DSLRUsers.com

Looks like a news release coming from that patent that was talked about on dpreview.

Fujifilm Develops New Image Sensor Technology for Digicams
Fuji Photo Film Co. Ltd., Tokyo, Japan, has developed a new basic technology for a new type of image sensor that ensures 3x higher sensitivity and richer color depth than conventional image sensors, reports PhotoImaging Enterprises Association International's PEN News Weekly.

In today's digital cameras, images are captured and converted into digital signals by triplets of CCDs placed side by side -- one each for red, green, and blue. It is difficult for ordinary photographers to realize that a digital image captured with a digital camera has less depth than pictures taken with film in which the photosensitive pigments for the three primary colors of red, green, and blue are layered above one another, but pro photographers can recognize this.

Adopting the same concept of layering, the new image sensor developed by Fujifilm uses organic pigments reacting to red, green and blue light. The pigments are sandwiched between transparent electrodes and stacked above one another. When light enters each pigment layer, electric current flows between the electrodes, and the electric current is then converted into digital signals.

Fujifilm has made a prototype image sensor containing a green-reacting pigment. It yields monochrome pictures having the same depth as photo film, and is now making prototype elements for red and blue light as well. The company has filed a patent application on the basic technology and hopes to commercialize new image sensors in three to four years, says PEN News Weekly.

Hmm, electronic colour film. An interesting and exciting concept (if it works).

Makes sense really. It's a logical step. Hopefully this will relate to an automatic three-fold increase in megapixels too, for even sharper images.

Killakoala wrote:Makes sense really. It's a logical step. Hopefully this will relate to an automatic three-fold increase in megapixels too, for even sharper images.

And if there is a threefold increase the marketing people will tell us that makes it three times as good.

Killakoala, I think that will be a while off until they can come up with a compression scheme, pcs and storage big enough to cope with it all
I guess 4-6 years down the track should be fine, we'll probably have 20gb CF cards or something stupid like that

Killakoala wrote:Hopefully this will relate to an automatic three-fold increase in megapixels too, for even sharper images.

I'm not convinced - remember Foveon? Even discounting their sensitivity problems, they weren't getting images that much better than similar cameras with the same number of photosites. Sure, you lose the Bayer interpolation, but it felt like the same sort of gimmick as the Fuji dual sensors.

I'm hoping it works, but I'm not expecting more than perhaps a 50% increase in resolution over todays technology.

Sure, but it may mean higher pixel density, which may or may not be a good thing. It may mean larger photosites and therefore larger CCD's or CMOS's, perhaps full 35mm frame equivelant.

Time will tell when or if the technology ever gets out in the wild.

Guys, i'm sure this is about developing a digital camera with film like dynamic range.

The megapixel race is over, it's now about the quality of the pixels. Something that Fuji currently has over the magenta Nikon's and Buttery Canons.

padey wrote:Guys, i'm sure this is about developing a digital camera with film like dynamic range.

The megapixel race is over, it's now about the quality of the pixels. Something that Fuji currently has over the magenta Nikon's and Buttery Canons.

Good point. I think we have enough MP's at least until computers catch up. I think quality not quantity will become the next marketing buzz.

padey wrote:Guys, i'm sure this is about developing a digital camera with film like dynamic range.

You mean 5 stops instead of the 10 or 11 that most DSLRs are capable of? Not sure what you're trying to get the camera to do, I assumed they're trying to lift the efficiency of the sensor so we get more resolution from the same area and hopefully also more dynamic range. Although the guy linked below thinks they're already pushing they physical limits a bit.

I found it very educational last year to borrow a film camera and shoot some comparisons. The lack of dynamic range on colour neg film was quite obvious, and the noise made the shots unusable (by the standards of a Canon 300D in the same situation). Looking back, I should have included my PoS digital too.

Ha, found the site I was thinking about yesterday. An interesting sample photo on this page showing the dynamic range of a Canon 1DII compared to film: http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/ ... index.html
and a quick reference to counting photons:
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/ ... index.html

Considering that nobody that I've ever asked could tell the difference between a 6x8 print taken with a 3.2, 6 and 10.2 megapixel camera in terms of quality, I really doubt if there is any real reason to go much higher for 99 percent of people.

I know very few people who print bigger than 6x4's of ANY photo that they take.

So, here are my statements.
1. The majority of people don't have vision acute enough to tel l the difference.
2. The majority of people don't print large enough to let their vision be able to tell the difference.
3. The majority of people think that more is better. The only thing that keeps increasing steadily is pixel count.
Other developments aren't as rapid.

Hence, the majority of people are influenced by marketing campaigns and implied improvement JUST BECAUSE they are used to not thinking.
How many of you have those "flexible" toothbrushes that are supposed to make you press less on your teeth?

If you actually believe that crap, you're a complete and utter idiot.
Have a look at the structure under the supposed flexing arrangement.

Do you also have a schick quattro and think that they give you the "worlds closest shave" like they say they do in the ads?

Anything with a thin wire guard isn't going to shave as well as a straight blade, is it?

The vast amount of technological development into consumer goods is aimed at removing your money from your wallet.
NOT giving you better tools.
If you THINK you're getting better stuff, you're happy about handing over your cash.

The truth of the matter hurts, but it can be distilled across all purchases with one philosophy fairly evenly.

If you have to use anything other than the senses that you were born with to tell any significant difference between two items, there are other factors than just pure performance that are influencing your decision.

I don't mind that you have to have the best to feel good about yourself. Just admit it.
Don't make excuses.

My D70 makes good enough images for me.
I've paid for my D200 because I want one and my girlfriend will have sex with me more often. (At least that's what she says if I give her my D70 to use)

whiz wrote:My D70 makes good enough images for me.
I've paid for my D200 because I want one and my girlfriend will have sex with me more often. (At least that's what she says if I give her my D70 to use)

Love it, you were on the money with the advertising but sorry couldn't go past this.

I believed the Fuji marketing crap and bought a S7000..... enough said.


Tony

whiz wrote:


My D70 makes good enough images for me.
I've paid for my D200 because I want one and my girlfriend will have sex with me more often. (At least that's what she says if I give her my D70 to use)

whiz do you think I should have given my wife a D70 for her birthday instead of a lawn mower LOZ

Lesson from Whiz.

Who can tell the difference in sound quality between:
a CD recording and 12 inch vinyl LP?
a solid state or Vacuum Valve amplifier?

Who can tell the difference between 64K or 16M screen resoloution?

Who can tell the difference between a 6 x 4 print genereated by a digital
or film original?

Answer - only those purists who care or those of who it really matters too.
The rest follow the marketting hype.

For me, I would like a sensor irrespective of MPixels that gives accurate colours and spot on white balance every shot.

whiz do you think I should have given my wife a D70 for her birthday instead of a lawn mower Question LOZ

you crack me up LOZ, as well as your signature!