Samsung brags that its latest imaging sensor has the ittiest-bittiest cam pixels in the world
- Reference: 1623340932
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2021/06/10/samsung_isocell_jn1/
- Source link:
Housed on a relatively small 1/2.76-inch package, each of the 50 million pixels measures just 0.64µm. For contrast, these are almost one-third the size of the iPhone 12's camera pixels, which measure 1.7µm.
By using smaller individual pixels, Samsung has been able to achieve relatively higher megapixel counts, which often serves as a marketing tool for handset manufacturers, even if it does not translate into better image quality.
[2]
When you shrink a pixel, the surface that can absorb light is diminished, thereby worsening its performance in low-light conditions. To compensate, sensor manufacturers use a technique called pixel binning, where several pixels (typically four, but often more) are combined into a single unit.
[3]
[4]
Although the ensuing images are inevitably smaller, the ISOCELL JN1 produces 12.5-megapixel photographs with binning enabled meaning users are at least able to produce serviceable snaps in adverse lighting conditions.
We also know that smaller pixel sizes tend to be more susceptible to colour crosstalk. This isn't much of an issue for Samsung as since 2013, it has erected physical barriers between each individual pixel to mitigate against this.
[5]Silicon foundries surge to new revenue records, but Texas cold snap sent Samsung backwards
[6]Vietnam asks Samsung to find it some COVID-19 vaccines
[7]Patch me if you can: Microsoft, Samsung, and Google win appeal over patent on remote updating
[8]iFixit slams Samsung's phone 'upcycling' scheme for falling short of what was promised
By contrast, the large size sensor technology preferred by Apple produces excellent lowlight photography without the need for any of this additional trickery.
This is probably less of a viable approach for Android vendors, where the possibilities for differentiation are comparatively limited, and the inclusion of a 48 or 108-megapixel sensor is seen as a selling point.
[9]
The company has said it intends to integrate the ISOCELL JN1 in the middle-to-higher tiers of the smartphone market.
Due to its smaller size, Samsung said the sensor will allow vendors to shrink the width of their camera modules by around the 10 per cent, giving a flatter and more streamlined aesthetic. This smaller size has allowed Samsung to market the ISOCELL JN1 as a potential choice for front-facing cameras, as well as conventional rear-facing applications.
According to [10]the most recent data from Strategy Analytics , Samsung was the second-largest mobile imaging sensor vendor during 2020, with a share of 29 per cent.
[11]
It trailed Sony, which accounted for 46 per cent of revenues, but was significantly ahead of Chinese outfit OmniVision Technologies, which snatched up just 10 per cent of all spending. ®
Get our [12]Tech Resources
[1] https://news.samsung.com/global/samsung-breaks-new-ground-with-mass-production-of-industrys-smallest-0-64micrometer-pixel-mobile-image-sensor?utm_source=feedly&utm_medium=direct
[2] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/personaltech&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2YMKLhwoM@KQuKj4V--5myAAAABE&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[3] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/personaltech&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44YMKLhwoM@KQuKj4V--5myAAAABE&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[4] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/personaltech&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33YMKLhwoM@KQuKj4V--5myAAAABE&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[5] https://www.theregister.com/2021/06/01/q1_2021_foundry_revenue_trendforce/
[6] https://www.theregister.com/2021/05/31/vietnan_mutant_covid_strain/
[7] https://www.theregister.com/2021/05/25/microsoft_samsung_and_google_strike/
[8] https://www.theregister.com/2021/05/19/ifixit_samsung_upcyling/
[9] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/personaltech&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44YMKLhwoM@KQuKj4V--5myAAAABE&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[10] https://www.eetasia.com/sony-dominates-smartphone-image-sensor-market-in-2020/
[11] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/personaltech&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33YMKLhwoM@KQuKj4V--5myAAAABE&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[12] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Well, in theory it means you have the ability to take very high resolution images if the lighting allows, but then you can increase the binning for lower light. I don't know how much control they actually give over this on a smartphone though.
Maybe it's just a case of "I heard you like pixels, so I put some pixels in your pixels".
For some reason I have this mental image of a teeny tiny little Maxwell's Demon sat on these colour-separating fences, kicking red and green and blue photons in the appropriate buckets...
Now I'm thinking of the sign I saw in a shop once that said I should "queue on both sides" (of some shelving). I tried to diffract around the end of the shelving unit, but I suspect there was a notable wavelength issue preventing it.
(see also "For Oxford A34 use both lanes")
My work and personal mobiles both allow you to select 64 megapixel resolution, but default to 16 megapixel using pixel binning, so some Motorola and Asus android phones do let you choose. My previous personal phone (up to earlier this week) also allowed native 38 megapixel or 5 megapixel (though 38 megapixel also included a 5 megapixel version), it was doing this seven plus years ago.
The general theory is that you can use software to combine the data from X "mediocre" sensors into something which is potentially better than the data from a single "good" sensors.
Opinions and results vary, especially since companies these days insist on muddying the waters by claiming that their image-processing systems are AI-enhanced...
I love it how companies try to sell misfeatures and bad design decisions as major features.
This is why, despite being the world's biggest Android fanboi, I've never owned a Samsung device.
Re: This is why, despite being the world's biggest Android fanboi, I've never owned a Samsung device.
Samsung announced this one, but all manufacturers have been doing the same for ages (since the "pixel wars began" - i.e., since there started to be cameras on phones, therefore starting competition for the most pixel count)
This is known as the McNamara fallacy.
The trade off isn't simply size versus numbers: there is also the sensitivity of the cell to consider (and all the stuff that happens with the lense). This is why we have seen smaller cameras produce better pictures in a wide range of conditions. We long past what were once considered to be inviolable laws by combining the physics with software. We also do this with radio telescopes.
And Samsung has for a while been at the forefront of many of the improvements and innovations so you're missing out by avoiding them. That said, improvement over the last few years have been marginal and, therefore, easier to find in more devices. The factories in Shenzhen have not only got better at replicating (sometimes copying requires mastering some tricky new manufacturing processes, though industrial espionage definitely does go on) but are also working on their own. The Chinese market alone is big enough to make this relevant and why we see clever things from Xiaomi and other manufacturers.
> I've never owned a Samsung device.
The odds are good that whatever device you've owned has had Samsung hardware in it though; they do sell a lot of components to other companies, and that most definitely includes imaging sensors!
Nope
It's the size that counts. Ask any woman.
Re: Nope
Bit sexualityist: I'm sure there are plenty of men you could ask. Anyway, that's ambiguous and doesn't indicate which dimension is more important.
Re: Nope
You seem to have dropped your sense of humour…
A entomologist might have replied with "consider the stag beetle's dilemma"
"Samsung brags that its latest imaging sensor has worse image quality than its previous one. Hoorah"
FTFY
So... they make more pixels and then use several pixels as one pixel... making... the same number of pixels again? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯