Technology Review - Published By MIT
Advertisement

Pushing Pixels

Kodak brings digital cameras into the 50-megapixel range.

By Duncan Graham-Rowe

Wednesday, July 16, 2008

smaller text tool iconmedium text tool iconlarger text tool icon

Last week, Kodak launched the first ever 50-megapixel camera sensor. While such high resolution goes beyond the needs of most consumers, for professional photographers the new sensor will enable photographs to be taken at an unprecedented level of detail.

Fifty megapixels: Kodak’s new 50-million-pixel camera sensor manages to squeeze more pixels onto an array while simultaneously increasing the speed and reducing the power consumption of the device.
Credit: Kodak

For example, in a picture taken of a field one-and-a-half miles across, the sensor would make it possible for a viewer to detect an object measuring just one foot across.

This sort of resolution is only really essential for and targeted at high-end professional photography, in which high-quality images often need to be blown up large. But it could also be useful for some other applications, such as aerial photography as used for services like Google Earth. "The ability to have more pixels lets the plane fly higher, so you don't need as many pictures," says Mike DeLuca, marketing manager for Kodak's Image Sensor Solutions, based in Rochester, NY.

The sensor, which produces an array of 8,176-by-6,132 pixels, further closes the gap between traditional film and digital photography. "We're really close to how film was operated," DeLuca says. "It's very close." Now, he says, it's just a matter of the photographer's personal preference.

Normally, the smaller you make a pixel, the poorer the quality, says Albert Theuwissen, a digital-imaging expert and founder of Harvest Imaging, based in Bree, Belgium. "That is true for consumer as well as professional devices." DeLuca claims that in the case of Kodak's breakout sensor, new pigments actually increase the color quality rendered by the sensor, while other mechanisms enable the pixels to be just as sensitive as larger ones--and yet they're processed faster than in previous designs. What's more, he claims that the new sensor uses less power than its predecessors. "Every solution or step that makes the sensor faster and less power hungry is a step forward," says Theuwissen.

Kodak already has a sensor on the market with a resolution of 39 million pixels. But to further increase the resolution, the company had to not only reduce the size of each pixel from 6.8 microns to 6 microns, but also radically change the way that these charged coupled device (CCD) sensors work, says DeLuca.

"It's relatively straightforward to make the pixels smaller," he says. But because these devices comprise much more than just light-detecting elements, DeLuca says, they can suffer drops in performance if everything inside them is not shrunken along with the pixels.

Story continues below

"Each pixel has multiple structures," he says. Some are designed to pass a charge from one pixel to the next, to enable the image to be read off the device. Other structures ensure that any excess charge produced by bright lighting conditions doesn't spill out into neighboring pixels.

Another challenge is to maintain the dynamic range of the sensor--that is, its ability to detect light and dark simultaneously. In the sensor, this is basically a signal-to-noise issue, says DeLuca. "When you make the pixel smaller, there is less signal you are able to capture, because physically there is less ability to store electrons in that pixel. If we don't do anything else, what we end up with is a smaller signal with the same noise profile." To counteract this, Kodak has had to improve the amplifier at the output of the device, which reduces the noise.

Comments

  • still a long way to go
    Pixels of 6x6 micrometer remain very much larger than the silver halide crystals in film. I also note that a high end SLR digital camera with an 18x24 mm sensor is about as big and weighs about the same as a 45x60 (in fact 42x56) mm SLR camera that uses film. As usual, ease of use (in this case ability to e-mail pictures very quickly after making the exposure) trumps quality for most consumers. Perhaps not so much for professionals.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    djs
    07/16/2008
    Posts:24
    Avg Rating:
    3/5
    • Re: still a long way to go
      The pixel size difference is true but film grain is binary so it requires lots of silver halide grains to produce gray shades. CCD pixels, even though larger (6um vs 2um), can each produce a gray level - so although the pixels are bigger than the film grain the resolution may, in reality, actually be higher for the CCD.
      Rate this comment: 12345

      microbill
      07/16/2008
      Posts:2
      Avg Rating:
      5/5
      • Re: still a long way to go
        A naive question: has anybody measured at which point a digital detector has more resolution than photographic film?
        Rate this comment: 12345

        ecota
        07/19/2008
        Posts:1
        • Re: still a long way to go
          Complicated question, since it depends on the film size.

          If you are comparing against the best 35mm film, digital cameras have already surpassed the quality of film cameras.

          Here's a site with Roger Clark's testing results.

          http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.1.html

          The rest of his site is worth a browse.
          Rate this comment: 12345

          MatthiasF
          07/20/2008
          Posts:1
          Avg Rating:
          5/5
        • Re: still a long way to go
          Another limiting factor is the limitations of the lens. There is currently no point doubling the resolution of DX based cameras and smaller.

          Smaller pixels mean more noise and high noise reduces apparent resolution. Just because you can chop the picture up smaller doesn't mean it's better. Film nicely rolls-off the highlights but the darker regions losses detail because of film grain and noise. DSLR beat film around 400ISO and faster.
          Rate this comment: 12345

          tygrus
          07/22/2008
          Posts:1

Log In

Forgot your password?     Register »
Advertisement

Videos

Laser-Triggered Chemical Reactions
Featured Content
Sponsored by:
White Papers

Twelve ways to reduce costs with SQL Server 2008
Find out how to reduce costs and get more efficient

Download

Total Economic Impact of SQL Server 2008 Upgrade
Forrester reports on increasing productivity and management capabilities

Download 

Achieving Cost and Resource Savings with UC
How Office Communications Server R2 and Exchange Server can make your business smarter and more efficient

Download 

The Compelling Case for Conferencing
Read how you can improve workload support and find IT efficiencies

Download

How Windows Server 2008 R2 Helps Optimize IT and Save you Money
Read how you can improve workload support and find IT efficiencies

Download

Windows Server 2008 R2 Hyper-V Live Migration
See how Windows Server 2008 R2 and Hyper-V enable virtualization and Live Migration

Download
Advertisement
Subscribe to Technology Review's daily e-mail update. Enter your e-mail address

TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES
Advertisement
MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology © 2009 Technology Review. All Rights Reserved.