Thu Jun 14, 2007 11:58PM EDT
See Comments (203)
Imagine...no red eye. Period. Or no need for a flash on a digital camera.
Now that digital camera makers have come up with all kinds of ways to eliminate red eye and improve flash technology while stabilizing images, Kodak says it is developing digital technology that will nearly eliminate the need for a flash (and the oft-accompanying red eye) and improve performance in low-light conditions.
Here's how it would work: The new technology would increase light sensitivity of existing image sensors by two to four times. That means a camera's shutter speed could increase, which would reduce camera shake and blurring problems. If it works, it also would allow photographers to shoot in low light without producing grainy, speckled photos.
The proof is in the pixels. In most digital cameras, each sensor pixel detects either the color red, green, or blue and places them into a pattern named for Bryce Bayer, the Kodak engineer who developed it. With the new high-sensitivity technology, half of the pixels will be panchromatic, or clear, so they will capture only the brightness, not color. That means a 12-megapixel camera would have 6 million panchromatic pixels, 3 million green pixels, 1.5 million red pixels, and 1.5 million blue pixels. In comparison, today's 12-megapixel cameras have 6 million green pixels, 3 million red, and 3 million blue.
The announcement is Kodak's latest big play in an intense bid to rebuild into a digital photography company as its film business dwindles. The company's plan is to make use of its proprietary intellectual property, including this image sensor technology, to compete in the crowded digicam market. Kodak entered the printer business this year with models that are slightly higher priced than competitors' but use ink that retails for about half the cost of other cartridges.
Kodak will build its own cameras with the new technology, but it also plans to sell it to other manufacturers since it works with existing image sensors. The new tech will be available in early 2008, but Kodak has given no word on when the first cameras with it fully built in will be on the market.
On each page in my photo albums of the kids since they were little, there's at least one photo besmirched by red eyes, the scourge of the snap shooter. More and more cameras are including tools to remove red eye in camera, while even the most amateur among us have become pretty adept at removing the demonizing glare with tools on photo software, online photo ordering sites, and in-store kiosks. But built-in technology that eliminates the need to tinker before and post shooting would be a welcome feature in a digital camera.
Is this the kind of feature you've been waiting for in a digital camera?
LINKS: Kodak says camera sensor may eliminate flash [Reuters via Yahoo! News]
Kodak boosts digital camera sensitivity [Cnet News.com]
Editor's note: Thanks for the sharp eyes, readers. This technology would let the shutter speed be increased, not decreased.
Join in the discussion. Here you'll see the comments in the order they were posted.
interesting. but not really enough information. for example what will the effect on ISO (the digital equivalent of ASA, or film speed) be? also what about aperture? what's the effect on that? and if the new technology speeds up the shutter, what about longer exposures, which require lower shutter speeds?
If you get red eye, it is simple to correct with software like Elements. It literally takes about 10 seconds to open the red eye picture, and another 20 seconds to eliminate it. If you are serious about your pictures, invest in software like Elements, take a few minutes to learn its basics, and red eye will never again be a problem!
I am a professional photographer and the elimination of a routine flash has some problems that most "snapshot" photographers may not like. Down-lighting is the absolute worst conditions in which to take a photo except if you want to deliberately make people look horrible. No matter how sensitive the CCD is to ambient light, it can't change the direction of the light. Most lighting, especially outdoors, is downlighting. Indoors, most of the light is reflected from the cieling which then provides probably 60-70% down-lighting. In my humble opinion, Kodak should use it's new technology to adjust the flash intensity with respect to the ambient light. In addition, the flash should always be on when shooting outdoors and at maximum intensity. Red-eye is at least easy to eliminate in post-processing. A bad photo can be extremely difficult to enhance.
Who plans these web pages? This page is full of ads for Sony Cybershot, while talking about Kodak's fantastic new technology. Somebody's not planning...
As a professional photographer, I find this, for lack of a better word, annoying. Professional photographers don't use a little flash that's built in on the camera because we don't have enough light, we use flash as a lighting device for a picture, for asthetics, or to put light where we want it. Like having a studio light without carrying around a bunch of equiptment. So really, this is basically for snap shooter cameras, like the digital cameras mom's use to take pictures of their kids, or the cameras teenagers use to take their myspace pictures. Just basic cameras. Flash is a great thing when used properly. I wouldn't want to get rid of it, but just have the option of using flash.
Also, red eye is so easy to remove these days, why waste time and money on a NEW camera for such a miniscule problem, when I'm also losing picture quality. By changing the shutter speeds to things that you wouldn't normally use, I have a feeling that you'd get grainy pictures. No one wants that.
I'm am so thrilled to hear it. Can you hurry up. I am about to become a grandmother for the first time. I want it- no, I need it NOW.
"Shutter speed" measures in seconds or fractions of a second how long the light from the photographed object is allowed to fall on the sensor pixels (or photosensitive film emulsion). It is not measured in miles per hour or millimeters per second. When shutter speed doubles or quadruples the numerical measure of "shutter speed" is cut to a half or a quarter of the original exposure time. This probably explains Dory's "mistake".
When this finds its way into high-end SLR's, it will be a beautiful day. Being able to shoot 3200 or 6400 ASA without graininess would be a wonderful trick, for animal photography and many many other areas. Red-eye is not a problem for me now with an SLR. I use a additional flash (or two) with diffuser. But I'd still like the higher speed capability, esp. with telephotos. The difference in price between a 600mm f4 and f8 is HUGE.
so what, exactly, is NEW?
Lets all remember that it's not always about shutter speed or fill flash or number of pixels, We've pretty much covered these issues in many of the newer digital cameras. What is really exciting about this strategy is that in the end all of the pictures we take with digital cameras are just 1's and 0's. Cameras today do all sorts of things to our 1's and 0's to make what some people think are better or more pleasing pictures. In the end if you put in poor digital input into the image processors builtin to all of these cameras, you will get out slightly better poor input. But this new technology of gathering unfiltered photons and combining them with the ratio proportion of filtered photons, potentially will open up a great new area for image processing and mixing to provide greater bit depth to the images and the final processing could be a magnitude above what we are experiencing today. I am sure with the great technology by the leading imaging companies, including Kodak, Sony, Canon and Nikon, we will be enjoying many new advances in digital imaging in the near future. Stan
this would be great to get rid of the glow that cat and dog eyes have in pictues that nothing can be done about since it is not "red eye"
I believe this technology would work well in cooperation with a flash, but just decreasing the light, and putting half the megapixels towards generating an illusion of light, will make the pictures of an even lesser quality. As a side note, this article was poorly written and should have been edited before being posted.
I own a Canon f/1.2 lens. Even with that super fast lens, I often find I cannot make the shot my ~eyes~ "see". Put a human in a darkended room for twenty minutes with a candle in the corner and we can "see", define and compose images in our heads no sensor or film can match. Yet, too many want to duplicate such a scenario and try to match our senses with sensors. Be it digital sensor or film, you need both time ~and~ light to make proper exposures. And anyone who had to worry about camera shake is not dedicated enough to the craft to do it right. That is, there are some shots we can "see" with our eyes no sensor or film can duplicate and thus, we should not try the shot. I'm piqued by those who, lacking experience in the craft, want to take the easy way out. Worse, it pains me to see a Kodak pandering to them.
There are many people posting here without a clue. This is a breakthrough. Watch the competition clammor for a piece of the action. Kodak will license this technology to everyone making digital cameras just like their Bayer technology, and watch the profits grow...
I still want a flash and a beamer for 100-400L! But if this works and only produces minimal noise then we may have something.
HP Photosmart R967... AVOID THIS CAMERA! A good camera until you drop it once. Mine fell and landed on a "sweet spot" so the frame collapsed around the shutter button, total loss. Went back to the store to buy a 2nd one, and guess what, the DEMO had the EXACT same collapse. Sent for repairs and advised repair cost exceeded the 300.00 I paid for the camera. How does the store demo, connected to a post with cable that is 12-18 inches long also get same damage? I have advised HP that this is a design defect, they offered a 50.00 coupon. AVOID THIS CAMERA.
Please enable your browser's cookies to activate the My Tech column.
| Computers | Home Office | Wi-Fi & Networking | Phones & PDAs | Cameras & Camcorders | TV & Home Theater | Portable Audio |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
186 Posted by geno1391@sbcglobal.net on Thu Sep 3, 2009 4:07PM EDT Report Abuse
Film may be dying, but isn't entirely dead yet. I recently shot a wedding using both digital and film cameras. Side-by-side, color was better overall with film and under flash conditions. Film was faster (no delay for the next shot and in low-light conditions). True, I had to haul the film over to my local developer and pay a nominal fee to have the film developed and placed on a CD, but, aside from the film cost, that's the biggest advantage of digital.