Samsung unveils 50MP ISOCELL JN1 camera sensor
- ?
- Anonymous
- gDf
- 29 Jan 2024
I want to add: According to Samsung, 1/16 of the pixels are autofocus pixels, so the different color filter array (the image) should be only valid for 1/4 of the sensor area. So most of the sensor still has the Quad Bayer array.
- ?
- Anonymous
- gDf
- 29 Jan 2024
This sensor doesn't seem to have a Quad Bayer/Tetrapixel color filter array even though Samsung writes Tetrapixel on its website.
On its website, Samsung shows an image of the Double Super PD array of the JN1.
image.semiconductor.samsung.com/image/samsung/p5/semiconductor/minisite/isocell/hero_pd/isocell-jn1/isocell-jn1-p05-m_2.png
Apparently, the JN1 doesn't have a RRRR-GGGG-GGGG-BBBB color filter array, but RRRR-GGGG-GGGG-BGBG. In that case, 50% of the blue pixels are replaced with green pixels.
- n
- no name
- n2x
- 02 Aug 2021
they better reintroduce the dual aperture ... that was not a bad idea!
- ?
- Anonymous
- M0x
- 13 Jun 2021
Anonymous, 12 Jun 2021"a sensor with a 4um pixel and a 250mm/f10 lens will a... moreTherotical joker returns..
You have zero idea about image processing Algorithms, judging a camera based on hardware alone is like judging a car based on engine alone.
- K
- Kurosava
- ndi
- 13 Jun 2021
Anonymous, 13 Jun 2021Personal attack is a no no. I hope you don't fail too ... moreIt was not a personal attack. Disregarding image quality in a thread about image quality is a plain lack of common sense. The whole story started with image quality in focus.
- K
- Kurosava
- ndi
- 13 Jun 2021
Anonymous, 13 Jun 2021This Kuro guy is still confusing pixel size with ISO.I suggest you should first understand what is ISO, and how a cmos image sensor works. Then rhe relationship to the pixel size will become obvious.
- ?
- Anonymous
- Kxv
- 13 Jun 2021
Kurosava, 12 Jun 2021No, I thought you have common sense. Personal attack is a no no. I hope you don't fail too much in society and at work with this kind of attitude.
- ?
- Anonymous
- Kxv
- 13 Jun 2021
Anonymous, 12 Jun 2021"I mentioned it a few times already, but you chose to ... moreThis Kuro guy is still confusing pixel size with ISO.
- N
- Nick Tegrataker
- Xpf
- 13 Jun 2021
Kurosawa, 11 Jun 2021Which means, you will need much longer exposure time to get... moreWhile you're not wrong, I don't know why you're telling me that since that's not what we have been discussing about. I end our argument here, have a great day.
- ?
- Anonymous
- pQr
- 12 Jun 2021
Kurosava, 12 Jun 2021You have really no idea how pixels work.
Smaller pixels h... more"I mentioned it a few times already, but you chose to ignore it."
No, I didn't ignore it, but you were not able to provide a source. As I said the sources of noise are photon noise, read noise and dark current noise. Read noise and fixed pattern noise is the noise you capture when you use a lens cap and a short exposure time, dark current noise is the additional noise you capture when the exposure time gets longer. There isn't another major noise source, unless you can provide a reliable source that says that there is another major noise source apart from read noise and dark current noise. The noise that is caused by the analog to digital conversion is read noise. It also doesn't matter what the reason for read noise, etc is. Small pixels don't really have more read noise than large pixels as I mentioned. That's why equivalence theories work. And this is also supported by measurements from photonstophotos.net . Smaller pixels can even have less read noise.
"Smaller pixel = lees photons = less shot noise"
Less photon noise per pixel, but not per object. The photon noise per object stays constant, no matter which pixel size.
- K
- Kurosava
- ndi
- 12 Jun 2021
Anonymous, 12 Jun 2021I didn't say that one can ignore read noise. And no, r... moreYou have really no idea how pixels work.
Smaller pixels have larger noise because of other factors - like smaller conversion capacitance. Which is different from readout noise. I mentioned it a few times already, but you chose to ignore it.
Then what you describe is called photon shot noise and it has a lot to do with the pixel size. It is actually better for smaller pixels, since they capture less photons. If number of photons hitting the pixel is S, then photon noise is sqrt(S) and is in direct relationship with the active area of the pixel. With abundance of light it is the dominant noise source. Smaller pixel = lees photons = less shot noise. But then a larger pixel achieves the same by reducing exposure time.
- K
- Kurosava
- ndi
- 12 Jun 2021
Anonymous, 12 Jun 2021You think we can read your mind? You said small pixel size ... moreNo, I thought you have common sense.
- ?
- Anonymous
- vjX
- 12 Jun 2021
Kurosava, 12 Jun 2021I though that striving for image quality is self-explanator... moreYou think we can read your mind? You said small pixel size makes exposure time longer. That statement is wrong. Period. I rest my case.
- ?
- Anonymous
- pQr
- 12 Jun 2021
Anonymous, 12 Jun 2021I didn't say that one can ignore read noise. And no, r... moreIf you paint noise on your wallpaper and then you want to take a photo of your wallpaper (perfect light conditions), you wouldn't expect to see a better signal to noise ratio in your wallpaper photo, if you use a camera with a different pixel size. Though, this example isn't perfect because it only works, if the effective diameter of the lens stays constant.
- ?
- Anonymous
- pQr
- 12 Jun 2021
Kurosava, 12 Jun 2021First, you can't ignore readout noise, since it is one... moreI didn't say that one can ignore read noise. And no, read noise isn't always the dominant noise source. In good light conditions without shadows, read noise isn't important. Also, read noise isn't necessarily that important, if there is a lot of light pollution. Furthermore, when you take a photo of an object with a 4 micrometer camera + 250mm lens, the object will have a similar amount of read noise as a 0.8 micrometer camera + 50mm lens because in both cases the object consists of the same number of pixels and the read noise per pixel will be similar (between 2 and 1 electrons per pixel). For example, an older iPhone or Pixel phone has a similar amount of read noise per pixel as a Canon M50 according to photonstophotos.net . Apart from photon noise and read noise, there isn't another major noise source. There is dark current noise, but this is only relevant for long exposures and I have seen no source that says that smaller pixels have more dark current per pixel. Indeed, there are many specialized astrophotography cameras with smaller pixels than Aps-c cameras. And not even every camera with large pixels has back side illumination.
"I am really curious how the noise of the object does not depend on the noise of the pixel that captures it."
The effective diameter determines how much light per time can be captured from an object. This doesn't depend on the pixel size as a sensor can only capture the light that goes through the lens. Photon noise is the variation of the number of photons that are emitted/reflected per time, so it has nothing to do with the pixel size. Of course the pixel size doesn't affect the photon noise of an object (unless the pixels are less effective and lose light), otherwise it wouldn't be called photon noise, but read noise or something else. Photon noise is part of the reality and affects our eyes as well.
- K
- Kurosava
- ndi
- 12 Jun 2021
Anonymous, 12 Jun 2021"a sensor with a 4um pixel and a 250mm/f10 lens will a... moreFirst, you can't ignore readout noise, since it is one of the major noise contributors. Second, even if you ignore the readout noise, a smaller pixel will still have larger noise from other sources like kTc. This is simple semiconductor physics. Then as I already said you will have bloom due to optical crosstalk. Especially when pixels become so small that they are comparable to the wavelength. Plus all the other drawbacks like dynamic range.
The only advantage is the increase sensor MTF, which will allow you to see smaller objects. I am really curious how the noise of the object does not depend on the noise of the pixel that captures it.
- ?
- Anonymous
- pQr
- 12 Jun 2021
Kurosava, 12 Jun 2021Yes, you can capture only as much light as the lens permits... more"a sensor with a 4um pixel and a 250mm/f10 lens will always perform better than a sensor with 0.8u pixels and a 50mm/f2 lens"
No, small pixels don't have more read noise per pixel than large pixels. Read noise is the important factor. I have never heard that the fill factor is worse for small pixels. If the fill factor was significantly different for small pixels, then simple camera equivalence theories wouldn't work at all, but they do work for cameras of the same generation.
When you take a photo of a distant object, one doesn't care about the noise per pixel, but the noise of the object. These are totally different things. So, when I ignore read noise and demosaicing and judge the noise of a distant object, it doesn't really matter whether I use a 125mm f/5 lens, a 250mm f/10 lens or a 500mm f/20 lens and it doesn't really matter which pixel size I use. Only when you take read noise into account, a high number of pixels per object will lead to significantly worse results in low-light conditions.
- K
- Kurosava
- ndi
- 12 Jun 2021
Anonymous, 11 Jun 2021Note that pixel size or sensor size does not affect how muc... moreYes, you can capture only as much light as the lens permits. But pixel size makes difference how good you can utilize the light that enters the lens. Smaller pixels capture less photons than large pixels. Then smaller pixels have larger noise. So total signal to noise ratio is worse. So no, a sensor with a 4um pixel and a 250mm/f10 lens will always perform better than a sensor with 0.8u pixels and a 50mm/f2 lens, as long as all the rest is the same. The signal level will be the same, but the noise for the smaller pixel will be higher. So overall SNR will be worse. And this is on individual pixel level. If you consider optical and electrical crosstalk gets worse with pixel size going down, then the picture gets even worse.
- K
- Kurosava
- ndi
- 12 Jun 2021
Anonymous, 12 Jun 2021That wasn't what you said. I quote "With this pix... moreI though that striving for image quality is self-explanatory and does not need to be mentioned explicitly. In the end, the purpose is to capture a nice image, not just some noisy gibberish. If the purpose is to have bad images with poor color accuracy, narrow dynamic range, lots of noise and so on, then small pixels are much better than large ones.
- ?
- Anonymous
- vjX
- 12 Jun 2021
aadddd, 11 Jun 2021People here really believe that full frame and smarphone ca... moreErm who? You?