 is for, that's why I gave their example.
I agree with you that for a big TV you'd notice sharpness differences. But for monitors below 32'' not so much.
It's a phone we are talking about, not a cinema camera.
@aura89
I would prefer better low light performance over detail on a mobile device, or any camera at all.
To capture detail, you need to have control of the light. As an amateur, I almost never have.
You need to think about who uses this technology: pros who pixel peep, or amateurs who just wanna snap a couple pictures?
Beautiful pic btw, but if you want detail: fill the frame with the subject aka use a bigger lens.
Oh, wait: you used a phone? You can't ever get DSLR/Mirrorless quality on a phone, it's not possible due to space and lack of lens.
Click here to post a comment for this news story on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 12233
Joined: 2004-05-16
This seems similar to the P20 project Huawei and Sony worked on for the camera in that phone. Pretty cool to see it in a product other companies can use but it seems like processing is going to be more important than ever with this kind of sensor. I wonder of the Pixel 3 series will use it?