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 ideal. Mostly because whenever I had my picture my eyes turned out red and I hated it. I say keep this going.
"shutter speed could be cut in half, or at least a quarter" Huh? Is this the compression technique used in movies where they colorize a black and white photo: the greyscale pixels are a quarter the size of the color pixels?
Kodak is the best camera i have used. When it comes out i will buy one if it is in the right price range.I have to Panasonics and one Fuji and Kodak is the best.
What a useless headline...photographic fear mongering. This WILL NOT eliminate the flash, that's the dumbest thing I've read in a while. A two stop difference is good, but not a "breakthrough", flashes are used to create light where there is no light. Not just for taking pictures of your drunken friends on the sidewalk in front of the bar on a Saturday night. Put this up there with the mega-pixel myth, just another reason to get hapless consumers to fork over big bucks. Have fun suckers!
I think this would be GREAT!!!! I sell Kodak digital cameras and while they aren't that great, I think this would really boost their sales...provided it works!!
The article has many mistakes. A 12M pixel resolution camera has for each pixel 2 green, 1 ble and 1 red pixels to capture image. What are they describing above?
Hurrey for Kodak. This is what is required from the US companies to come out with advance technology and take a lead roll in the market. Let us hope Kodak will have a sexy package with this new technology. Bring it on! SKK
The article says,"That means a camera's shutter speed could be cut in half, or at least a quarter, which would reduce camera shake and blurring problems." Of course, reducing the shutter speed INCREASES camera shake and blurring. The author apparently means that increasing the shutter speed would have the mentioned effect.
I don't personally care about reducing red-eye. Although how demonic looking it is, it is easily fixed. But removing flash entirely put a big smile on my face. Ever since I was little I have HATED flash cameras. They may make the picture look 100% better but it leaves that purple thingy lingering in your sight for like 5 minutes, even if you rub your eyes.
It's about time! Why is it that this has been a problem for so long and they're FINALLY figuring out a way to fix it!? I have never seen a digital camera take good pictures in low light unless you have a tri-pod.
I find it real amusing that an article about Kodak cameras is surrounded by advertisements for Sony and Canon cameras.
The shutter speed would not be increased, it would be cut in half or a quarter. That is, if the speed is at 1/100 before, now you could go to 1/200, which is yes, an increase in speed, but it is HALF the time. More Speed = Less Time. So it's not wrong. Ah, but the "or at least a quarter" is. A quarter of the 1/100 would be 1/400. That's better than the half, so you wouldn't say, half "or at least" a quarter because a quarter is more not less. You wouldn't say, I'll give you 10 bucks for that hat. Or at least $20. You WOULD say, or at least $5. Simple math really is hard, isn't it. Or, at least easy. Huh?
Well, what i know is that if the shutter speed is reduced, the light intensity will "increase" cuz that way u got more light rays entering the lens! thats how night modes in most cameras work! but what i dont get is that, how does that solve the blurring problems??? the lesser the shutter speed the more the light intensity but lesser the ablity to capture motion. because, if the shutter speed is less, it cannot take pictures of a moving object. so the blurring effect will remain.
Kodak is a dinosaur....Long live the Jap camera
Hey Kodak - Please sell this technology to Nikon!!!!
Hmmm...where to begin... Yes, Kodak could make a ton. You don't have to buy a Kodak camera to support Kodak. Besides the numerous patents, I believe they make sensors that already go into other cameras. Secondly, how does this help with Dynamic Range? As a professional photographer, I find that a much more pressing issue than the ability to have asa 400 act as asa 200 does now. And does that mean I will no longer have asa 100? I am mad enough my Nikon doesn't have asa 50. Really, unless they improve the Dynamic Range of sensors, I think the majority of studio pros could care less. We will use flash anyways, so why worry about bumping up the speed.
it won't matter what kodak does. the other companies are so far ahead already. i sell cameras for a living. i would only recommend a kodak if it's all you can afford. professional photographers will not go with a kodak no matter what. they make budget cameras for the average user.
To all of you who don’t like Kodak digital cameras (such as myself), the article says Kodak is selling the technology to other companies which means that in the end (if successful) all cameras should come with these features. Unlike Sony, Kodak isn’t in the market of drowning themselves out just to try and get a monopoly on the market. Love Sony, but they tend to shoot themselves in the foot once in a while. (Remember the minidisk?)
well they are going to make alot of money on the first day and after the first 50 cameras when they put this up. i'm thinking about 500 thousand????????? haha, nah maybe not that much. i'm sure to see this a few years after it's release at walmart for about 500-700 dollars US.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
66 Posted by ifframeloaded on Thu Sep 3, 2009 4:22PM EDT Report Abuse
Also, I don't see flash going away anytime soon - we still need flashlights in the dark, don't we? And we will need flash under most low light conditions for the foreseeable future as well.