48MP DSLR's on the way

[sposch]

Sounds like the full frame CMOS sensors will have some competition...


DALSA Presents New 48 Megapixel Image Sensor at IEDM Conference


11:00 EST Wednesday, December 17, 2008  

WATERLOO, ONTARIO--(Marketwire - Dec. 17, 2008) - DALSA Corporation (TSX:DSA), an international leader in high performance digital imaging and semiconductors, was pleased to present its new 48 megapixel standard product image sensor for professional photography in a presentation at the International Electron Devices Meeting (IEDM) in San Francisco this week. IEDM, organized by the IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers), is the world's premier forum for the presentation of advances in microelectronic and nanoelectronic devices.

Eric-Jan Manoury, a scientist at DALSA's Eindhoven R&D lab, gave the presentation titled "A 36x48mm2 48M-pixel CCD imager for professional DSC applications," highlighting not only the device's high resolution, but the advances it delivers in increased quantum efficiency, lower noise, and higher dynamic range compared to previous generation or competitor devices.

"This scientific presentation at the IEEE IEDM international conference demonstrates once again the world leadership which DALSA continues to provide in the field of large format image sensors for professional digital still camera applications," stated Dr. Savvas Chamberlain, CTO and Chairman of DALSA. "This is the first large image format imager with such high pixel rate (100 MHz) and with 74 dB dynamic range and 55000 electron signal capacity."

Built on DALSA's' new 6 micron pixel platform, the new device is available as a standard product. With the new performance benchmarks it establishes, including superior speed, dynamic range, and angular response, it is already generating demand from customers in one of the world's most demanding imaging applications: medium format professional digital photography.

DALSA's image sensors led the way in professional photography's shift to digital ten years ago, and this new device delivers even more of the performance professional photographers demand: higher throughput, exceptionally low noise, unmatched dynamic range, and better color.

To view the technical paper from the presentation, visit our website: http://www.dalsa.com/public/corp/PDFs/DALS...dings_final.pdf

[Panopeeper]

If Dalsa sold half of that chip, Nikon could build a decent camera around it, and the title would become somewhat more accurate:

24MP DSLR's on the way

[Yoram from Berlin]

Meh, impress me with ISO, not with pixels.

[Kenneth Sky]

Six micron pixels compare with Sony's 5.9. There's likely to be the same high ISO noise problem. That gives up the main MFDB advantage of larger pixels with all that comes with that.

[BernardLanguillier]

Puzzling news, all the MF companies likely to be willing to use this chip have recently announced their 2009 line of backs... some of them with other Dalsa chips.

Or would this be another sign of Nikon's upcoming MX being for real?...

Cheers,
Bernard

[Chairman Bill]

I'd settle for a 20 megapixel digital back for my FM

Frankly, I want ISO 25 more than I want ISO bloody big number.

[Panopeeper]

Six micron pixels compare with Sony's 5.9. There's likely to be the same high ISO noise problem. That gives up the main MFDB advantage of larger pixels with all that comes with that

This is not only the question of sensel size; the electronics plays a greater role.

1. CCDs are less noisy than CMOS,

2. the read out electronics of these expensive chips is very different from the others. Even the "others" are not equal; why do you think Canon's 1 serie and the 5d2 have lower noise, than the xxxD serie?

3. The quantum efficiency is claimed to be grater than the former versions.

It's a pity that such sensors are not available in DSLRs. It would be a great day if we could forget the dumb ISO setting and shoot away with a large dynamic range.

[dwdallam]

This is not only the question of sensel size; the electronics plays a greater role.

1. CCDs are less noisy than CMOS,

2. the read out electronics of these expensive chips is very different from the others. Even the "others" are not equal; why do you think Canon's 1 serie and the 5d2 have lower noise, than the xxxD serie?

3. The quantum efficiency is claimed to be grater than the former versions.

It's a pity that such sensors are not available in DSLRs. It would be a great day if we could forget the dumb ISO setting and shoot away with a large dynamic range.

If you mean having just "dynamic range" and no ISO setting, I think that day is coming. Although it will always be nice to have the option to get a grainy image rather than no image. but point well taken. ISO is probably on it's way out. It still has relevance because of "grain" quality, but sooner or later, noise isn't going to be a problem, and ISO will fade away. Don't video cameras call ISO "LUX" for how much dynamic range they have?

[250swb]

48mp DSLR's? What are camera manufacturers going to do about their marginal 24mp 'compatible' lenses? Design a whole new bunch of them that are even bigger and better? I can't wait, and if I carry my bag on the other shoulder maybe they'll help me straighten up.


Steve

[BJL]

Puzzling news, all the MF companies likely to be willing to use this chip have recently announced their 2009 line of backs...

Nothing puzzling to me: Dalsa, like Kodak, is probably shifting to the new 6 micron cell size across all MF sensor sizes, and this is just making that changeover for the 36x48mm sensor size, having already introduced larger, more expensive sensors in "6 micron". And since Dalsa sells these sensors for other uses too, there is no need to hold the announcement until a DMF back is about to use the new sensor.

And has anyone said that models announced so far are the only models coming in 2009?

Surely no-one really expects the old, lower resolution cell sizes of 7 or 9 micron to stay around for much longer. Offering significantly higher resolution than 35mm digital offers is essential to the DMF market, through both lenses and sensors and 33MP vs 24MP is not much of a margin.

I expect back models that currently use the 33MP 36x48 sensor from Dalsa to be upgraded to this sensor at some point. And I expect prices significantly lower than for the larger "near 645 full frame" models, keeping the market alive for "48mm format".

[Ben Rubinstein]

1. CCDs are less noisy than CMOS,

Except in every single real world example since the advent of digital outside of special applications or labs...

[BJL]

1. CCDs are less noisy than CMOS,

You might want to qualify that: it seems to be true at base ISO, but CMOS sensor noise levels tend to increase more slowly with ISO speed (probably due to applying ISO gain amplification on-chip, earlier in the signal chain), so for those who only care about high ISO noise levels, the opposite is true. I would phrase it as
"CCDs have greater maximum dynamic range than CMOS sensors".

[alba63]

Except in every single real world example since the advent of digital outside of special applications or labs...

As far as I have read, CCD is inherently less noisier, but cmos allows easier for on chip NR, and this can be cleaned up better, which, on the other hand, makes for the overly smoothed out cmos look and the crispier CCD look.

Bernie

[JeffKohn]

I'm with Panopeeper. I'd love to see a DSLR with a slow-readout CCD optimized for absolute maximum image quality at base ISO. Heck I might even be willing to pay 8K for a D3x that had one of those in it, instead of yet another CMOS sensor.

[Panopeeper]

Except in every single real world example since the advent of digital outside of special applications or labs...

Well, let's see what Canon have to say to this subject:

CMOS sensors generally have the disadvantage of generating more electrical noise than CCDs, which can result in poor image quality. There are unavoidable fluctuations in the performance of the millions of photodiodes and amplifiers incorporated into a CMOS sensor, and the tiny differences in performance result in noise in the output image....

Of course, Canon worked hard and quite successfully on reducing this disadvantage, but that does not change the fact, that Canon (and now Nikon) chose CMOS for other, even more important advantages: faster operation, much-much lower power consupltion than CCDs and couplet to this, much less heat generation.

Is it then surprizing, that the MFDBs are using CCD? They are working slower, consume power and generate heat like an oven, but deliver clean images. On the other hand, they are weak with higher ISOs.

[bjanes]

Well, let's see what Canon have to say to this subject:

CMOS sensors generally have the disadvantage of generating more electrical noise than CCDs, which can result in poor image quality. There are unavoidable fluctuations in the performance of the millions of photodiodes and amplifiers incorporated into a CMOS sensor, and the tiny differences in performance result in noise in the output image....

Of course, Canon worked hard and quite successfully on reducing this disadvantage, but that does not change the fact, that Canon (and now Nikon) chose CMOS for other, even more important advantages: faster operation, much-much lower power consupltion than CCDs and couplet to this, much less heat generation.

Is it then surprizing, that the MFDBs are using CCD? They are working slower, consume power and generate heat like an oven, but deliver clean images. On the other hand, they are weak with higher ISOs.

This Dalsa paper summarizes the differences between CCD and CMOS and does not take sides, since Dalsa makes both types of chip. It would seem as if CMOS is better suited to 35mm style DSLRs while CCD is better suited for the characteristics of a medium format format.

[Panopeeper]

It would seem as if CMOS is better suited to 35mm style DSLRs while CCD is better suited for the characteristics of a medium format format.

The Canon paper I quoted from says

The bigger CCDs are, the more power they consume. Making them faster also requires more power. A Canon in-house comparison of CCD and CMOS power consumption found that with the very small sensor in point-and-shoot digital cameras, the CCD consumes 50% more power than CMOS. In the case of an APS-C size sensor, used in DSLR cameras such as the EOS Digital Rebel XT, EOS 20D and 30D, the CCD consumes more than twice as much power. With full-frame 35mm sensors, CCDs consume about three times more power as a baseline.

This factor, and the speed issue make CMOS the better candidate for medium format. The fact, that the MF sensors are CCDs despite these considerations is the proof, that another factor, the noise still speaks for CCD. Even the Dalsa paper mentioned above writes:

System noise:  low (CCD), moderate (CMOS)

Btw, the Canon document is a "white paper", called "Canon's full frame CMOS sensors" from 2006. I don't have the link, I saved the document.

[francois]

The Canon paper I quoted from says

The bigger CCDs are, the more power they consume. Making them faster also requires more power. A Canon in-house comparison of CCD and CMOS power consumption found that with the very small sensor in point-and-shoot digital cameras, the CCD consumes 50% more power than CMOS. In the case of an APS-C size sensor, used in DSLR cameras such as the EOS Digital Rebel XT, EOS 20D and 30D, the CCD consumes more than twice as much power. With full-frame 35mm sensors, CCDs consume about three times more power as a baseline.

This factor, and the speed issue make CMOS the better candidate for medium format. The fact, that the MF sensors are CCDs despite these considerations is the proof, that another factor, the noise still speaks for CCD. Even the Dalsa paper mentioned above writes:

System noise:  low (CCD), moderate (CMOS)

Btw, the Canon document is a "white paper", called "Canon's full frame CMOS sensors" from 2006. I don't have the link, I saved the document.

The Canon document can still be found on Rob Galbraith's website: http://www.robgalbraith.com/public_files/C...White_Paper.pdf

[Slough]

Puzzling news, all the MF companies likely to be willing to use this chip have recently announced their 2009 line of backs... some of them with other Dalsa chips.

Or would this be another sign of Nikon's upcoming MX being for real?...

Cheers,
Bernard

Wasn't the Nikon MX rumour fueled by Nikon advertising a new product of interest to medium format users - which turned out to be the D3x, doh! - and dpreview 'experts' seeing the advert and explaining that Nikon MX was a cert because the new tilt shift lenses covered a large image circle and hence the optics were suitable for a new range of MF lenses?

Or was there some actual solid evidence for Nikon MX?

[Slough]

As far as I have read, CCD is inherently less noisier, but cmos allows easier for on chip NR, and this can be cleaned up better, which, on the other hand, makes for the overly smoothed out cmos look and the crispier CCD look.

Bernie

The Nikon D200 uses a CCD chip. The D300 uses a CMOS chip. Comparing the two, we see that at ISO 1600 the D200 produces horrible results, with softness, and luminance noise. At ISO 1600 the D300 produces much better results. Even at ISO 800 D200 sensor noise and loss of sharpness are obvious. Only when Nikon went to CMOS were they able to match the low noise results from Canon cameras. In the real world CMOS rules.