DailyTech - Canon Unveils 120MP CMOS Sensor

Submit News

Blog: Gadgets Canon Unveils 120MP CMOS Sensor
Shane McGlaun (Blog) - August 24, 2010 11:09 AM

16 comment(s) - last by icanhascpu.. on Sep 18 at 4:06 AM

Canon's 120MP CMOS Sensor (Source: Canon)

D-SLR resolutions wars set to escalate with new CMOS sensor

Digital cameras are often only separated from other models in the line of various makers by the number of megapixels offered. The higher the megapixel count is the better the resolution of the images and those images can be printed in larger formats and still look good. Canon has announced a new breakthrough in image sensor resolution.

Canon has announced a new APS-H size CMOS image sensor that has a resolution of a 120-megapixels. Canon claims that the sensor is the world's highest level of resolution for its size. The sensor measures 29.2 x 20.2mm and the average sensor of its size has 16.1 million pixels. The 120 million pixels the new Canon sensor offers is 7.5 times higher and has a 2.4 times improvement tin resolution.

Along with being able to shoot very high-resolution still images, the new sensor can also do full HD 1080p video. The video can be output from any 1/60 size section of the sensor. The sensor also allows the photographer to view full 1080p resolution sections of the image from the sensor. Canon offers no details on when the new sensor will come to market.

Comments

Threshold

Username
Password
remember me

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Hrm...

By Hoeser on 8/24/2010 11:26:34 AM , Rating: 5

It will be interesting to see the results of its color accuracy...

If the digital camera industry has taught us anything over the last 10 years, it's that megapixels certainly aren't everything. I've seen much better pictures from 3.2 megapixel cameras that are 6 or 7 years old than some of the pictures coming out of 8 megapixel digitals today.

RE: Hrm...

By B3an on 8/24/2010 1:49:55 PM , Rating: 2

Of course MP's aint everything. All it is is the size/res of an image. Theres many many other factors that are more important for image quality. My first 6MP SLR could take images of far higher quality than any 12MP+ point and shoot camera today.

The problem with 120 MP's is that theres probably no glass/lens good enough to make proper use of all them pixels. I'd expect there wouldnt be much difference in clarity/sharpness beyond about 50 - 60 MP's, as the glass wont be good enough, even with Canons L series lenses that have laser cut glass.

Would be amazing for Macro photography though, you wouldn't even have to get that close to something to get some insane close ups, all you'd have to do is crop the pic.

Parent

RE: Hrm...

By darkfoon on 8/28/2010 6:09:33 AM , Rating: 2

Your assumption that lenses would bottleneck that resolution is false. Fine grain film (ISO 50 or lower) definitely has more than 120MP resolution, and there are many decades of lenses that make very good use of that fine grain. And that's just 35mm format. If you begin to consider 4x5 sheet film, you have a sensor that's 4in by 5in; it definitely has more than 120MP and the clarity and resolution provided is put to good use.

Good lenses are still constrained by recording media, not the other way around.

Parent

RE: Hrm...

By drunkenmastermind on 8/25/2010 7:32:48 AM , Rating: 2

I second that, I had a 4.1 MP camera about eight years ago and the images were nicer than the ones from my 12.1 MP camera purchased two years ago. Even though the 4.1MP images were soft they were not full of hideous noise. There are very few people that want to blow there family snapshots up beyond A3.

Parent

RE: Hrm...

By kraeper on 8/25/2010 10:51:18 AM , Rating: 2

Marketing big numbers to uninformed masses > diffraction.

Don't get me wrong, it's amusing technology, but it's mostly just scaling a p&s sensor up to a larger size. A 12MP 1/2.5" sensor scaled up to a full-frame sensor comes out at 415 MP. APS-H has a 1.3x crop factor, giving it about 319MP. I can't find the physical dimensions of cell-phone sensors, but I'd venture a guess that those pixel densities are considerably higher. Sadly, image sensors aren't quite like hard drives, so higher densities are rarely better for the final image.

Parent

RE: Hrm...

By luhar49 on 8/26/2010 1:24:15 PM , Rating: 2

The size of photos taken with this sensor will be massive. Will be a pain to post process. Only a few pros who do studio or landscapes/architecture shoots would really need something like this.

Parent

RE: Hrm...

By icanhascpu on 9/18/2010 4:06:48 AM , Rating: 2

/rolleyes

Here we go again. Why is there always some clown that feels they need to chime in about what people need or not? And its always the type that say something wholly and obviously misguided, undereducated and inexperienced.

In-camera digital resize has been available for over a decade. It was one of the first very basic features (Not talking about digital zoom here). Dont want to deal with a 1GB RAW? Set it to a size you want. EVERYONE that works with imaging understands that a general rule of detail is you are going to get a better representation by making a huge source file, and downsizing it. So images downsized from 200MP to 20MP (assumeing youre working with actual data) will always have finer detail than one taken at 100MP and downsized to 20MP.

Parent

RE: Hrm...

By mcnabney on 8/27/2010 10:46:39 AM , Rating: 2

I could go into great detail, but the sensor is only one of the critical steps in getting a good image.

First, you need some good glass. And when I said glass, I mean glass. Those little plastic lenses on phones and cheap cameras do horrible things to light.

Second, you need a sensitive sensor. Megapixels are only part of what makes a sensor good. The quality of light discernment is key, as is net sensitivity to light. Being able to detect the slightest level of light, plus the ability to discern between very bright and very very bright is key to maintaining detail. Sampling rates are also important, especially now that video is a requirement. All the megapixels do is fill in more detail - however, if that detail is just noise it ends up being worse.

Third, processing. Speed, accuracy, and designing good compression code is important. For shooting RAW, you will need MASSIVE SPEED for a ludicrously high resolution like this. This thing is technically capapable of far surpassing film - which is really only the equivalent of 8-16 megapixels.

I am going to guess that the cameras that use this will make use of considerable 'sensor cropping' in that you can you can select a 16MP image size and get a 12x zoom for 'free'. That is assuming that the processing can handle it and noise isn't going to be a problem. There might also be some sensitivity tricks available here. I have used my 5D at 128000 ISO often and you can really do some amazing things. Shooting at decent shutter speeds at higher f/ under dim light without a strobe is a snap. Will this sensor provide 256000 or 512000 with neglible noise? I would upgrade for that alone.

Parent

RE: Hrm...

By kraeper on 8/27/2010 12:35:21 PM , Rating: 2

I agree with everything you said, even the order, except that the 1st priority has to be decent composition. :) And second probably decent exposure. Once those minor little tidbits are taken care of, you have a good list. Pity you can't force it in front of all the Best Buy shoppers who only look at megapixel count, usually without knowing what even that slight detail means. :(

Parent

RE: Hrm...

By mcnabney on 8/27/2010 6:31:04 PM , Rating: 3

Well, composition = photographer skill, so that short circuits everything.

Hell, a great photographer can get better results with a Polaroid (well, maybe not that) than most Prosumer DSLR purchasers.

Parent

RE: Hrm...

By guffwd13 on 8/27/2010 1:46:05 PM , Rating: 2

while i agree with your stance, you (and everyone else) left out some important details in engineering: the airy disc and diffraction limited gradients.

See here: http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/digital...

Essentially all 35mm SLR digital cameras are the same regardless of the manufacturer. and all aperture sizes in the lenses are definitely the same. well just as light bends around a corner at a specific angle, it does the same with these lens apertures. the more open the aperture, the more blur you get - hence why f2.8 is less sharp than an f5.6 and especially an f11. HOWEVER, when you get higher in aperture sizes (f16+), you actually start to LOSE sharpness because the light is bending too much (the smaller the hole, the bigger the bend - read up on physics and optics in regards to light diffraction).

In other words, the resolving power of an image at a given aperture size has a limit - a diffraction limit. At the diffraction limit, it doesn't matter how many more pixels you throw at it, the pixels will essentially pick up the exact same data as the one pixel would have in a smaller resolution sensor.

The only thing that a high pixel count per area does for you is decrease the amount of light that enters each specific pixel - which allows for reduced noise (it actually has little to do with pixel sensitivity, and actually you want LESS sensitivity, because thats where the noise comes from).

The only way to get around this is to physically increase the sensor size - for example, a medium format camera like Mamiya or Hasselblad. It is for that reason that they come in 39MP and 50MP options - because they can still resolve at those resolutions. (For those who care - the diffraction limited aperture for a 5D Mark-II is about f8 - ie anything higher than that will yield not increase and eventually a decrease in sharpness - it will, though, affect your depth of field).

So yes, it is most definitely a marketing gimic - don't get caught up in it!

Parent

RE: Hrm...

By mcnabney on 8/27/2010 6:42:03 PM , Rating: 2

I agree with most of what you said, but you made a little mistake.

quote:
The only thing that a high pixel count per area does for you is decrease the amount of light that enters each specific pixel - which allows for reduced noise (it actually has little to do with pixel sensitivity, and actually you want LESS sensitivity, because thats where the noise comes from).

Increasing MP count decreases the amount of light per pixel sensor, but that actually increases noise. All things being equal, more pixels = more noise. Now that really is what the amazing stuff that is happening. The pixels are now extremely sensitive which has the benefit of allowing more pixels without sacrificing noise. They have gotten so sensitive that Canon has been allowing higher and higher ISO values.

Now more amazing than all that is that color quality has been maintained. Dim light destroys color. In fact, I wouldn't be too surprised if they started adding a B&W setting for extremely high sensitivities.

Parent

Errr

By Hieyeck on 8/31/2010 8:58:36 AM , Rating: 4

If people just spent 10 minutes and asked the camera shop guy to teach them about the features and how to use them, a 5MP point and shoot (I owned a Canon A550) will fill 99% of people's needs. Most people resize their pictures to a more manageable and portable 1-2 MP anyways (1024x768 to 1600x1200). My friend bought a 14MP DSLR about the same time I got a quality 10MP point and shoot. He regrets his decision because I can take mine to go skiing, etc.

Learn to adjust ISO, lens timing, color and white balance (and focus if you want to get artsy). You can take spectacular pictures with a $200 point and shoot.