March 5, 2010
If you’re interested in a behind-the-scenes peek into the imaging-chip industry, check out the blog “Image Sensors World.”
Much of this revolves around cell-phone cameras, which today are by far the largest consumer of imaging chips. And that’s a market where the drive for miniaturization is even more extreme than with point & shoot cameras. For a phone-cam to boast 2 megapixels, 4 megapixels, or more, each pixel must be tiny.
At that scale, the light-gathering area of each pixel is so minuscule that back-side illumination practically becomes mandatory. The reasons are well explained in OmniVision’s “technology backgrounder” PDF.
This document’s introduction says,
“Evidently, pixels are getting close to some fundamental physical size limits. With the development of smaller pixels, engineers are asked to pack in as many pixels as possible, often sacrificing image quality.”
Which is an amusingly candid thing to say—considering that they are selling the aforementioned chips packed with “as many pixels as possible.”
What are these “fundamental limits”? Strangely, OmniVision’s document never once mentions the word “diffraction.” But as I’ve sputtered about before, with pixels the size of bacteria, diffraction becomes a serious limitation.
Because of light’s wavelike nature, even an ideal, flawless lens cannot focus light to a perfect point. Instead, you get a microscopic fuzzy blob called the Airy disk.
Now, calling it a “disk” is slightly deceptive: It is significantly brighter in the center than at the edge. Thus, there is still some information to extract by having pixels smaller than the Airy disk. But by the time the Airy disk covers many pixels, no further detail is gained by “packing in” additional ones.
Our eyes are most sensitive to light in the color green. For this wavelength, the Airy disk diameter in microns is the f/ratio times 1.35. (In practice, lens aberrations will make the blur spot larger than this diffraction limit.)
But even using a perfect lens that is diffraction-limited at f/2.3, the Airy disk would cover four 1.1 micron pixels.
A perfect lens working at f/3.5 (which is more realistic for most zooms) will have an Airy disk covering nine pixels of 1.1 micron width. This is one of the “fundamental physical size limits” mentioned in OmniVision’s document.
Manufacturing a back-illuminated chip is quite complex. And for OmniVision to be able to crank them out in quantity is a technological tour de force. As I wrote earlier, there are still a few tweaks left to make imaging chips more sensitive per unit area; this is one of them.
Perhaps this helps explain another curiously candid statement I saw recently. Sony executive Masashi “Tiger” Imamura was discussing the “megapixel race” in a PMA interview with Imaging Resource. And he said,
” …making the pixel smaller on the imager, requires a lot of new technology development. […] So, as somebody said, the race was not good for the customers, but on the other hand, good for us to develop the technologies. Do you understand?”
February 12, 2010
February 3, 2010
I was just skimming a press release for a brand new (and silly) Nikon superzoom model, when I came across this tidbit:
Additional features of the Nikon COOLPIX P100 digital camera include:
10.3-megapixels and Backside Illumination CMOS Sensor for stunning prints as large as 16x 20 inches, while retaining fine detail
Ignoring the odd syntax, lets think about that for a second.
The Coolpix P100 creates files of 3648 x 2736 pixels, at its highest resolution.
Traditional print formats are in a 4:5 ratio; so what matters is the short dimension of the frame. That is, it’s the 2736 pixels getting enlarged to 16 inches wide.
So, Nikon feels that 171 pixels per inch are sufficient to make a print “while retaining fine detail.”
Okay, let’s take Nikon’s word on that.
In that case, let’s say we have some worthless old 6 megapixel camera. It produces 2848 x 2136 pixel images.
According to Nikon, it would be fine to print up to 12″ x 15″—with pixels to spare. (And how frequently do you make a print that large?)
Or take some 3 Mp model, from the Paleozoic era (a.k.a. seven years ago). Its images are 2048 x 1536 pixels.
Still good for 8″ x 10″ prints—with wiggle room to crop.
Is Nikon really convincing us to buy a new camera here?