# Sony revolutionizes the sensor world? Active Pixel Color Sampling sensor (APCS).



## Jon_D (Nov 12, 2014)

http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sr4-hot-news-sony-revolutionizes-the-sensor-world-makes-worlds-first-active-pixel-sensor-apcs/



> ......
> Every single pixel can take the full color info with the help of an electrified moving color filter!
> How this works in detail is yet not described on that paper. But basically instead of having four pixels “RGBG” interpolated into one single pixel information (as it happens on usual Bayer sensors) every pixel on the APCS sensor grabs the full color information. There is no need of interpolation. So on paper you have 4 times the resolution and that 4,8 MP sensor can be compared (again on paper) with a 19,2 MP classic Bayer sensor used by 99% of todays cameras. This is a more advanced solution than Sigmas Foveon sensor used on DP cameras. Sigma uses three vertically ordered R-G-B layers. But also here you need to merge three pixel information into one and you also struggle with noise level because electrons get absorbed (or lost) on each layer).
> 
> ...



canon is trying to catch up with the latest sony sensor generation and sony seem to have the next big hit ready already.

i guess as with BSI we will see this in smartphones first and maybe 2016 in more photographer oriented cameras.

or maybe it´s a VIDEO sensor. the sensor is little big for a smartphone. 
but i guess the technology will make it into still cameras at some point.

anyway... personally i can´t wait to get rid of the bayer sensor and it´s shortcomings.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 12, 2014)

It's far from a new idea in the sensor world. For many years my Zeiss microscope cameras have done something similar. In that case they're moving the sensor under the Bayer filter instead of moving the filter over the sensor, but the end result is the same – no color interpolation needed. Note that the resolution increase is color resolution only, not a true increase in spatial resolution. 

There's also no guarantee that it's scalable – there's a good chance this will not make it into APS-C or larger sensors any time soon. The larger the thing being moved, the more difficult it is to move it fast enough with sufficient precision. For most microscopy, specimens are fixed and speed isn't an issue. For moving subjects it is, so the movement of the Bayer filter will need to be fast enough to support motion-stopping speeds for use in dSLR/MILC (since each image is really the sum of three successive images). Note that Sony touted the advantages of 'sensor shift' in-body image stabilization (IBIS), but they don't offer it in full frame sensors, most likely because the larger sensor can't be translated rapidly/precisely enough. 

So, while interesting, this technology is neither conceptually new, nor is it all that and a bag of chips.


----------



## Coldhands (Nov 12, 2014)

Pure snake oil at this point. Not a single iota of information on how this magical "electrified moving colour filter" works? Get back to me with some science. _Edit: Looks like Neuro has the goods._

And honestly, the writer's technical understanding makes Tony Northrup look like a genius. Bayer image sensors interpolate four pixels into one? Seriously? Saying this 4.8 MP sensor is equivalent to a 19.2 MP Bayer sensor is simply wrong.

And no more AA filter? Doubt it. The reason most sensors have an AA filter now is to deal with rendering of detail near the sensor's Nyquist frequency, and that doesn't change by getting rid of the CFA.

144 MP full frame? I shouldn't even need to bother pointing out how absurd this claim is.

Maybe there is a kernel of truth in here somewhere, but it's buried under a pile of breathless speculation.


----------



## Jon_D (Nov 12, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> There's also no guarantee that it's scalable – there's a good chance this will not make it into APS-C or larger sensors any time soon. The larger the thing being moved, the more difficult it is to move it fast enough with sufficient precision.



but who says there is something mechanical moved?
could be switched electronically.

i doubt they move something physically 16000 times a second.


----------



## Jon_D (Nov 12, 2014)

Coldhands said:


> Pure snake oil at this point. Not a single iota of information on how this magical "electrified moving colour filter" works? Get back to me with some science. _Edit: Looks like Neuro has the goods._



yeah well do i have to remind you what kind of forum you are visiting here? ;D
remember 10 years of talking about the 100-400mm II??



> And honestly, the writer's technical understanding makes Tony Northrup look like a genius. Bayer image sensors interpolate four pixels into one? Seriously? Saying this 4.8 MP sensor is equivalent to a 19.2 MP Bayer sensor is simply wrong.
> 
> And no more AA filter? Doubt it. The reason most sensors have an AA filter now is to deal with rendering of detail near the sensor's Nyquist frequency, and that doesn't change by getting rid of the CFA.
> 
> ...



he cleary says "on paper" and that it´s theoretically.

sure he sounds a bit carried away by the prospects...


----------



## Coldhands (Nov 12, 2014)

Jon_D said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > There's also no guarantee that it's scalable – there's a good chance this will not make it into APS-C or larger sensors any time soon. The larger the thing being moved, the more difficult it is to move it fast enough with sufficient precision.
> ...



For reference, the dust reduction built into our sensors moves a filter at up to 50khz (50,000 cycles per second).


----------



## Coldhands (Nov 12, 2014)

Jon_D said:


> Coldhands said:
> 
> 
> > Pure snake oil at this point. Not a single iota of information on how this magical "electrified moving colour filter" works? Get back to me with some science. _Edit: Looks like Neuro has the goods._
> ...



As you rightly point out, we're all here for rumours, but I feel that if one is going to proclaim that some thing will "revolutionise the world", then it should a be accompanied by some convincing information.

I just really take issue with all the false assertions that the writer puts his SR4 stamp on.


----------



## Maximilian (Nov 12, 2014)

I say: bring it on and we'll see what it can do. 

To me, after short reading and not willing to study sensor design development I thought it was more like:
"Sony NOW has finally found a patent on its own to get into the foveon/multilayer/whatever sensor design to avoid the Bayer/XTrans/whatever patterns”. And put some icing on top, that it looks better than the others. Hooray!

We'll see if this will work in practice and if it'll be evolutionary, revolutionary or nothing at all.
Competence is always good!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 12, 2014)

Jon_D said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > There's also no guarantee that it's scalable – there's a good chance this will not make it into APS-C or larger sensors any time soon. The larger the thing being moved, the more difficult it is to move it fast enough with sufficient precision.
> ...



Read:



> Every single pixel can take the full color info with the help of an electrified *moving* color filter!



Sure, it's possible to use a tunable filter (my scopes use several acousto-optical tunable filters, for example). But if the article you link got something so basic wrong, the whole thing could be false. 

As Coldhands points out, your suggestion that moving something the size of a sensor at 16 kHz is proven false by existing technology. But it's not trivial to move it at that speed with sufficient precision. 

Like I said...not revolutionary and likely irrelevant for dSLR/MILC.


----------



## Jon_D (Nov 12, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Jon_D said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



he also wrote he has no clue how it works... 

i could imagine it means something like in LCD technology.


----------



## Jon_D (Nov 12, 2014)

Coldhands said:


> Jon_D said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



and precision plays no role at all in this case. 
apples and oranges. 

not to mention that the dust reduction is not working all the time. 
i had great doubts if this RGB filter would be a mechanical construction.


----------



## rs (Nov 12, 2014)

Great. So each colour is sampled at a different time, as the colour filter physically moves in front of the pixel. This will be great for tripod based static scene shots, but will result in colour tearing - much like a field sequential display does. Bad news for video, bad news for stills of anything that moves as there will effectively be three exposures taken at different times for red, green and blue, and then all merged into one.

Plus the exposure time for each colour cannot be more than 1/3rd of the total exposure time, so I'd hazard a guess that the sensitivity isn't increased either by these larger pixels for the same resolution. And as the filter can't transition instantly between the colours, its less than 1/3rd of the exposure time available to each colour.


----------



## Jon_D (Nov 12, 2014)

rs said:


> Great. So each colour is sampled at a different time, as the colour filter physically moves in front of the pixel. This will be great for tripod based static scene shots, but will result in colour tearing - much like a field sequential display does. Bad news for video, bad news for stills of anything that moves as there will effectively be three exposures taken at different times for red, green and blue, and then all merged into one.
> 
> Plus the exposure time for each colour cannot be more than 1/3rd of the total exposure time, so I'd hazard a guess that the sensitivity isn't increased either by these larger pixels for the same resolution. And as the filter can't transition instantly between the colours, its less than 1/3rd of the exposure time available to each colour.



did you read that the sensor is able to readout 16000 times a second?

i wonder how you will see color smearing.... especially when bayer sensors are all about "smearing colors".


----------



## rs (Nov 12, 2014)

Jon_D said:


> rs said:
> 
> 
> > Great. So each colour is sampled at a different time, as the colour filter physically moves in front of the pixel. This will be great for tripod based static scene shots, but will result in colour tearing - much like a field sequential display does. Bad news for video, bad news for stills of anything that moves as there will effectively be three exposures taken at different times for red, green and blue, and then all merged into one.
> ...


A 1/8000 shutter speed would only allow time for two colours at that paltry speed. Three readouts, or 24,000 per second is needed for full colour and full on tearing at the shutter speeds most of us can use right now. If long shutter speeds could be made up of hundreds or thousands of frames stacked together, then it could be good - at slow shutter speeds. Forget about it for action until that figure closes in on millions per second, but then you're still left with low sensitivity due to shorter exposure times per colour. Not to mention the processing, and how to make something move millions of times a second.


----------



## Coldhands (Nov 12, 2014)

Jon_D said:


> Coldhands said:
> 
> 
> > Jon_D said:
> ...



Fair point, of course, but I'm fairly certain that it would be possible to synchronise the movement of a filter array via an electro-magnetic driver (think something akin to a speaker coil) with the read-out of the sensor. On the physical side, it would actually be a relatively simple transfer-function to model (essentially a spring-mass system), especially if you compare it to something like a hard-disk drive that has to move the read head with incredible precision over a disk rotating at up to 10,000rpm.

I'm not a dedicated controls engineer, so this is about all the insight I can offer, but I think I'll place my bets on something like this.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 12, 2014)

Jon_D said:


> he also wrote he has no clue how it works...



Oh, well that makes it all ok then. Kind of like saying moving something physically at 16,000 times per second is unlikely, I guess some people don't mind writing things about which they have no clue.


----------



## RLPhoto (Nov 12, 2014)

Hasn't Hasselblad had the multishot series for awhile now? It doesn't move the color filter but it does move the sensor to get the full color information. Still it's pretty slow, clunky and requires still subjects but the idea of moving around something to extract more information isn't new.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Nov 12, 2014)

I look forward to reading more about this technology. I hope Sony can get a prototype camera with this technology working so we can see some tests.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 12, 2014)

dilbert said:


> For me the interesting part was "12bit / 16bit".
> 
> Obviously Sony are looking to move beyond 14bit raw images.
> 
> Haven't seen any Canon patents mention 16bit raw yet.



Don't be too sure. Keep in mind that this is a sensor patent. 16-bit output from the sensor doesn't mean 16-bit RAW file output from the camera. Sony already promotes that they use 16-bit in-camera processing.


----------



## jasny (Nov 12, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > For me the interesting part was "12bit / 16bit".
> ...



Doesn't look like a patent. More like product description.

BTW: What kind of application for this sensor? Obviously, it looks more video then stills oriented. But, does any video cam use that format? Dont know. 
Taking photo cameras into consideration… Well, probably only Canon G1 X uses 1.5 inch sensor.


----------



## Jon_D (Nov 12, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Jon_D said:
> 
> 
> > he also wrote he has no clue how it works...
> ...



do you know exactly how a rolls royce airplane engine works?
do you fly?

it´s just the usual "it comes from sony so it must suck" denial i read here every day.
who cares how exactly it is done when it works?



> Kind of like saying moving something physically at 16,000 times per second is unlikely, I guess some people don't mind writing things about which they have no clue.



so you say that they move a physical filter at 16000 frames per seconds is more likely as an electronic filter of some kind? 

i have an ultrasonic cleaner at home that moves at quite some speed.
but i don´t go as far as compare it to something like a RGB filter on a sensor. 

you have no clue either how the sony sensor will work.... so why are you writing about it?


----------



## Jon_D (Nov 12, 2014)

rs said:


> Jon_D said:
> 
> 
> > rs said:
> ...



you are translating bayer sensor tech to a new sensor tech.
im not sure your example works that way for a new sensor design.

but im pretty sure sony thought about it IF this sensor is a real development...


----------



## Jon_D (Nov 12, 2014)

Coldhands said:


> Jon_D said:
> 
> 
> > Coldhands said:
> ...



i did not say it´s impossible.

i say that it would be possible that they use something that is not physically moving.
like some layers over the photosites that change when you apply voltage. 

i like to have less moving parts in my camera not more.
shutter and mirror are prone to malfunction.

and we all know how long harddisks last...... to stay at that example.


----------



## Jon_D (Nov 12, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Like I said...not revolutionary and likely irrelevant for dSLR/MILC.



people said the same about BSI sensors.
they will only be used in smartphone and tiny sensors.

or exmor.. how many said that´s useless.

well a few years later everyone wants exmor sensors.


----------



## jrista (Nov 12, 2014)

The guys at image sensors world were thinking the report was faked:


http://image-sensors-world.blogspot.com/2014/11/rumor-sony-to-introduce-active-pixel.html


Wonkey voltages and such.


They also seemed to believe it was just another standard layered sensor design, nothing particularly out of the park as far as electronic movable filter arrays or anything like that. The guys who comment on ISW very often ARE sensor designers...so I would take their word over some random report at sony rumors any day.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 12, 2014)

Jon_D said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Jon_D said:
> ...


 
Do you really think most pilots know how airplane engines work? You are in for a rude awakening. Of course, some may, just as some photographers may know how sensors work. 


There is no need to be defensive, the blogger provides no patent and no backup for all his assertions.

Many who post here are scientists and engineers and take claims without any backup information with a grain of salt, particularly when they seem to gush about how great it is. We've seen this type of thing too many times.

"Cold Fusion??"


----------



## rs (Nov 12, 2014)

Jon_D said:


> rs said:
> 
> 
> > Jon_D said:
> ...



No. There is absolutely nothing in any bayer sensor which requires multiple readouts during the exposure time.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 12, 2014)

Jon_D said:


> do you know exactly how a rolls royce airplane engine works?



No, but I don't go talking about the details of how an airplane engine works, either. 




Jon_D said:


> so you say that they move a physical filter at 16000 frames per seconds is more likely as an electronic filter of some kind?



I didn't say that, the article about which you started this thread and to which you linked in the first post says that. Try to keep up...




Jon_D said:


> i have an ultrasonic cleaner at home that moves at quite some speed.
> but i don´t go as far as compare it to something like a RGB filter on a sensor.



As pointed out before, the 'self-cleaning sensor' system is moved by a piezoelectric motor at a higher frequency than suggested in the information which you linked. That system is moving a stack of filters over the sensor (the IR cut filter, one of the two low pass filters, and the 1/4-wave plate). 




Jon_D said:


> it´s just the usual "it comes from sony so it must suck" denial i read here every day.
> 
> you have no clue either how the sony sensor will work.... so why are you writing about it?



I was drawing an analogy between technology that has existed for quite some time (_translational motion of the sensor under the Bayer mask so each photodiode is successively exposed to all three colors in the CFA_) to the technology described in the post you quoted and linked, which is referred to as 'revolutionary' (_translational motion of the Bayer mask over the sensor so each photodiode is successively exposed to all three colors in the CFA_).

Read the two highlighted phrases above...the only difference is the relative position of what's being moved. This 'new' technology doesn't sound even remotely 'revolutionary' compared to the one I've been using for over 12 years.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 12, 2014)

Jon_D said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Like I said...not revolutionary and likely irrelevant for dSLR/MILC.
> ...


 


What people said about backlit sensors in 2008 were that it was more effective for small sensors, but with a few years of development, that might change. Its still true, as the sensor gets larger, given the same pixel sizes, backlight technology is not as useful. For very high MP sensors where there is not enough room for wiring on the front side, than moving the wiring to the back allows for larger photosites which is a definite help. 

So, yes, years later, BSI technology is finding its way into larger sensors each generation.


----------



## jrista (Nov 12, 2014)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Jon_D said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...




It's already found it's way into a 1.5x crop APS-C sensor with Samsung's NX1 camera.


----------



## Larry (Nov 12, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> As Coldhands points out, your suggestion that moving something the size of a sensor at 16 kHz is proven false by existing technology.



Is/are there one or more words missing from the above sentence? ???


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 12, 2014)

> ......
> – Records 2K with 16,000 frames per second.



So a 7D2 at 2K 60Hz video cranks out 440Mbytes per minute.... At 16000 fps that becomes 117,333Mbytes per minute or a mere 1,956Mbytes per second. My 32Gbyte CF card would hold 16.3 seconds worth of video....

I think I need a bigger card


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 12, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> > ......
> > – Records 2K with 16,000 frames per second.
> 
> 
> ...


 
The camera would melt down into a pile of ashes in 5 seconds at that rate, so your card would be big enough


----------



## jrista (Nov 12, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> > ......
> > – Records 2K with 16,000 frames per second.
> 
> 
> ...




Are those values for RAW video? Generally speaking, you can gain massive compression ratios with video, and at such high frame rates, the differences between frames are going to be quite small, so I would expect the compression ratio to be even higher.


----------



## rs (Nov 12, 2014)

jrista said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > > ......
> ...


That would take some pretty impressive processing power to achieve a good level of compression in real time at that frame rate.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 12, 2014)

Larry said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > As Coldhands points out, your suggestion that moving something the size of a sensor at 16 kHz is proven false by existing technology.
> ...



No. Is/are there one or more words you were expecting to see, but don't? ???


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 12, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Larry said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...


This whole thing is a joke..... a scam.... trolling.....

What you will do with a movable sensor at 16Khz is to drain batteries quickly and shake the sensor apart. 

If the sensor moved instantly from one colour to the next, you are only reading the light for a colour a third of the time. This would cancel out having the sensor pixels three times larger. What happens in the real world is that you will have time elapsed while you move from one place to another and the light is wasted while the move is going on..... you now have less usable light than before.

and where does the lens not in use go when it is not in use..... it is still physically present and blocking something else.... or if you move the sensor, same problem..... and you have reduced the amount of usable light by another factor of 3.....

You would be creating a system that was mechanically complex and would decrease the amount of usable light by at least 2 stops... a complex system that would eat batteries like popcorn...


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 12, 2014)

jrista said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Jon_D said:
> ...


 
Yes, Samsung was one of the early companies to start working on BSI. I think that we will eventually see it even on MF sensors when the MP count climbs so high the the wiring is causing a issue.

I think that the 35MP point on FF starts to see a slight advantage, and at 50-60MP, it might be enough to make a big difference. I hope Canon does it before then, even a small reduction in noise helps.


----------



## jrista (Nov 12, 2014)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Mt Spokane Photography said:
> ...




If Canon is moving to layered sensors, I believe they will be BSI. The more recent patents we have seen from them regarding layered sensors showed BSI designs.


----------



## Larry (Nov 12, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Larry said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Examples: "As Coldhands points out, your suggestion that moving something the size of a sensor at 16 kHz [ is impossible/can't be done/etc. ] ... is proven false by existing technology." :-\


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 13, 2014)

Larry said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Larry said:
> ...



Oh, you mean those words. Yes, they were missing. Thanks!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 13, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> If the sensor moved instantly from one colour to the next, you are only reading the light for a colour a third of the time. This would cancel out having the sensor pixels three times larger. What happens in the real world is that you will have time elapsed while you move from one place to another and the light is wasted while the move is going on..... you now have less usable light than before.
> 
> and where does the lens not in use go when it is not in use..... it is still physically present and blocking something else.... or if you move the sensor, same problem..... and you have reduced the amount of usable light by another factor of 3.....
> 
> You would be creating a system that was mechanically complex and would decrease the amount of usable light by at least 2 stops... a complex system that would eat batteries like popcorn...



You're not really losing light. In a standard Bayer-masked sensor, the exposure is taken once and each pixel is covered by a dedicated color patch (R, G, or B) on the color filter array (CFA). The demosaicing process then interpolates the color values for the neighboring pixels. With co-site sampling (what this technology is called), each pixel is exposed three times at 1/3 the duration of what would be used in the standard implementation. In that standard implementation, you're really throwing away 2/3 of the spectrum (ok, not exactly since the transmission curves of the three color patches aren't perfect and non-overlapping), and thus 2/3 of the light. Co-site sampling collects effectively the same amount light, when you consider summing across multiple pixels. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_co-site_sampling (Most of the images used in that are from Zeiss.)

You're suggesting that moving a Bayer array or the sensor two times by a distance of a few microns (one pixel over then one pixel down) would 'eat batteries like popcorn?? I suspect it would use very little power.


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 13, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > If the sensor moved instantly from one colour to the next, you are only reading the light for a colour a third of the time. This would cancel out having the sensor pixels three times larger. What happens in the real world is that you will have time elapsed while you move from one place to another and the light is wasted while the move is going on..... you now have less usable light than before.
> ...


Ahhhhhh.....

I misunderstood....

Do you know if anyone has tried to make a sensor with microprisms instead of microlenses? That would seem to me as an interesting way to use more of the incident light....


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 13, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> Ahhhhhh.....
> 
> I misunderstood....
> 
> Do you know if anyone has tried to make a sensor with microprisms instead of microlenses? That would seem to me as an interesting way to use more of the incident light....



Isn't that how the three CCD video cameras do it? A single prism that splits the light three ways to the sensors that each have their own colour filter on.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 13, 2014)

> "Positive effects of such a sensor design are:
> – 4 times bigger pixels compared to same resolution Bayer sensor. This means more electrons captured and therefore higher dynamic range and lower noise (crazy ISO possible…even crazier than those of the Sony A7s)."



The whole 4 pixels of foveon is the same as 1 of Bayer is QUITE an exaggeration.



> "
> – No moire issues anymore. No Anti Aliasing filter needed (increases per pixel sharpness)."



Absurd claim. No BAYER COLOR moire. But sure as heck you can still get moire and you sure as heck still need AA filters at the counts they are talking about.


----------



## emag (Nov 13, 2014)

.........three pages on this 'new sensor design' topic and not ONCE has anyone mentioned DR??? Y'all are slipping......
(oops, I see it was mentioned whilst I was typing)


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 13, 2014)

Jon_D said:


> rs said:
> 
> 
> > Great. So each colour is sampled at a different time, as the colour filter physically moves in front of the pixel. This will be great for tripod based static scene shots, but will result in colour tearing - much like a field sequential display does. Bad news for video, bad news for stills of anything that moves as there will effectively be three exposures taken at different times for red, green and blue, and then all merged into one.
> ...


so what if it can? can it magically make the full set of incoming photons re-hit after each sift?


----------



## jrista (Nov 13, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> Ahhhhhh.....
> 
> I misunderstood....
> 
> Do you know if anyone has tried to make a sensor with microprisms instead of microlenses? That would seem to me as an interesting way to use more of the incident light....




Panasonic has:


http://mikepasini.com/corners/2013/02/04-micro-color-splitters/index.htm


Not necessarily microprisms...at that scale, based on the patent, it sounded like they were using some kind of diffractive deflection, but that ultimately achieves the same thing in the end. 


I think this is one of the best ideas I've seen so far. It isn't a stacked sensor, yet it still preserves all the light. Ingenious, if you ask me.


----------



## Jon_D (Nov 13, 2014)

someone wrote he has no TTL flash options for sony... there are news:

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/1351339704/phottix-offers-two-mitros-ttl-flash-units-for-sony-multi-interface-hotshoe


----------



## Jon_D (Nov 13, 2014)

Larry said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Larry said:
> ...



nobody said that it is impossible. well i sure don´t. :

neuroanatomist is twisting words again (he does that very often) or just simply lying to make a point.



Jon_D said:


> i did not say it´s impossible.
> 
> i say that it would be possible that they use something that is not physically moving.
> like some layers over the photosites that change when you apply voltage.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 13, 2014)

Jon_D said:


> nobody said that it is impossible. well i sure don´t. :
> 
> neuroanatomist is twisting words again (he does that very often) or just simply lying to make a point.



What you said was;



Jon_D said:


> i doubt they move something physically 16000 times a second.



What the linked article states is:



> Every single pixel can take the full color info with the help of an electrified *moving* color filter!



So, apparently you believe the article you linked is lying. Or, as you also stated, the author of the article is clueless about how it works. In that case, what was the point of creating this thread? Oh yes, you're a troll...and a slanderer as well.


----------



## jrista (Nov 13, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Jon_D said:
> 
> 
> > nobody said that it is impossible. well i sure don´t. :
> ...




Do you enjoy emberrasing and belittling and degrading people? Honestly, dude. The whole entire article is likely a fraud, so YES, the guy who wrote it, or whoever "leaked" it to him, is most likely LYING. 


I tried to head off an inevitable useless debate by linking the ISW post on this particular rumor. If you look at the comments, the guys there (who, as I stated, are very often sensor designers themselves) think the specs are fake. They also seemed to believe the design was for a layered sensor, not something "out there" like as 16Khz oscillating CFA.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 13, 2014)

jrista said:


> Do you enjoy emberrasing and belittling and degrading people? Honestly, dude.



Ooooo looky, maybe I'll now be awarded another yellow box for pissing off jrista. Did someone appoint you Defender of Trolls while I wasn't looking? 

Maybe the moderator cleanup was fast enough that you missed Jon_D's little tantrum of posting a three-word inanity in a whole bunch of threads that had been inactive for ~4 years. I suppose that since the mods deleted it, you also missed the post where he directed profanity at me and called me a liar (again).

But hey, if I hear of an opening on the IMEL*, I'll let you know. Honestly, dude. :

* Internet Morality Enforcement League


----------



## DominoDude (Nov 13, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Do you enjoy emberrasing and belittling and degrading people? Honestly, dude.
> ...



I happened to see his posts before they were removed. Couldn't report on the one directed towards Neuro, it was pulled while I wrote the report line. It was far more nasty than appropriate for this forum.


----------



## jrista (Nov 13, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Do you enjoy emberrasing and belittling and degrading people? Honestly, dude.
> ...




Did you every consider that if you didn't run around antagonizing people, none of that kind of crap would happen in the first place? You purposely GOAD people to the breaking point, constantly, day in and day out. Why aren't the mods doing anything about that?


This place would be FAR more peaceful if you would just leave people alone. Regardless of how wrong they may be.


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 13, 2014)

jrista said:


> This place would be FAR more peaceful if you would just leave people alone. Regardless of how wrong they may be.



Seriously, how can you say that with a straight face, are you bipolar?

We, neuro, you, and I, and a few others, are all pots and kettles, for one to call the other out as black is farcical.


----------



## jrista (Nov 13, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > This place would be FAR more peaceful if you would just leave people alone. Regardless of how wrong they may be.
> ...




And I think we all need to back the hell off of people, and stop antagonism. I've tried, I generally try to avoid you guys these days, but if you guys aren't pounding on me, your pounding on someone else. I'm backing off now. Let's see if any of the rest of our little group can just leave well enough alone and let this place be in peace, or not.


----------



## DominoDude (Nov 13, 2014)

jrista said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



It's always good to differentiate people and behaviour. I accept and tolerate people (almost all of you), but certain behaviour I don't like and I will try to make it show. It's a crucial difference, and it's important to distinguish between those two, both if you're poster, or if you're a reader.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 14, 2014)

jrista said:


> I've tried, I generally try to avoid you guys these days



How's that working out for you?





jrista said:


> Do you enjoy emberrasing and belittling and degrading people? Honestly, dude.





jrista said:


> This place would be FAR more peaceful if you would just leave people alone. Regardless of how wrong they may be.



Not so well, apparently. :


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 14, 2014)

One way to avoid conflict is to focus on the issue and leave people out of it. Its not necessary to correct another person who has a different opinion, at least not repeatedly. 

When a person refers to another as stupid, a idiot, or starts throwing insults around, the other forum members are intimidated, and it becomes a unpleasant place.

I say, go ahead and write up a nasty response to another post. Read it, and rather than posting it, delete it. I find myself doing that two or three times a day. We have a large number of talented and knowledgeable posters, but they often get into a heated discussion over fine details and the meaning of words. One thing I've learned is that language that we use is based very much on our jobs and it can be very difficult to communicate ideas. 

One of my jobs involved writing assembly processes for electronics. Every time a new Quality Assurance person was rotated to the shop, he would immediately stop the production line because he read the instructions differently. We would rewrite them for him, and the same thing would happen three months later. We involved the techs in writing instructions, they are the ones who needed to understand and follow them, but a inspector coming from a different area could stop the show. No wonder US products cost so much, its all red tape.


----------



## xps (Nov 25, 2014)

http://reframe.gizmodo.com/leaked-sony-sensor-has-potential-to-supercharge-future-1657814856

Found at Docma, an german graphic magazine


If true and expanded, this will be an game changing innovation.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Nov 26, 2014)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> One way to avoid conflict is to focus on the issue and leave people out of it. Its not necessary to correct another person who has a different opinion, at least not repeatedly.



Could we make this into a sticky?

There are some of our members who need to keep reading this until they understand it.


----------



## jrista (Nov 27, 2014)

Some more information on this:


http://image-sensors-world.blogspot.com/2014/11/active-pixel-color-sampling-story-goes.html


The commentators still seem to think it's a hoax, given the discrepancies and errors in all of the data. Take it for what you will.


----------



## tolusina (Nov 27, 2014)

dilbert said:


> .....Now if it were Canon .....


really?


----------



## Busted Knuckles (Nov 27, 2014)

So long as it has an adapter so I can use my Canon glass investment I am happy


----------



## cpsico (Nov 27, 2014)

What about a reliability standpoint, moving parts are subject to failure. So does having a moving color filter make it more prone to failure?


----------



## jrista (Nov 27, 2014)

jrista said:


> Some more information on this:
> 
> 
> http://image-sensors-world.blogspot.com/2014/11/active-pixel-color-sampling-story-goes.html
> ...




I just...thought I'd quote this, maybe make it stand out more. So far, guys with WAAY more knowledge than any of us here regarding sensor technology think the whole thing is a cleverly deployed hoax. It could be real...but, these guys usually don't claim hoax unless there is something really wrong with the information...


----------



## dgatwood (Nov 27, 2014)

jrista said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Some more information on this:
> ...



The entire concept seems infeasible at first glance. Among other things, it trades a spatial shift between colors for a temporal shift, which is probably very undesirable....


----------

