Kodak's New Sensor May Eliminate Flash

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. 

Top 5 Posts

Comments on Kodak's New Sensor May Eliminate Flash

Post a Comment

Join in the discussion. Here you'll see the comments in the order they were posted.

  • 46 Posted by airzimzerker on Thu Sep 3, 2009 2:47PM EDT Report Abuse

    rikkilin, where did you get loss of picture quality out of this? If you mean los of color pixles? They have nothing to do with picture quality.

  • 47 Posted by c_lomas_ae on Thu Sep 3, 2009 3:33PM EDT Report Abuse

    This sounds like a really great concept. I bought a digital camera about 5 years ago when they first came out and i have been using the same one ever since. It has become outdated but i havent gotten myself to spend another $300 on a camera that is only so much better. But now i know what I am waiting for. I can stick it out one more year and get this Kodak that will significantly raise the bar over my old school camera and pretty much any other camera out. Even if it cost me $600 (just guessing) thats not bad if it last me as long as my last one did.

  • 48 Posted by haynruffles on Thu Sep 3, 2009 4:17PM EDT Report Abuse

    Can't wait to see this. the question is, how much?

  • 49 Posted by dee_john_99 on Thu Sep 3, 2009 3:40PM EDT Report Abuse

    Good! No more messing with pictures before printing...

  • 51 Posted by genep_a on Thu Sep 3, 2009 4:07PM EDT Report Abuse

    Since I have a problem with shaking, the faster shutter speed will be big improvement. How about including jitter reduction as well? Teeech

  • 52 Posted by osofunny52 on Thu Sep 3, 2009 7:46PM EDT Report Abuse

    sounds like Kodaks cameras are going to be even worse then they already are.

  • 54 Posted by air_hin on Thu Sep 3, 2009 2:47PM EDT Report Abuse

    Yes! As someone who lived in Rochester for 25 years it is great to see something positive and promising for the company.

  • 55 Posted by brennerp_98 on Thu Sep 3, 2009 3:12PM EDT Report Abuse

    Regarding post #20: There are a lot of variables here. It's all what you hold constant and what you vary. If you take advantage of this feature to use say a twice-as-fast shutter speed at the same ASA, it does in effect reduce noise vs. simply doubling the ASA to be able to use the faster shutter speed. Or if it allows you to forego flash vs. using flash in a given situation, that is a plus, but at the same ASA, the inherent noise will be the same. What I wonder is: If the number of pixels used to capture color are cut in half, what does that do to the color fidelity of the camera? I certainly don't know enough about the technical aspects of all that to have any idea as to the answer, but on the surface that doesn't seem like a plus...

  • 56 Posted by scottgen10342@sbcglobal.net on Thu Sep 3, 2009 9:08PM EDT Report Abuse

    Give me a break! Kodak hasn't produced a great camera in the las 140 years! More bells and whistles will not negate the need for a flash. btw-Did ANYONE an Yahoo proofread this headline article?

  • 57 Posted by jacobavera on Thu Sep 3, 2009 4:26PM EDT Report Abuse

    is anybody actually reading? their increasing light Sensitivity and speed by cutting Resolution in half. IE... 12 megapixel+hype price=6 megapixel picture. their using 1/2 the sensors as light sensors for the pixel beside it.

  • 58 Posted by gadeb@verizon.net on Thu Sep 3, 2009 4:05PM EDT Report Abuse

    This will also help with telephoto shots! This is great step forward in digital Photography. Harrah for Kodak!!!

  • 59 Posted by airzimzerker on Thu Sep 3, 2009 2:47PM EDT Report Abuse

    hiraml, you should be ashamed to admit you are an engineer. the longer the shutter is open the more the camera can move and thus the more "noise". The shorter exposure time give you less noise.

  • 60 Posted by ifframeloaded on Thu Sep 3, 2009 4:22PM EDT Report Abuse

    "half of the pixels will be panchromatic, or clear, so they will capture only the brightness, not color" Actually, you are half correct - they would be clear, but they will be sensitive to all wavelengths of visible light - hence the term panchromatic (remember Verichrome Pan film?).

  • 61 Posted by c_lomas_ae on Thu Sep 3, 2009 3:33PM EDT Report Abuse

    Karaoke_2_go i think you missunderstood what she meant by the speed being cut in half, no literally the speed (activity/time) but the time it takes. for instances if the shutter takes 1 second, it will now be .5 seconds. But i do see how that could be a little confusing. Lol. Just helping out! Peace!

  • 62 Posted by airzimzerker on Thu Sep 3, 2009 2:47PM EDT Report Abuse

    since it states it can be used with existing sensors then I guess this is a software feature. It is not changing the sensor.

  • 63 Posted by sweetchicap7 on Thu Sep 3, 2009 9:50PM EDT Report Abuse

    That is wonderful!!! I hope that cameras with it fully built do not take too long for them to come out on the market. I love photography and that's one of the things i do as a hobby, i will be one of the firts to get one when they come out. :)

  • 64 Posted by mred1989 on Thu Sep 3, 2009 7:27PM EDT Report Abuse

    Sorry I am still a Film user....Digital not for me

  • 65 Posted by moonlillydark on Thu Sep 3, 2009 7:26PM EDT Report Abuse

    I have red eye in every indoor picture guaranteed. I would love this feature. It will be totally worth the price.

More Posts: First Prev 2 3 4 5 6 Next Last

Post a Comment


My Tech

Please enable your browser's cookies to activate the My Tech column.

Also on Yahoo! Tech

Computers Home Office Wi-Fi & Networking Phones & PDAs Cameras & Camcorders TV & Home Theater Portable Audio
 

Question and Answer content at Yahoo! Tech is written by Yahoo! users at Yahoo! Answers. Yahoo! does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any Yahoo! Answers content. For more information, read the Full Disclaimer.

Opinions expressed by the Advisors are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Yahoo! Inc. Yahoo! receives no compensation from any manufacturer or distributor nor does it compensate any Advisor for the coverage of any product or service in any Advisor's content.