Samsung announces own dual-pixel 12MP sensor

09 March, 2016
The sensor used in the Galaxy S7 was so far known to be Sony's IMX260, but apparently Samsung has its own imager in production with the same capabilities.

Sort by:

  • Anonymous

AnonD-127643, 09 Mar 2016Flummery will take you places lol.Watch and learn . http://www.gsmarena.com/samsung_galaxy_s7_camera_sensors_compared_sony_vs_samsung-news-17183.php

  • AnonD-183110

MasEnha, 11 Mar 2016Does it mean that selected DSLR (with reasonable price) wil... moreIf I understand your question, then yes, because physical sensor area is a thing, that no digital processing in the world can hide. There may be some proffesionals who do magic in Photoshop, though. The difference is very noticable in room conditions, when there's no Sun shining outside.

  • AnonD-331993

sony make his own sensor? wow what a bull*hit

  • MasEnha

AnonD-183110, 10 Mar 2016Thanks for the amazing reply. First of all we're talking ab... moreDoes it mean that selected DSLR (with reasonable price) will be pretty much better in term of PQ compared to camera on the phone no matter how good is the image processing, since the digital image processing will practically reduce the natural points? Sorry for being so amateur.

Anonymous, 10 Mar 2016just to clarify, wouldn't a 4:3 have the exact same vertica... moreNope. 12 is the vertical. 9 is the horizontal.

  • Anonymous

AnonD-144099, 10 Mar 2016ISOCELL has been overly branded by Samsung, wherein DTI (De... moreOk...and? Samsung announced isocell a while before they actually released it in the S5. And the Z1 only came out a few months before the S5.
So next?

  • AnonD-183110

AnonD-152638, 09 Mar 2016Sensor size actually does not mean anything at all. What m... moreThanks for the amazing reply. First of all we're talking about sensors, not sensors+lens+chipset. Second, why make a full frame DSLR if sensor size does not mean anything at all ? I've done a lot of comparison, surfing, sensor size determines pretty much everything - amount of light, crop factor( wider field of view, without any "fish eye" distortions), and most importantly "natural noise processing" as I call it, when any photo taken from a larger sensor, appears to be more natural than the one from smaller sensor, requiers less digital noise reduction which is the main quality killer. And this is why almost every single smartphone camera performes pretty much the same, exept for the two specific Nokia units. Perhaps we could count in the Panasonic Lumix 1 inch sensor, but it's more like a camera, than a phone.

  • AnonD-144099

ISOCELL has been overly branded by Samsung, wherein DTI (Deep Trench Isolation) has been used by Sony since the IMX220 days (Xperia Z1).

AnonD-352484, 09 Mar 2016Could have marketing reasons as well. Because of geometry, ... moreNice explanation, but I believe they will do something about it in the next Note 6 (Mark my words).

AnonD-152638, 09 Mar 2016I can think of a few reasons, the photographic world i stil... moreActually we see in wide aspect ratio , (Unless somebody lost one of his eyes, may it never happen to any of you).

  • Anonymous

AnonD-152638, 09 Mar 2016What are you talking about? If the sensor is made with 1... morejust to clarify, wouldn't a 4:3 have the exact same vertical the 9 and less horizontal then a 16:9. 16 being horizontal 9 being vertical. because a 4:3 would balance out to 12 horizontal 9 vertical? if im not mistaken anyway.

  • AnonD-427137

F.g.h.t, 09 Mar 2016which one is better????I personally favor the sony one cause the lowlight video I've seen on youtube is different from the one that my phone produces

  • AnonD-152638

Anonymous, 09 Mar 2016No.... Pixels would be stretched in 16:9. Just like 800x600... moreWhat are you talking about?

If the sensor is made with 16:9 aspect ratio, that means that the relationship between the number of pixels put on the horizontal axis and the vertical axis has the relationship of 16 to 9.
For example if we have 1600 pixels horizontal and 900 pixels vertical it has the resolution of 1.44 Megapixels.

If the sensor has 4:3 aspect ratio, the number of pixels has the horizontal vs vertical are 4 to 3.

For example, if the sensor still has 1600 in horizontal resolution, the vertical resolution would have to be 1200 = 1.92Megapixels.
But if the vertical resolution is 900, the horizontal resolution would be 1200 = 1.08Megapixels.

In a 1600x1200 senor it would be possible to capture either a 1.92 megapixel image in 4:3 or a 1.44Megapixel in 16:9.
In a 1600x900 you could capture either a 16:9 image of 1.44Megapixels or an 4:3 Image of 1.08Megapixels.
In neither case would that involve any stretching.


But the image from the lens is actually a circle.
And this makes things a little more complicated.
The biggest 4 cornered shape in terms of surface area, that you can fit in a circle is a square.
But by making the image wider than its height (making an rectangle), you can make use of more of the width of the image circle, the same would go for making it higher than wide.
(But since our vision is wider than it's height, that is not a common aspect ratio, and you could then just as well just turn the camera on it's side)
By making a rectangle, you can however increase the diagonal size of the sensor. So in terms of diagonal size a 16:9 rectangle will have a bigger diagonal than a 1:1 square, even though it's area is smaller.
Since the biggest 4 cornored shape is still a square, making the sensor less square shaped will make the surface area smaller, and thus decrease the resolution.
Some maker have used a sensor bigger than the lens circle, to then allow users for to select the aspect ratio they want, but making sure that you get maximum resolution from each. That way if 16:9 is selected, the user gets a bit more of the width the image the lens actually produce in it's image circle, but lose some height, and if the user selects 1:1, it will get the highest resolution, but then with a less wide image. 4:3 would be a compromise between the two.

So in the examples above, the 16:9 sensor would most likely capture more of the width of the image circle. Whereas the 4:3 sensor would capture more height.
So selecting a different aspect ratio in software on a sensor means that the captured result it's not comparable to a sensor made for that aspect ratio, even if the resolution would be the same.


Since the acutal sensor behind the lens differ in size depending on if it's a 16:9 sensor or a 4:3 sensor, when calculating the F-number (aperture), it will be effected by the sensor chosen. The wider 16:9 sensor would need a bigger image circle than the 4:3, since it's using more of the width (it would need a image circle that is as high as it's wide).
So if Samsung would use the same lens, but put a 16:9 sensor behind it the f-number would go up, and that is worse, since higher f-number means smaller aperture, but the actual aperture size would be exactly the same.

So it's considered that perhaps Samsung chose the 4:3 aspect ratio in order to have a better f-number. However, then one could as why they did not go full square. But perhaps that would result in a number that when rounded off, it would still be the same (I dont' know exactly how to do the calculations, so I won't bother).

Another advantage is that they can post higher megapixel number.

And that in the interface on the 16:9 aspect ratio screen, they can fit on-screen buttons to do the settings, without distracting the user from the actual aptured image.

Also a lot of users of mobiles, tend to hold their phones in portrait mode, even when looking at images and watching videos, so having a more square resolution would mean less borders around the image, and less downscaling.

  • AnonD-127643

Anonymous, 09 Mar 2016I will listen to GSMArena over you any day. You have no ide... moreFlummery will take you places lol.

  • Anonymous

[deleted post]Little boy I will take GSMArena's word over yours. They showed that the Samsung sensor was better at day and the Sony was better at night. Nothing unbelievable.

  • AnonD-352484

Anonymous, 09 Mar 2016No.... Pixels would be stretched in 16:9. Just like 800x600... moreIf you do so, you lose pixel surface area.
Compare the 16mp sensor in the galaxy s6 and the one in the new huawei. Both 16mp, both from Sony, both 1,12 um pixel size - but if you look at the sensor size its 1/2.6 at the 16:9 sensor and 1/2.8 (smaller) on the 4:3 sensor

  • AnonD-152638

Anonymous, 09 Mar 2016"Sensor size actually does not mean anything at all. What m... moreOr you could read all of my comment.
Besides do you know what "might" means?

Don't pretend to be smart, by picking quotoes, and pretend to contradict what has been said in the ful comment, to pretend to in any way be wiser that the person that wrote the comment you are quoting.
That is just rude.

  • Anonymous

[deleted post]I will listen to GSMArena over you any day. You have no idea what you talk about. You are what people call a hater.

  • Anonymous

AnonD-352484, 09 Mar 2016You can manufacture 12mp sensors in every aspect ratio you ... moreNo.... Pixels would be stretched in 16:9. Just like 800x600 res is 4:3 and in 16:9 it would be stretched.

  • AnonD-352484

Anonymous, 09 Mar 2016You're getting a 12mp and that is 4:3. If you want 16.9 you... moreYou can manufacture 12mp sensors in every aspect ratio you want, the difference is, the wider you go, the larger the sensor gets with the same megapixel count. That means your focal length increases for the same focal length equivalent, that means your aperture has to be physically larger to write a F/1.7 on it, your camera humb would be bigger etc.