3 ms·

You've just hit the nail on the head yourself: bandwidth. Sampling the entire CMOS sensor at once is not really possible when you stop to consider the sheer ma

You've just hit the nail on the head yourself: bandwidth. Sampling the entire CMOS sensor at once is not really possible when you stop to consider the sheer magnitude of bits required to represent a single still image. The CMOS sensor only has a finite number of pins connecting it to the logic board responsible for polling its state, so it makes sense to use an addressing system to read the sensor data. This addressing system uses a small number of addressing bits (each pin is usually just one bit) to move a sliding window over a much larger amount of data. Regular computer memory works the same way. This enables that data to be passed through to the camera in small pieces. While this can be made rather fast with good engineering, it is not instant, and the non-instantaneous nature produces the rolling shutter effect. It's the physical limitation on the number of pins that creates the need for the rolling shutter in modern CMOS design. Creating speedier memory access routines can reduce the effect of the shutter, but not eliminate it. A possible alternative approach would be to build some memory into the image sensor, so that you can ask it to "lock" all the bits in place, and then read those bits out at your logic board's leisure. That should effectively eliminate the rolling shutter effect, (More or less, assuming your "freeze" signal arrives at all the pixels more or less at the same time) at the engineering expense of needing to add per-pixel memory to your image sensor, and additional electronics to perform the lock. I'm no expert on the subject, but I would not be surprised if more modern image sensors have some feature for this purpose, especially those used in high speed cameras.

cashsterling 9y ago
Don't confuse the timing of light acquisition with read-out at the overall focal plane level. Numerous CMOS, CCD, and other types of focal plane / 2D detectors have global shutters where all pixels 'integrate photons or energetic particles' at the same time for a set amount of time. Read-out is performed in a rolling fashion... the data generally has to be serialized for analog to digital conversion (although not always) and/or transmission over a communication protocol or write to file. A global shutter detector at the hardware level has settings for framerate and light integration time (among other things). Readout time is more or less constant for a particular camera sensor. So if integration requires say 20ms, and readout takes 30 ms... you're looking at about 20 FPS image acquisition speed. Good overview: http://www.red.com/learn/red-101/global-rolling-shutter http://www.red.com/learn/red-101/global-rolling-shutter
- zeta0134 9y ago
  Ooh, this is excellent! I hadn't even thought about physical shutters, that adds a whole new wrench.
- fest 9y ago
  IIRC a typical implementation of electronic global shutter for CMOS sensors requires one extra transistor per each pixel to "lock" the charge. As for why it's not being done outside specialised sensors: not many people are concerned about this problem, they are more concerned about other parameters of image sensor.
cryptonector 9y ago
Yes, attaching memory to the CCD, with a latch clock to function as a shutter, would prevent the rolling shutter effect, bandwidth be damned. But that too is an extra expense, so you're not likely to see it on low end cameras (e.g., phone cameras).
- coldtea 9y ago
  >But that too is an extra expense, so you're not likely to see it on low end cameras (e.g., phone cameras). Not so sure. Phone cameras are big selling points for phones, and have some hardware innovations (and access to much faster processors than the average "high end" DSLR/mirrorless), that , if we ignore the smaller by necessity optics, are in the same or even better league tech-wise to the average Sony/Canon/etc. Talking of course for flagship iOS/Android phones, not the average phone.
InclinedPlane 9y ago
There are global shutter CMOS image sensors. But it comes with a cost. After each frame is exposed the values in the photocoupled capacitors are transferred into neighboring capacitors in one go, then those are read off serially while the photocoupled capacitors are exposed for the next frame. Alternately, each pixel is locally connected to an ADC and enough memory to digitize the image all at once. Canon, for example, announced a global shutter CMOS sensor last year. The problem here is that those extra components come at a cost. Either they crowd out existing components on the sensor, which would dramatically reduce light sensitivity. Or, they require additional layers in the CMOS die, which significantly increases fabrication cost due to design costs, fabrication time, lower yield, etc. Additionally, the extra step in digitization reduces effective frame rate. [1] http://global.canon/en/news/2016/20160831.html http://global.canon/en/news/2016/20160831.html

cashsterling 9y ago

Don't confuse the timing of light acquisition with read-out at the overall focal plane level. Numerous CMOS, CCD, and other types of focal plane / 2D detectors have global shutters where all pixels 'integrate photons or energetic particles' at the same time for a set amount of time. Read-out is performed in a rolling fashion... the data generally has to be serialized for analog to digital conversion (although not always) and/or transmission over a communication protocol or write to file. A global shutter detector at the hardware level has settings for framerate and light integration time (among other things). Readout time is more or less constant for a particular camera sensor. So if integration requires say 20ms, and readout takes 30 ms... you're looking at about 20 FPS image acquisition speed. Good overview: http://www.red.com/learn/red-101/global-rolling-shutter http://www.red.com/learn/red-101/global-rolling-shutter

zeta0134 9y ago
Ooh, this is excellent! I hadn't even thought about physical shutters, that adds a whole new wrench.
fest 9y ago
IIRC a typical implementation of electronic global shutter for CMOS sensors requires one extra transistor per each pixel to "lock" the charge. As for why it's not being done outside specialised sensors: not many people are concerned about this problem, they are more concerned about other parameters of image sensor.

cryptonector 9y ago

Yes, attaching memory to the CCD, with a latch clock to function as a shutter, would prevent the rolling shutter effect, bandwidth be damned. But that too is an extra expense, so you're not likely to see it on low end cameras (e.g., phone cameras).

coldtea 9y ago
>But that too is an extra expense, so you're not likely to see it on low end cameras (e.g., phone cameras). Not so sure. Phone cameras are big selling points for phones, and have some hardware innovations (and access to much faster processors than the average "high end" DSLR/mirrorless), that , if we ignore the smaller by necessity optics, are in the same or even better league tech-wise to the average Sony/Canon/etc. Talking of course for flagship iOS/Android phones, not the average phone.

InclinedPlane 9y ago

There are global shutter CMOS image sensors. But it comes with a cost. After each frame is exposed the values in the photocoupled capacitors are transferred into neighboring capacitors in one go, then those are read off serially while the photocoupled capacitors are exposed for the next frame. Alternately, each pixel is locally connected to an ADC and enough memory to digitize the image all at once. Canon, for example, announced a global shutter CMOS sensor last year. The problem here is that those extra components come at a cost. Either they crowd out existing components on the sensor, which would dramatically reduce light sensitivity. Or, they require additional layers in the CMOS die, which significantly increases fabrication cost due to design costs, fabrication time, lower yield, etc. Additionally, the extra step in digitization reduces effective frame rate. [1] http://global.canon/en/news/2016/20160831.html http://global.canon/en/news/2016/20160831.html