POST A COMMENT

18 Comments

Back to Article

  • dagamer34 - Wednesday, May 23, 2012 - link

    And here I thought they'd stop at 8MP. This spec race is getting pretty silly. 16MP from a smartphone is asking too much. Hopefully phone OEMs will take this sensor and oversample to get an 8MP photo of good quality that's worth using while still keeping the 4K functionality (though even that is questionable). Reply
  • Paulman - Wednesday, May 23, 2012 - link

    Yes, can someone PLEASE explain to me why the megapixel race continues? I find it hard to believe that it's purely because higher megapixels are easier to market to consumers. Digital cameras have been around long enough that I think it wouldn't be too hard to convince people that they do not need 3MB+ sized pictures at 6 times their screen resolution, but that camera sensors can be higher quality without being the highest res.

    So, I'm thinking there must be more to this issue. What are the drawbacks of going for larger pixel areas and lower megapixel count? Are there other issues, like some other source of noise that's dependent on pixel area or is leakage current worse or (fill in your answer here)?
    Reply
  • nathanddrews - Wednesday, May 23, 2012 - link

    <sarcasm>Yeah, I know! I hate it when technology improves!</sarcasm>

    4K is going to be the new 1080p over the next several years. TVs, projectors, computer displays, tablets even, etc. Personally I'm really excited for it - I'm already saving up for a 4K projector to replace my 1080p projector.

    At the professional level, many new films are shot in 4K+ digital (RED, Sony, JVC, etc.) while all the rest are being transfered from 16/35/65/70mm film to 4K-8K. The world is moving toward 4K whether you're ready or not.

    I'll be ready. :)
    Reply
  • mars2k - Wednesday, May 23, 2012 - link

    Yes and all the supporting technologies advance as well. Video processors and scalers, HDMI, screen technologies and there are new disk formats on the horizon. A replacement for Blu-ray is in the works. Lots of great gear coming. Reply
  • nathanddrews - Wednesday, May 23, 2012 - link

    My only regret is having to re-buy all the movies again. Hopefully there will be some exchange programs similar to Red2Blu or DVD2Blu. Blu24K? I hope so, otherwise I'm going to be so poor. Reply
  • michael2k - Wednesday, May 23, 2012 - link

    How big a TV will you have that you can appreciate 4K video?
    http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-33199_7-57366319-221/...

    Either you need to be 6' away from an 10' screen to barely justify 4k; that, or you need to be using it for a 3D movie since resolution is cut in half, vertically, for 3D.

    However, you still need to be 6' away from a 8' screen in 3D.
    Reply
  • nathanddrews - Wednesday, May 23, 2012 - link

    Cnet? You couldn't have picked a less reputable website for home theater science. It's not about seeing pixels, pixel size, or seating charts based upon average consumer perceptions of resolution. It has everything to do with resolving fine detail, motion resolution, color reproduction: in other words getting as close to the source as possible.

    I hate to sound elitist, but just because 99% of consumers won't realize the benefits before them doesn't make it useless or pointless.

    It just so happens I'm projecting 120" with seating at 9', 13', and 17'.
    Reply
  • michael2k - Wednesday, May 23, 2012 - link

    Reputation doesn't change the math, nor the fact that your setup would see a benefit with 4k. Reply
  • nathanddrews - Thursday, May 24, 2012 - link

    Again, that's what Cnet doesn't understand - the seating chart math IS irrelevant. There is a tremendous benefit in going from 1080p 8-bit 4:2:0 to 4K 12-bit 4:4:4 or even 4:2:2. Ditch the Rec 709 color space in favor of DCI and I'll probably wet myself. Visual transparency to the source is the goal here, not preset seating charts.

    I've seen a 4K panel in direct comparison to 1080p. You can't see the pixels in either display standing even 6 feet away, but that doesn't matter - you CAN see the difference and it is remarkable - breathtaking, even.

    Toss in the other advances the new 4K format will bring (better 3-D and 48/60/120fps filming like Peter Jackson and James Cameron are doing) and it's simply no contest.
    Reply
  • michael2k - Friday, May 25, 2012 - link

    Considering I can't see the pixels on my 720p 32" HDTV, I hardly concede that 4k is no contest (unless I'm upgrading to a 120" screen).

    My best guess is I'm going to 1080p when I upgrade to a 60" screen in 5 years.
    Reply
  • nathanddrews - Friday, May 25, 2012 - link

    Hey man, if you can't tell the difference then you don't have to worry about it. That's the beauty of consumer choice. Reply
  • FASIV - Wednesday, June 27, 2012 - link

    When you have a large mega/giga/tera pixel sensors you have extra light input for things like spectrum layering, video stabilization, digital zoom, and input frequency.

    I would like to see silicon based technology reach its atomic lattice limits before we start reducing our expectations.
    Reply
  • cosmotic - Wednesday, May 23, 2012 - link

    Maybe 14? Reply
  • Ragnarofl - Wednesday, May 23, 2012 - link

    No, 41 is actually accurate, believe it or not. There are several articles floating around on it. It's actually not a bad idea, considering you can't fit an optical zoom into a smartphone easily - a sensor at 41MP let's you crop without losing a noticeable amount of quality. Reply
  • fteoath64 - Thursday, May 24, 2012 - link

    That 41 MP is useless without decent optics to capture the light, get good focus and sufficient aperture controls for depth-of-field. I agree that sensors can evolved to more MP and many desirable features but the optics hardly change. How surprising, not one manufacturer uses a small barrel with some form of zooming that tiny digicams already have including automatic lens-cap. No wonder the quality of phones trail even rather cheap digicams for miles. Reply
  • Brian Klug - Wednesday, May 23, 2012 - link

    No it's actually 41 if you can believe it, they oversample and you can get a lower resolution image (8MP) with higher frequencies preserved, or the full 41 MP image.

    -Brian
    Reply
  • mavere - Wednesday, May 23, 2012 - link

    Ughh. The megapixel war in the phone industry needs to die soon. I hope a phone manufacturer starts to brag about pixel size in its sensors instead of total megapixels. Reply
  • michael2k - Wednesday, May 23, 2012 - link

    In 2010, Apple bragged about the large 1.75um pixel pitch on the iPhone 4.
    http://arstechnica.com/apple/2010/06/sizing-up-the...
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now