12 ms·
Sony's new curved image sensors could shake up the whole camera industry
- Finnucane 5y agoThe Agfa Clack, an instamatic-type camera made in the 1950s, had a slightly curved film plane to correct for the cheap plastic lens.
- boondaburrah 5y agoI was gonna say this reminds me of the curved film planes on cheap plastic cameras including the back of many disposable cameras. Almost as if it's good to make the focal point the same distance away from the lens in all places.
- jiggawatts 5y agoNotably, this is for mobile phone sensors, which are highly "physics constrained" and need every trick in the book to achieve decent image quality.
- pjmlp 5y agoIndeed, yet you see people doing interesting gimmicks to take a picture with their tablet instead of carrying around a proper camera.
- d4mi3n 5y agoThey say the best camera is the one you have on you at the time. This holds true with my experience; even with a dedicated camera I have many more photos taken with my smartphone.
- pjmlp 5y agoI agree, and the compact camera diminishing market shows that.
- ehnto 5y agoYep, my travel photos are split between DSLR photos and phone photos, the phone photos are usually way more interesting because they were of things I was otherwise never going to capture.
- photojosh 5y agomine are split between phone photos and tough camera photos, which are of worse quality than the phone ones but... > I was otherwise never going to capture ;)
- jiggawatts 5y agoConversely I have a good DSLR with very good glass attached, as well as M4/3 pocket camera, and two phones. After the trip I dump everything into one Lightroom album and go through picking out the keepers without looking at the specific camera model used. My typical result is 80% DSLR, 10% pocket camera, 10% phones.
- nomel 5y agoWhat do you think is the biggest "keeper" differentiator for you, between the three, that favors the DSLR? For me, it used to be dynamic range, but now I basically can't making my (older) DSLR pictures look as good as my iPhone pictures.
- bigyikes 5y agoThe resolution and detail on a “real” camera is killer for me. I can save photos with the crop much more easily. Also, portrait mode is good, but nothing beats real bokeh.
- fennecfoxy 5y agoThe reason I bought my A7II is so that I can: * Get more light in with massive full frame lenses (and hence less noise) * Ability to use lens hoods, xenon flashes, easier to use tripods * Have more lens options available (even though the prices make me cry) that use the same (main) sensor (as opposed to phones with multiple lenses, telephoto etc tend to use low res/smaller sensors) * (the biggest point) so I can take a photo, have the RAW and know that the only thing applied to it is the colour profile; no AI photo magic, no Apple saturation boosting, etc When I take a photo with my A7II I know what I have on the card is the photo _I_ took. With a phone who tf knows what the image processing chip has done to it to make it "look good".
- anticodon 5y agoThere're compact cameras with decent quality and not overly big or heavy. I use Canon G9X Mark II. It produces photos of much better quality than the best smartphone camera I had (without software tricks that could be applied to Canon photos afterwards anyway), and it is small enough to carry it with me all the time in the pocket.
- photojosh 5y agothe tricks with high dynamic range (software combine two shots), night photos (take loads of photos and pick the sharpest bits vs tripod) are way more work to do after the fact
- dsego 5y agoAnd then you want to apply a snazzy filter and instantly share your photo to all your friends via whatsapp or instagram.
- anticodon 5y agoWhen I have a feeling that I would like to share the picture with my friends instantly, I also take it on my phone. Also, Canon G9X has bluetooth and wifi interfaces and phone app that allows quick downloading and sharing of photos (although it is indeed slower and more cumbersome than sharing directly from the phone camera app).
- zimpenfish 5y agoI've got a Powershot and the problem I find, compared with my phone, is the time it takes from "oh there's something" to actually being able to take a photo - for my phone, it's maybe 2-3s (if the Camera app isn't already open; more like 1-2s if it is.) For the Powershot, it's always 10s+.
- exporectomy 5y agoBack in the olden days, cheap cameras had no latency at all. Just press the button and it takes the picture instantly. I've often tried to find something like that but things keep getting worse. Iphone tries to help with a camera on the lock screen but there's still a lot of tapping and swiping and waiting.
- amelius 5y ago> Notably, this is for mobile phone sensors, which are highly "physics constrained" and need every trick in the book to achieve decent image quality. How about cameras used in endoscopy?
- vanderZwan 5y agoOr drones.
- dehrmann 5y agoDrone cameras have more than 7mm to work with.
- KineticLensman 5y agoNot insect-sized drones
- shen 5y agoIf it requires me to buy new lenses then no thanks.
- spicybright 5y agoI think the huge potential is lenses may become cheaper, given they don't need layers of precisely curved glass anymore. That said, if only Sony is making these, they'll just keep the prices the same to rake in more profits.
- porphyra 5y ago> That said, if only Sony is making these, they'll just keep the prices the same to rake in more profits. You seem to be suggesting that Sony is price gouging or something when in fact they are probably the most innovative camera company and their GM lenses are fairly and competitively priced against modern lenses for Canon RF mount and Nikon Z mount.
- boondaburrah 5y agoIf only sony is making these, a lot of other cameras will see them as well since sony is the sensor manufacturer for say, nikon. That' doesn't mean prices will go down, however.
- dingaling 5y ago> I think the huge potential is lenses may become cheaper, given they don't need layers of precisely curved glass anymore. They'll still need precise optics to prevent distortion, chromatoc aberration and coma. And to maintain sharpness. The only advantage the curved sensor brings is that the lens doesn't need a final group to force the image onto a planar surface.
- aspyct 5y agoI would love to have a lighter version of the 70-200 though...
- dbbk 5y ago
- Scene_Cast2 5y agoI think most photo companies (and even MS) have patented curved image sensors at this point. Everybody has been saying that it's the next big thing, but it's probably hard to produce and I'm not an optics engineer to actually chime in on how much improvement it can have.
- doctoboggan 5y agoThe article touches on that and seems to be saying the significance here is that it’s a patent for the production process of the curved sensors, not just a patent for the apparatus itself.
- ksec 5y agoIt is looking like Nuclear Fusion or Battery Breakthrough. Consider how little media hype it is getting and no actual production time line, which means the absolute earliest commercial usage will likely be 4 - 5 years, takes another 2 - 3 years to iron out all the edge cases, we are looking at 2030 before it becomes mainstream. I dont follow lens and sensor industry at all so do correct me if I am wrong. Previous Discussion https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25113755 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25113755 Submission from 7 years ago. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8006235 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8006235
- sschueller 5y agoIs there a term for that? Like vaporware but not the same, something that could possibly exist some day due to some lab work but is being hyped by the media as some breakthrough.
- olau 5y agoYou're actually describing vaporware. Vaporware certain to not materialize is downright lying/fraud I think.
- JohnJamesRambo 5y agohttps://www.gartner.com/en/research/methodologies/gartner-hype-cycle https://www.gartner.com/en/research/methodologies/gartner-hy...
- nodejs_rulez_1 5y ago'Journalism'
- tupac_speedrap 5y agoI'm not sure but there's always been a running joke about nuclear fusion always being 20 years away.
- oblio 5y agoI think nuclear fusion power plants are being designed on mainstream desktop Linux workstations right as we speak! :-D
- ohazi 5y agoIt's for a single axis curve, where the sensor is thinned and then bent over a form (presumably along the long axis), rather than a fully dished image plane. If the goal is reduced complexity / thinner optics, I guess this can make the design problem easier even if it doesn't solve it completely? Although I have to assume that you'd end up with a host of new distortion/aberration problems. I'm also assuming that this is only being considered for smartphones and not for ILCs? For ILCs, most lenses can be adapted by knowing one number -- the flange focal distance. Needing to also deal with image plane curvature would throw a pretty big wrench into that...
- rbanffy 5y ago> Needing to also deal with image plane curvature would throw a pretty big wrench into that... While opening a host of opportunities for selling lenses.
- namibj 5y agoCheck out the Schmidt camera to see what little glass can give you great optical performance if you can live with a curved image plane. The Baker-Nunn camera puts this to the extreme: 500mm, f/1, 30 degree FOV. Even a simple Schmidt–Väisälä in 400mm f/2 can cover a 4000px wide sensor with 5.5 micrometer pixel size perfectly (even 3.5 micrometer pixels would still be useful, especially if color).
- nomel 5y ago> It's for a single axis curve This is required if you're to display the images on a square display, without distortion, correct?
- Doxin 5y agoNot really. As long as you've got a grid of pixels, it doesn't much matter what their shape is. Of course having a regular pixel sizing would end up with distorted images. Correcting for lens distortion isn't exactly a new trick, but if you want to be really fancy about it you could probably make non-uniform pixels too, correcting for it in hardware.
- contravariant 5y agoSeems a bit optimistic to simulate one of the properties the eye has (by necessity) and hope that this somehow improves image quality.
- rbanffy 5y agoIf the author is raving about vertebrate eyes, wait until they discover the squid.
- kazinator 5y agoCool, now just wire that image directly to the brain, so that the effect isn't ruined by going through an actual second eye. Call me a party pooper, but I believe the greatest achievement in optics is that lens type which crisply maps straight lines to straight lines. When you then view the resulting image from the proper distance, you see what the eye would have seen at the original scene. If there is any curvature apparent in the straight lines, it's coming from you in the same way; you're getting your "curved sensor industry shake-up fix" right there.
- exporectomy 5y agoI don't think the purpose is to make a different shaped image, but to get the same image with smaller optics. If you wanted it distorted, you could just post-process the image from a flat sensor.
- dheerajvs 5y ago> 108MP sensors becoming increasingly common Do millions of tiny binned pixels provide better image quality compared to much larger pixels with the same sensor area? How do they compare in low light?
- smolder 5y agoMore pixels in low light could allow you to do more intelligent processing, maybe even in a way that allows for longer exposures or multiple exposures to do the job of gathering more light (without incurring as much of a fidelity penalty as usual from motion blur.)
- darumderum 5y agoMore pixels provide more details, but not always more quality, as poor lens quality is also "enhanced". This is useful for large prints which require a high dpi. In low light, less pixels in a greater sensor area perform better. Dense pixels result in more iso noise
- amrcnimgrnt 5y agoDiffraction blurs the image even for 10MP, given the small lens/sensor. The other 98 MP are used to remove noise, especially at low light
- nomel 5y agoI assume this is similar to delta-sigma ADC/DAC, where you shift all the noise to a higher spectrum, so you can easily cut it all off?
- amrcnimgrnt 5y agoI dunno, I took optics 15 years ago and only one signals class :P I'd just average the lowest (N-1) pixels. N-1 because shot noise is a very bright pixel - if I have a bright pixel not including it is best for the avg. If the pixel is not surging, not including it doesn't affect my average much.
- 5y ago
- greg7mdp 5y agoThe writer obviously does not understand the benefit of curved sensors. They will make the lenses cheaper and smaller - they will not change the way photographs look.
- onion2k 5y agoMaking the sensor smaller and cheaper also enables larger sensors at the equivalent cost and form factor of a current sensor though, which would change photos (if you think higher output resolution is a change to an image). The benefit doesn't have to be taken as making things cheaper.
- Kye 5y agoFull-frame at APS-C prices would be great. It would lose one of the perks of APS-C: crop factor. Getting 450mm out of a 70-300mm lens is nice. edit: since it's apparently not clear and I'm getting downvoted for sharing how this benefits a harmless personal preference, I will emphasize that I'm speaking to my needs. The 70-300 lens is what I use, not some abstract construct meant to represent all purposes. The crop factor is generally a perk for people who shoot at the ranges I shoot at even if it comes with compromises for other needs.
- booi 5y agothis is essentially zoom though as you're not using the full output of the lens
- Kye 5y agoThat's okay. I usually shoot things that are further away. Other people will have different needs. Only speaking for myself.
- cschep 5y agoIsn't this usually thought of as a disadvantage? E.g. You have to buy more glass ($$) to get smaller mm equivalents?
- Zigurd 5y agoThere are at least three domains for solving distortion: Lenses, sensors, and software. This could be a significant breakthrough IF the economics of making curved sensors is better than the economics of making better lenses or using a higher resolution sensor to compensate for throwing away part of an image in correcting distortion in software. There is a significant chance this will end up like the Foveon sensor: Better on paper but not better enough to overcome "let's throw more pixels and software at it."
- abruzzi 5y agonot an expert in optics, but I thought the limitation of curved sensors in achieving the hypothetical reduction in lens complexity is every focal length would require a different curve radius? So you'd have one focal length that would be significantly simplified because the curve of the sensor would match the curve of the focal "plane" and any other lens you attach would have to become equally or more complex to match its curve to the curve of the sensor? I know for cell phones this wouldn't be an issue, because they have a single fixed lens, but for all the cameras with interchangeable optics, does flat makes more sense? EDIT: after a bit of thought, if I'm correct above this would also benefit optics in many industrial applications. My brain is usually rooted in cameras people take pictures with, but there are optics and sensors in a lot of other applications. And of course saying "just cell phone cameras" is funny because they are by far the most popular cameras in the world, just that I never use them so they are a bit of blind spot for me.
- mmis1000 5y agoI remembered that I saw news of another company patiented transformable lense on hackernews. Probably that combine to this can reproduce human eye completely (high focal range and compact at same time)?
- amrcnimgrnt 5y agoWhat I'm interested to see is when/if a camera like the Lytro will be put into a smartphone. Does it work if the pixels are much smaller than the diffraction limit?
- Andrew_nenakhov 5y agoI'm sceptical. First time I've heard about curved image sensors ~15 years ago. So until this thing ships in an actual product, I'll put in into the same category where I put revolutionary batteries with 20x capacity (promised since 1990) and other too good to be true things.
- kobalsky 5y agothe power density of AA batteries may not have changed much because AA batteries need to be disposable in ordinary trash but if you have used a notebook in the 90s and one now, how can you say that capacity hasn't improved?