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.
i like the flash and u need it in dark places. so they could get rid of red eye for all i care seeing that i dont have a problem with that, but it would be nice if they kept the flash
as professssional photographer in journalism, that's awesome and very interesting.
The links posted do not link to stories about this development. Thanks.
I'm sure she meant that the shutter would be operated faster. As in the shutter took longer before when light was limited, and now that time would be cut in half and the shutter will operate faster even in low light. Stop being so picky with wording. Kareoke2go, Snob.
This sounds great but aslo very expensive. It will be a long time before the price becomes resonable I belive. I would buy it with the right price tag though.
you screwd up on the 12 megapixel part. It should have said at the end of the pargraph's last sentence '3 million blue' instead of '3 million'
I am a photograher some work seen here at http://trucecity.deviantart.com and i have a proffesional camera, but mine is still new and it cost me around (with lens) $1,500 USD so i can not image where kodax is gonna stick this at? from what i know kodax makes easy cameras to use on a personal level as professional, i dont see this ever happening unless they come out with proffesional type camera and stop assosiating kodax with quick time too, thats stupid and senceless.
My daughter is 1 and all the pictures we take of her have red eye. I can't wait to upgrade!!!
Yeah this will be great for all you models out there who have to put up with all that camera flash. It must be pretty rough having to get your picture taken for a living. It's about time that something came along to make you're job easier...
As an Electrical engineer, I've studied CMOS and Computer Vision concepts and don't agree with the author about not producing grainy pixelated photos. If you reduce the light the sensors capture, even though you make them more sensitive, you will also pick up more noise i.e. pixilation. To prove my theory, try an experiment: try turning down the volume on your computer setting such as, Windows Media Player, for example (analagous to reducing the flash). Now, to compensate you need to turn up the volume on your computer's speakers (analagous to turning up the camera's sensitivity to light). Now, what do you notice? Don't you hear hiss in the background? That's noise. Remember, regardless if its a camera, computer, sterio, etc, those devices are simply amplifying a small signal to a larger one using similar semiconductor technology. In all fairness, I do think the better semiconductor technology gets, the LESS light would be needed while the shutter stays open. However, to say that NO light is needed in any photo taking situation is absured.
Yes the question is how affordable is it going to be and when is it available ...Also depends on what kind of other features this camera will have. But that is definitely a great improvement!
"In comparison, today's 12-megapixel cameras have 6 million green pixels, 3 million red, and 3 million."
TOUCHE TO KARAOKE COMMENT #4 AS FOR THE ELIMINATING OF THE FLA----- MIGHT BE RENDERED OBSOLETE EVENTUALLY BUT I DONT SEE IT IN THE NEAR FUTURE....
Wow thats neat........to bad it's gonna be hella expensive.... :-)
With half the pixals dedicated to only brightness and not the actuall color, does this mean that a 12 Megapixal camera is now only going to give you the quality of 6 Megapixals?
That's right. The shutter speed can be INCREASED by 2 or 4 times, and inversely the exposure time can be DECREASED by 2 or 4 times.
I am excited about this new technology. I would like to know if existing cameras can be retrofitted with the new technology.Oh and yes I agree with others that these yahoo writers are hacks and shouldn't be given the time of day. I am a journalist and this article's errors are unacceptable.
For my last camera, I specifically looked for a compact camera that can take picture in low light without flash to take pictures of my baby. I take thousands of pictures of her and I can't imagine exposing her to repeated flashes. I am pretty happy with the Canon SD800.
well...i wonder how we will manage to take pictures in bright backgrounds. we need flash during such shots to fill in the dark areas around eyes or sometimes whole face. flash feature is bound to stay in the cameras. increasing sensor sensitivity to light is not going to cater to such demand.karaoke_2_go is right in mentioning that it will help us only in shooting pictures with higher shutter speed at low light conditions.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
26 Posted by santx987 on Thu Sep 3, 2009 9:04PM EDT Report Abuse
I just can't picture it working...