# Sony's curved sensors - this could be the near future or even a present reality?



## pedro (Jun 13, 2014)

I really like that. But I guess we are lightyears away from such a device...Or Sony could take us by surprise by 2016?

http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/cameras/Canon_rumours.html


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 13, 2014)

A curved sensor to match the new Samsung curved uHDTVs?


----------



## mackguyver (Jun 13, 2014)

Those curved TVs look pretty cool, at least _on TV_ 8). This looks like a big cost saving / miniaturization move by Sony to eliminate lens elements that correct for field curvature. With 100M EOS lenses out there, not to mention Nikkor and many others, I don't see flat sensors going anywhere.


----------



## Arkarch (Jun 13, 2014)

Curved so its easier to roll up your shots and send them to processing.



Actually, see a bunch of curved panels. Curved sensors for correction... hmm,, it would seem hard to make that accurate.


----------



## mackguyver (Jun 13, 2014)

dilbert said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > Those curved TVs look pretty cool, at least _on TV_ 8). This looks like a big cost saving / miniaturization move by Sony to eliminate lens elements that correct for field curvature. With 100M EOS lenses out there, not to mention Nikkor and many others, I don't see flat sensors going anywhere.
> ...


Maybe or maybe not because they have different levels of field curvature and most macro lenses would really suck on a curved sensor. On the other hand. the Sony sensor will no doubt have lenses that are all designed to have very similar levels of field curvature.


----------



## bainsybike (Jun 13, 2014)

So what happens when you print the image? Do you need curved paper?


----------



## Neutral (Jun 14, 2014)

I think this technology could make it possible to create affordable compact mirrorless medium format camera using optimized pancake lenses which would require less optical elements in design (e.g. 3-4) elements instead of typical 10 -17 elements). So lens could be much smaller and cheaper which would result in significant cost reduction of overall medium format system. This could be breakthrough in medium format cameras design and could allow MF to take more market share from FF DSLRs


----------



## brad-man (Jun 14, 2014)

dilbert said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



I believe they were trying to say that not only will the new sensor allow for smaller sized lenses relating to field of view, focal length, etc., but they will also allow for larger apertures, thereby allowing more light.


----------



## pedro (Jun 14, 2014)

brad-man said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > mackguyver said:
> ...


Lens construction requirements aside for a moment, if this sensor type makes it into any type of FF gear in the near future, more light would stand for better current high ISOs. Hope, the wait won't take too long. Any plans by Canon in this field? I guess we won't see anyting near to mass production within less than 5 to 10 years time...


----------



## tron (Jun 14, 2014)

dilbert said:


> brad-man said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...


Exactly, plus, different lenses, different curvature. I do not think it is practical.


----------



## brad-man (Jun 14, 2014)

If practical means cheap, then definitely not. But if their claim that the redirecting of those photons takes substantially less glass to accomplish is true, then it would mean smaller and sharper lenses. I certainly don't know enough about lens design to know if that's true/possible, but I like the idea of a sharp f/1.2 85mm the size of a couple of shorty forties.


----------



## Jay H (Jun 14, 2014)

My retina is curved. My eyeballs do not contain multiple elements. IF flat sensors were "simpler" to design for, I am quite disappointed that we have not evolved that superior level yet!


----------



## mackguyver (Jun 14, 2014)

dilbert said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...


When did I mention illumination levels?


----------



## Khufu (Jun 14, 2014)

Jay H said:


> My retina is curved. My eyeballs do not contain multiple elements. IF flat sensors were "simpler" to design for, I am quite disappointed that we have not evolved that superior level yet!



Dude, you only ever use the central focus point and never pay enough attention to the detail in the outer edges of your focal plane to even comprehend its IQ anyways - always recomposing to focus better, you humans! That and our eyes are lame compared to many others in the Animal Kingdom... Diddums


----------



## MLfan3 (Jun 14, 2014)

it is only practically useful for fixed lens cameras such as phones and RX1 type of cameras. it requires a new set of lenses. and considering Sony's current financial status , it cannot afford doing it. unless Samsung or Fuji or some more rich company do it , it is kind of meaningless tech.


----------



## AvTvM (Jun 14, 2014)

dilbert said:


> I won't allow for smaller lenses as the image circle still needs to be the same size.



of course it would. Even in TWO ways:
1) If the claims about increased sensitivity by factors 1.4 in the center and factor 2.0 at the edges are true, front elements would be considerably smaller at to get the same transmission -> smaller diameter 
2) a LOT less correcting glass eleements required in lenses -> shorter lenses
Tiny f/1.2 FF PANCAKE lenses all over. 8)

Canon might be ready to switch obver their current sensor fab and introduce a new lineup by 2099 already.  
But Sony could easily jettison their just-started FE lens lineup and replace it with something new, starting tomorrow. As long as the new lenses are Zeiss-labeled ...


----------



## expatinasia (Jun 15, 2014)

Seems that the rumour is that the curved sensor would come out in the RX 2.



> On a curved sensor light rays will hit the corner pixels straight on instead of obliquely. The lens doesn’t have to use extra lenses to correct for distortions, vignetting, aberrations in corners and other issues. Therefore you can pair the sensor with flatter and larger aperture lenses. Curved sensors are 1.4 times more sensitive in the center and 2 times more sensitive in the corners.



http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/first-image-of-the-full-frame-curved-sensor-made-for-the-rx2/


----------



## rpt (Jun 15, 2014)

Jay H said:


> My retina is curved. My eyeballs do not contain multiple elements. IF flat sensors were "simpler" to design for, I am quite disappointed that we have not evolved that superior level yet!


+1

I guess it is time to begin R&D on printing silicon wafers


----------



## dgatwood (Jun 15, 2014)

dilbert said:


> Microlenses were invented and put on your DSLR sensors because they couldn't make curved sensors.



AFAIK, the purpose of microlenses is actually to work around the fact that the sensors aren't flat, but rather recessed down into pockets in the silicon. Light rays near the edge of the sensor would otherwise fall way off unless you use a huge image circle. Changing the angle of those pockets might provide an advantage over the microlenses, but doing so doesn't inherently require curving the actual face of the sensor.

On the other hand, using a curved sensor brings with it a lot of other problems. For starters, the screen you show the image on isn't curved, and neither is the photo paper. So the image would have to be warped to fit the medium. Even ignoring all the aliasing problems that will likely cause (which I'd expect to be considerable), unless I'm mis-thinking this, the resolution on the photo will probably be lower near the edges of the sensor—built-in corner softness, if you will—unless the pixel density changes as you get closer to the edge of the sensor, in which case the SNR will be worse near the center of the photo. Neither approach seems particularly desirable. Or maybe I'm missing something.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 15, 2014)

Another Sony implementation that would render their current lenses useless, when will they learn that people buy into a camera system and they want longevity in that system, sure new tech is nice, as are MkII lenses etc, but to render everything previously as unusable can only be done once every twenty or so years, not every other electronics season.


----------



## Aglet (Jun 15, 2014)

it's most likely for small camera systems to produce good low light results using cheap, simple, fast lenses. First use will probably be phone- cameras. Getting the required amount of curvature in larger sensor systems is likely to be much more challenging as slight (focus) errors of a few microns could occur with temperature shifts and if you're looking to make a compact, large sensor camera with this then you're really gonna have to decrease the radius of that sensor's curvature. So, more likely practical for 1/2.5 and smaller sensors.
Still, will be very interesting if they can effectively achieve this for larger sensor formats.


----------



## dgatwood (Jun 16, 2014)

dilbert said:


> dgatwood said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



That's certainly an added benefit, but what I said is quite correct; unless you're using a back-illuminated sensor, the actual light-sensitive part of the chip is inherently recessed below the wiring. This results in light fall-off near the edges if you don't have microlenses.

Don't believe me? Read Leica's description of their microlenses array:

"This optimized micro lens design, based on many years of precision optical engineering experience, captures and concentrates even the most oblique rays on the sensor and reliably prevents image brightness fall-off at the edges and corners of the image."

Their words, not mine.




dilbert said:


> > On the other hand, using a curved sensor brings with it a lot of other problems. For starters, the screen you show the image on isn't curved, and neither is the photo paper. So the image would have to be warped to fit the medium. Even ignoring all the aliasing problems that will likely cause (which I'd expect to be considerable), unless I'm mis-thinking this, the resolution on the photo will probably be lower near the edges of the sensor—built-in corner softness, if you will—unless the pixel density changes as you get closer to the edge of the sensor, in which case the SNR will be worse near the center of the photo. Neither approach seems particularly desirable. Or maybe I'm missing something.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes, you can use a flat focal plane, which produces vignetting, or a curved focal plane, which results in distortion. I'm not seeing your point here.


----------



## expatinasia (Jun 16, 2014)

These sensors could come out sooner than we think. SAR is reporting this:



> The image of this Sony curved sensor created quite a buzz but some people argued that this tech may not coming any time soon. Well this is wrong. Sony already made a first mass production run and realized 100 sensors. Sony device manager Itonaga said it clearly: “We are ready“.



http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/addendum-sony-says-we-are-ready-to-produce-curved-sensors-on-mass-scale/

If I have understood the physics of this properly, this could really be a game changer.


----------



## GaryJ (Jun 16, 2014)

Some folk on CR must take an angry pill before logging on, as we say in Aus 'we are not playing for sheep stations' and also manners don't hurt either,still it is fun to read


----------



## Don Haines (Jun 16, 2014)

Aglet said:


> it's most likely for small camera systems to produce good low light results using cheap, simple, fast lenses. First use will probably be phone- cameras. Getting the required amount of curvature in larger sensor systems is likely to be much more challenging as slight (focus) errors of a few microns could occur with temperature shifts and if you're looking to make a compact, large sensor camera with this then you're really gonna have to decrease the radius of that sensor's curvature. So, more likely practical for 1/2.5 and smaller sensors.
> Still, will be very interesting if they can effectively achieve this for larger sensor formats.


This is what I was thinking....

Also, a curved sensor would work better with wide angle lenses, sort of like why a flat sensor works best with long lenses.... and since phones and p/s cameras tend towards the wide end of the spectrum, this could make the lens designs simpler.

And yes, there will be distortion, but look at the distortion you already have in those lenses... take an ipad or iphone and move it around and see how the image redraws as you move it... my bet is that the curved sensor will result in less distortion than the current sensor/lens combinations have now.


----------



## aj1575 (Jun 16, 2014)

rpt said:


> Jay H said:
> 
> 
> > My retina is curved. My eyeballs do not contain multiple elements. IF flat sensors were "simpler" to design for, I am quite disappointed that we have not evolved that superior level yet!
> ...



There is reason to be dissapointed, not because your retina isn't flat, because it cant zoom.
There is the BIG problem with a curved sensor, the curvature only fits one focal lenght. If you like to go the middle way then and choose one curvature that fits everything, then you end up with a flat sensor, because it still ist the easiest shape, and producable with smaller tolerances (fitting two curved shapes, the sensor and the focal plane would be rather troublesome).


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 16, 2014)

expatinasia said:


> These sensors could come out sooner than we think. SAR is reporting this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



And again, it will render the few lenses Sony already released for their FF mirrorless cameras obsolete. Time for another lens/system road map..........


----------



## Steve (Jun 16, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> And again, it will render the few lenses Sony already released for their FF mirrorless cameras obsolete. Time for another lens/system road map..........



Yeah pretty sure its been pointed many times that these sensors are most likely going to be used for fixed lens cameras like the RX series



GaryJ said:


> as we say in Aus 'we are not playing for sheep stations'



what does this even mean? I can't even begin to parse this weird proverb


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 16, 2014)

Steve said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > And again, it will render the few lenses Sony already released for their FF mirrorless cameras obsolete. Time for another lens/system road map..........
> ...



Which makes it even more of a niche. Are we really short on choice in the >$2,500 fixed lens ff market? And who cares? Are corners that much of a problem for everybody as to need new cameras and lens/lenses?

I suspect this will be a VHS vs Betamax type contest, sure curved sensors have the theoretical potential to offer "better" IQ, but at what cost? And seeing as how flat sensors/film and lenses have been around for over a hundred years and consumers seem more driven by size and convenience, or price, than IQ, I think Sony have yet anther cool product with little to no market.


----------



## dgatwood (Jun 17, 2014)

dilbert said:


> dgatwood said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



That's what the term "fall off" means—a reduction in brightness at the edges compared with the middle. The brightness "falls off" (decreases) as you get closer to the edge of the sensor.



aj1575 said:


> There is reason to be dissapointed, not because your retina isn't flat, because it cant zoom.
> There is the BIG problem with a curved sensor, the curvature only fits one focal lenght. If you like to go the middle way then and choose one curvature that fits everything, then you end up with a flat sensor, because it still ist the easiest shape, and producable with smaller tolerances (fitting two curved shapes, the sensor and the focal plane would be rather troublesome).



I assume they would set the curvature based on a focal length right in the middle of the typical shooting range. That way, the most common length requires no focal plane correction, everything uses less correction on average, and some lenses correct the focal plane in the opposite direction from others.


----------



## arcanej (Jul 4, 2014)

This link (supposedly) shows the first picture from the curved sensor:
http://www.mirrorlessrumors.com/world-s-first-image-taken-with-the-famous-new-sony-curved-sensor


----------



## Max ☢ (Jul 4, 2014)

What was Sony thinking when they submitted this image? it's blurry!! if this is supposed to show the advantage and performance of their new sensor, then it's pretty underwhelming... sure, there's no vignetting, but does this feature really called for a new sensor technology?


----------



## arcanej (Jul 4, 2014)

A traditional planar sensor will only have part of a properly focused image out of focus. The advance of curved sensors lets a photographer have an entire properly focused image blurry.... Progress!

Or something.


----------



## aj1575 (Aug 25, 2014)

Do you like to buy Sony curved sensor; you can do it now, the KW1 will be sold shortly.

Take a look at this awesome piece of professional equipment...

 http://www.gizmag.com/sony-kw1-perfume-selfie/33484/


----------



## mb66energy (Sep 4, 2014)

Jay H said:


> My retina is curved. My eyeballs do not contain multiple elements. IF flat sensors were "simpler" to design for, I am quite disappointed that we have not evolved that superior level yet!



The eye has only very good center sharpness. But to the periphery sharpness/resolution declines and the colour sensitivity too; but the peripheral sensors are faster (some flourescent tubes flicker in the periphery but are stable in the center).
On the other hand you need a very wide field of view (roughly 180 degree horzontally) to be aware of potential threats. The "eye-brain" directs the sweet spot of our eye to the potential threat.

Our "eye-brain" scans the scenery and stores details - we think that our eyes are optically very good but in fact they are not compared to good primes e.g.

So photography has to store a lot more of detail than we might read in a glance.

Where our eye excells is the dynamic range which might be 20 stops which is
FROM full sunlight (1000 Watts per square meter)
TO micro LED torch illuminating a medium large room (0.001 Watts per square meter)
through (1) using an auto aperture, (2) high DR sensors and (3) relying on two types of sensors activated for its special purposes.


----------



## mb66energy (Sep 4, 2014)

pedro said:


> I really like that. But I guess we are lightyears away from such a device...Or Sony could take us by surprise by 2016?
> 
> http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/cameras/Canon_rumours.html



I think curved sensors are a "money-printing-machine" for companies if it comes for interchangeable lens cameras: It converts all other lenses to high tech waste.

A better approach should be to make the sensor surface matt black so they collect each photon idependent from the angle of incidence. If I knew how to do that I would do it but ... I have no idea yet.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Sep 4, 2014)

Steve said:


> GaryJ said:
> 
> 
> > as we say in Aus 'we are not playing for sheep stations'
> ...



Be careful what you ask for. Do you really want to know about Australians, sheep and the games they play?


----------

