Jump to content

Samsung has released 108 Megapixel Phone Camera module

Furiku

Samsung has unveiled its latest monster: 108 megapixel camera module with which it aims to put an end to the camera competition once and for all.

Surprisingly to many this module has been jointly developed in collaboration by Samsung and Xiaomi.

Module is named Samsung ISOCELL Bright HMX  and is expected to bring us major improvements to low-light scenarios, something that Samsung cameras have famously underperformed on so far.

Quote

“For ISOCELL Bright HMX, Xiaomi and Samsung have worked closely together from the early conceptual stage to production that has resulted in a groundbreaking 108Mp image sensor. We are very pleased that picture resolutions previously available only in a few top-tier DSLR cameras can now be designed into smartphones,” said Lin Bin, co-founder and president of Xiaomi. “As we continue our partnership, we anticipate bringing not only new mobile camera experiences but also a platform through which our users can create unique content."

 

Mass production is starting now in August and first phones speculated to be using it are suspected to be be Xiaomi Redmi phones, but this is yet to be confirmed as neither Samsung or Xiaomi have yet to reveal any models with this monster of a camera in it.

 

https://news.samsung.com/global/samsung-takes-mobile-photography-to-the-next-level-with-industrys-first-108mp-image-sensor-for-smartphones

https://www.engadget.com/2019/08/12/samsungs-108-megapixel-mobile-sensor-closes-in-on-mirrorless-ca/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cool, I'm all for improvements. Still wish Panasonic would make another CM1 though  I'm positive with the advances over the past few years they could make it a true beast. 

CPU: Ryzen 9 5900 Cooler: EVGA CLC280 Motherboard: Gigabyte B550i Pro AX RAM: Kingston Hyper X 32GB 3200mhz

Storage: WD 750 SE 500GB, WD 730 SE 1TB GPU: EVGA RTX 3070 Ti PSU: Corsair SF750 Case: Streacom DA2

Monitor: LG 27GL83B Mouse: Razer Basilisk V2 Keyboard: G.Skill KM780 Cherry MX Red Speakers: Mackie CR5BT

 

MiniPC - Sold for $100 Profit

Spoiler

CPU: Intel i3 4160 Cooler: Integrated Motherboard: Integrated

RAM: G.Skill RipJaws 16GB DDR3 Storage: Transcend MSA370 128GB GPU: Intel 4400 Graphics

PSU: Integrated Case: Shuttle XPC Slim

Monitor: LG 29WK500 Mouse: G.Skill MX780 Keyboard: G.Skill KM780 Cherry MX Red

 

Budget Rig 1 - Sold For $750 Profit

Spoiler

CPU: Intel i5 7600k Cooler: CryOrig H7 Motherboard: MSI Z270 M5

RAM: Crucial LPX 16GB DDR4 Storage: Intel S3510 800GB GPU: Nvidia GTX 980

PSU: Corsair CX650M Case: EVGA DG73

Monitor: LG 29WK500 Mouse: G.Skill MX780 Keyboard: G.Skill KM780 Cherry MX Red

 

OG Gaming Rig - Gone

Spoiler

 

CPU: Intel i5 4690k Cooler: Corsair H100i V2 Motherboard: MSI Z97i AC ITX

RAM: Crucial Ballistix 16GB DDR3 Storage: Kingston Fury 240GB GPU: Asus Strix GTX 970

PSU: Thermaltake TR2 Case: Phanteks Enthoo Evolv ITX

Monitor: Dell P2214H x2 Mouse: Logitech MX Master Keyboard: G.Skill KM780 Cherry MX Red

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

So effective 27Mp image, still great, not everything is Mp but yeah can't wait to see quality shots from this. 

| Ryzen 7 7800X3D | AM5 B650 Aorus Elite AX | G.Skill Trident Z5 Neo RGB DDR5 32GB 6000MHz C30 | Sapphire PULSE Radeon RX 7900 XTX | Samsung 990 PRO 1TB with heatsink | Arctic Liquid Freezer II 360 | Seasonic Focus GX-850 | Lian Li Lanccool III | Mousepad: Skypad 3.0 XL / Zowie GTF-X | Mouse: Zowie S1-C | Keyboard: Corsair K63 Cherry MX red | Beyerdynamic MMX 300 (2nd Gen) | Acer XV272U | OS: Windows 11 |

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

but why and even the best dslr cameras are only 20 megapixels. also the file size of a 108 mp photo would be impractical. i know it doesnt quite work this way but this is just a rough estimate. a 12MP photo on an s8+ takes about 4MB so thats 0.33 mb per mp so a 108MP photo will take about 35.64 mb thats a 900% increase in file size and god forbid if you take video. they could compensate for it with a more lossy photo compression but that ruins the point of having a sensor with more MP

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, spartaman64 said:

but why and even the best dslr cameras are only 20 megapixels. also the file size of a 108 mp photo would be impractical. i know it doesnt quite work this way but this is just a rough estimate. a 12MP photo on an s8+ takes about 4MB so thats 0.33 mb per mp so a 108MP photo will take about 35.64 mb thats a 900% increase in file size and god forbid if you take video. they could compensate for it with a more lossy photo compression but that ruins the point of having a sensor with more MP

More MP gives you more precision, or allows digital zooming without seeing pixels if the picture is saved in a relatively large image size but smaller than the full MP resolution. That said, sensor size is also critical as well as it's sensitivity. Larger the sensor is, the better and less blob like the images gets especially on low light environment. Then you have lenses. You want glass lens that is made of a composition that allows light to pass quickly throuh. So it all a balance. Having. 200MP does nothing is the sensor is too small, or not sensitive enough, and sport a plastic cheapy lens

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's one of those quad-Bayer sensors. So while it does have all 108MP, it's really designed to be shot in a mode where the effective resolution is around 27MP.

 

TBH, I question why a phone would even require all 27MP of the stuff. Phone lenses aren't exactly the best when it comes to resolving power (hell, I doubt they will come anywhere close to actual optics on an actual larger-sensor camera because it simply isn't cost-effective to put that sort of optical design in a phone) and many phone photos tend to be uploaded on social media, where the resolution advantage is pretty much nil.

 

Also, with a pixel density this dense at that sensor size, it's already well past the point where diffraction limits set in. So your sharpness advantage is eroded away to the point where it's hardly noticeable. Quite honestly, I would rather see advancements in computational algorithms and having more "reasonable" megapixel counts than this.

 

And this just plain annoys me

Quote

With the latest addition, Samsung will expand its 0.8μm image sensor offerings from its recently announced ultra-high 64Mp to 108Mp, a resolution equivalent to that of a high-end DSLR camera.

A GFX100 is not a high-end DSLR. It's a very specialized mirrorless camera utilizing the smaller of the 2 medium-format digital sensor formats.

 

Cue the clueless idiots who think their Xiaomis are somehow better than the 102MP GFX100 because "it has more MP".

The Workhorse (AMD-powered custom desktop)

CPU: AMD Ryzen 7 3700X | GPU: MSI X Trio GeForce RTX 2070S | RAM: XPG Spectrix D60G 32GB DDR4-3200 | Storage: 512GB XPG SX8200P + 2TB 7200RPM Seagate Barracuda Compute | OS: Microsoft Windows 10 Pro

 

The Portable Workstation (Apple MacBook Pro 16" 2021)

SoC: Apple M1 Max (8+2 core CPU w/ 32-core GPU) | RAM: 32GB unified LPDDR5 | Storage: 1TB PCIe Gen4 SSD | OS: macOS Monterey

 

The Communicator (Apple iPhone 13 Pro)

SoC: Apple A15 Bionic | RAM: 6GB LPDDR4X | Storage: 128GB internal w/ NVMe controller | Display: 6.1" 2532x1170 "Super Retina XDR" OLED with VRR at up to 120Hz | OS: iOS 15.1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't wait to fill up a 128GB microsd card in just 10 photos. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Fire2box said:

I can't wait to fill up a 128GB microsd card in just 10 photos. 

That si why you purchase cloud storage :P

 

No but in reality, it will most likely limit the picture size to some size, like 4K/5K or something, but the high sensor will allow you to do digital zoom like 40+ MP cameras

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

inb4 it takes 5 mins to take a picture

"If a Lobster is a fish because it moves by jumping, then a kangaroo is a bird" - Admiral Paulo de Castro Moreira da Silva

"There is nothing more difficult than fixing something that isn't all the way broken yet." - Author Unknown

Spoiler

Intel Core i7-3960X @ 4.6 GHz - Asus P9X79WS/IPMI - 12GB DDR3-1600 quad-channel - EVGA GTX 1080ti SC - Fractal Design Define R5 - 500GB Crucial MX200 - NH-D15 - Logitech G710+ - Mionix Naos 7000 - Sennheiser PC350 w/Topping VX-1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Doobeedoo said:

So effective 27Mp image, still great, not everything is Mp but yeah can't wait to see quality shots from this. 

I don't speak marketing very well, but it sounds like that mode activates in low light.

 

2 hours ago, D13H4RD said:

It's one of those quad-Bayer sensors. So while it does have all 108MP, it's really designed to be shot in a mode where the effective resolution is around 27MP.

You mean something like a RGBW as opposed to RGBG conventional bayer? Thought they would have mentioned that if so..

 

2 hours ago, D13H4RD said:

Also, with a pixel density this dense at that sensor size, it's already well past the point where diffraction limits set in. So your sharpness advantage is eroded away to the point where it's hardly noticeable.

Less loss when correcting or processing the image. For example, for a closed optical system which this would be part of, you can under-design the lens to save on cost/size or whatever, and allow more distortion. Then correct that in software afterwards. Even if the sensor is beyond the resolving limit, you have less loss from processing. Also it can help with noise shaping. Noise might still be there, but it will be of finer grain which is either less intrusive or more easily filtered out as desired.

 

2 hours ago, D13H4RD said:

and many phone photos tend to be uploaded on social media, where the resolution advantage is pretty much nil.

No arguing with that part.

 

1 hour ago, GoodBytes said:

That si why you purchase cloud storage :P

Hope you have a good data plan!

Main system: i9-7980XE, Asus X299 TUF mark 2, Noctua D15, Corsair Vengeance Pro 3200 3x 16GB 2R, RTX 3070, NZXT E850, GameMax Abyss, Samsung 980 Pro 2TB, Acer Predator XB241YU 24" 1440p 144Hz G-Sync + HP LP2475w 24" 1200p 60Hz wide gamut
Gaming laptop: Lenovo Legion 5, 5800H, RTX 3070, Kingston DDR4 3200C22 2x16GB 2Rx8, Kingston Fury Renegade 1TB + Crucial P1 1TB SSD, 165 Hz IPS 1080p G-Sync Compatible

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, porina said:

Hope you have a good data plan!

I was making a joke, in that this is what phone makers wants to provide/sale to you, the consumer. And probably carriers rejoys of this and will be more keen in helping pushing more on such phone to enjoy people passing their data cap limits. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

We already have 48 MP phones that run in 12 MP mode by default and in tests don't really show any shaprness benefit to going higher.  I suspect this will be the same situation.  I'm not sure why the manufacturers find it better to have a huge sensor res and then downscale Vs just using what makes sense on the surface - I hope it is something and not just a numbers war.  Regardless this sounds good, because here's the thing.  The pixels can only get so small before they become unable to pickup the wavelength of red light, and current sensors are already rather near that limit.  It would be, I believe, impossible to make a 108MP sensor the size of existing ones and still have it work.  What that means is this is a much larger sensor, which obviously will go a long way to helping low light performance.  It will also increase natural bokeh effect, and in doing so perhaps make their variable apeeture actually worth having, but that remains to be seen.  Not sure why it took so long to get larger sensors though, they could have done it at any res they wanted all along.

Solve your own audio issues  |  First Steps with RPi 3  |  Humidity & Condensation  |  Sleep & Hibernation  |  Overclocking RAM  |  Making Backups  |  Displays  |  4K / 8K / 16K / etc.  |  Do I need 80+ Platinum?

If you can read this you're using the wrong theme.  You can change it at the bottom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

We already have 48 MP phones that run in 12 MP mode by default and in tests don't really show any shaprness benefit to going higher.  I suspect this will be the same situation.  I'm not sure why the manufacturers find it better to have a huge sensor res and then downscale Vs just using what makes sense on the surface - I hope it is something and not just a numbers war.  Regardless this sounds good, because here's the thing.  The pixels can only get so small before they become unable to pickup the wavelength of red light, and current sensors are already rather near that limit.  It would be, I believe, impossible to make a 108MP sensor the size of existing ones and still have it work.  What that means is this is a much larger sensor, which obviously will go a long way to helping low light performance.  It will also increase natural bokeh effect, and in doing so perhaps make their variable apeeture actually worth having, but that remains to be seen.  Not sure why it took so long to get larger sensors though, they could have done it at any res they wanted all along.

 

If they double the resolution of the sensor they now have 4 sensors to capture light from that can be added together to give superior low light image at the target resolution.  While there are other benefits to higher resolutions, I am fairly sure no one would waste money developing higher resolutions when they need to be developing other tech to actually improve the product. 

 

This of course doesn't mean the product won't be a massive failure for unforeseen reasons, but it does mean that for now there is a logical reason to pursue higher resolutions in the sensor beyond image sharpness or the resolution of the end product.

Grammar and spelling is not indicative of intelligence/knowledge.  Not having the same opinion does not always mean lack of understanding.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 

If they double the resolution of the sensor they now have 4 sensors to capture light from that can be added together to give superior low light image at the target resolution.

 

That's actually not how that works.  The only thing that gathers more light, aside from lens and actual sensitivity improvements is making the sensor larger.  Having more pixels cover the same area doesn't gather any more light.  If you have enough light to actually take advantage of the extra pixels you will get more sharpness, but in the dark where iso is increased and noise reduction has to be applied that blurs the image, a high resolution capture will look no better than a low resolution capture from the same sensor when scaled to the size of the low resolution version, as you may as well do anyway due to the aforementioned blur.

Solve your own audio issues  |  First Steps with RPi 3  |  Humidity & Condensation  |  Sleep & Hibernation  |  Overclocking RAM  |  Making Backups  |  Displays  |  4K / 8K / 16K / etc.  |  Do I need 80+ Platinum?

If you can read this you're using the wrong theme.  You can change it at the bottom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Fire2box said:

I can't wait to fill up a 128GB microsd card in just 10 photos. 

My 1600x1200 sony camera with a floppy drive would like a word with you

 

It does like 1, maybe 2 photos per disk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

If they double the resolution of the sensor they now have 4 sensors to capture light from that can be added together to give superior low light image at the target resolution. 

The way to look at a sensor's ability to collect light is at a first order related to the surface area. If you take a given square, and cut it into 4 equal squares, the smaller versions will each collect 1/4 the light. That's assuming perfect scaling, which isn't the case as there will have to be some dead area separating the detectors, and any other wiring would get in the way too. I think this is largely worked around by having the light sensitive side on the opposite side to the wiring (back side illuminated).

1 hour ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

The pixels can only get so small before they become unable to pickup the wavelength of red light, and current sensors are already rather near that limit.

Good point, I missed that. The Samsung link mentions 0.8μm but it is unclear if that refers to the pixel pitch, or something else. Where does red begin? I'm thinking <700nm but the longest reds are generally not that important, and often rolled off to prevent IR contamination. e.g. for astrophotography, there is an important red emission from nebulae around 650nm. On normal DSLR cameras, the IR cut filter usually reduces that level to 1/4 what it would be if it wasn't there, so a common modification is to remove that filter to regain that sensitivity. So maybe they could get away with sensitivity in mid to shorter wavelength reds to make a usable if not most colour sensitive image.

Main system: i9-7980XE, Asus X299 TUF mark 2, Noctua D15, Corsair Vengeance Pro 3200 3x 16GB 2R, RTX 3070, NZXT E850, GameMax Abyss, Samsung 980 Pro 2TB, Acer Predator XB241YU 24" 1440p 144Hz G-Sync + HP LP2475w 24" 1200p 60Hz wide gamut
Gaming laptop: Lenovo Legion 5, 5800H, RTX 3070, Kingston DDR4 3200C22 2x16GB 2Rx8, Kingston Fury Renegade 1TB + Crucial P1 1TB SSD, 165 Hz IPS 1080p G-Sync Compatible

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, porina said:

Good point, I missed that. The Samsung link mentions 0.8μm but it is unclear if that refers to the pixel pitch, or something else. Where does red begin? I'm thinking <700nm but the longest reds are generally not that important, and often rolled off to prevent IR contamination. e.g. for astrophotography, there is an important red emission from nebulae around 650nm. On normal DSLR cameras, the IR cut filter usually reduces that level to 1/4 what it would be if it wasn't there, so a common modification is to remove that filter to regain that sensitivity. So maybe they could get away with sensitivity in mid to shorter wavelength reds to make a usable if not most colour sensitive image.

0.8 μm is quite typical, I've seen it on many phones, though of course never at such a high resolution before.  With that said, much higher values like 1.4 μm are certainly common as well.  Apparently the human eye reaches down to about 740 nm, so I guess that's where red starts/ends.  I'm not sure what's typical to capture in a camera, I'd guess it's something shorter like 650, but I don't know.

Solve your own audio issues  |  First Steps with RPi 3  |  Humidity & Condensation  |  Sleep & Hibernation  |  Overclocking RAM  |  Making Backups  |  Displays  |  4K / 8K / 16K / etc.  |  Do I need 80+ Platinum?

If you can read this you're using the wrong theme.  You can change it at the bottom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

That's actually not how that works.  The only thing that gathers more light, aside from lens and actual sensitivity improvements is making the sensor larger.  Having more pixels cover the same area doesn't gather any more light.  If you have enough light to actually take advantage of the extra pixels you will get more sharpness, but in the dark where iso is increased and noise reduction has to be applied that blurs the image, a high resolution capture will look no better than a low resolution capture from the same sensor when scaled to the size of the low resolution version, as you may as well do anyway due to the aforementioned blur.

 

52 minutes ago, porina said:

The way to look at a sensor's ability to collect light is at a first order related to the surface area. If you take a given square, and cut it into 4 equal squares, the smaller versions will each collect 1/4 the light. That's assuming perfect scaling, which isn't the case as there will have to be some dead area separating the detectors, and any other wiring would get in the way too. I think this is largely worked around by having the light sensitive side on the opposite side to the wiring (back side illuminated).

Good point, I missed that. The Samsung link mentions 0.8μm but it is unclear if that refers to the pixel pitch, or something else. Where does red begin? I'm thinking <700nm but the longest reds are generally not that important, and often rolled off to prevent IR contamination. e.g. for astrophotography, there is an important red emission from nebulae around 650nm. On normal DSLR cameras, the IR cut filter usually reduces that level to 1/4 what it would be if it wasn't there, so a common modification is to remove that filter to regain that sensitivity. So maybe they could get away with sensitivity in mid to shorter wavelength reds to make a usable if not most colour sensitive image.

 

That's great and all., but this:

 

https://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/does.pixel.size.matter/

 

And the quality of each pixel plays a role.  One large pixel might have the same amount of light falling on it as 4 smaller, but it will also only trigger a charge for a certain amount of that light (maybe only half the light that falls on the pixel, where more smaller pixels each can trigger more often because less surface area is tied to one pixel.

 

Quote

But now that system noise is low in modern cameras, adding pixels together to synthesize an image from a sensor with larger pixels, diffraction limited smaller pixels is less of a concern.

 

It seems that this debate is pretty hot and old on the internet.  But it appears I am not the only one that believes you can add pixels to increase light.

 

Grammar and spelling is not indicative of intelligence/knowledge.  Not having the same opinion does not always mean lack of understanding.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, mr moose said:

That's great and all., but this:

 

https://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/does.pixel.size.matter/

 

And the quality of each pixel plays a role.  One large pixel might have the same amount of light falling on it as 4 smaller, but it will also only trigger a charge for a certain amount of that light (maybe only half the light that falls on the pixel, where more smaller pixels each can trigger more often because less surface area is tied to one pixel.

 

 

It seems that this debate is pretty hot and old on the internet.  But it appears I am not the only one that believes you can add pixels to increase light.

I think I see where this is coming from.  If I understand correctly, it effectively boils down to capturing at a higher bit depth per output (scaled/combined) pixel, or rather, quantizing the light levels detected less heavily, which effectively means a lower likelihood of "rounding down" a photon to nothing that otherwise would have been registered.  I was looking at this from a purely physics perspective and this is a technical consideration that I didn't have in mind.  It would be interesting to see some actual tests showing what if any impact this has on output quality.  I've never seen anyone mention or look into this before.

Solve your own audio issues  |  First Steps with RPi 3  |  Humidity & Condensation  |  Sleep & Hibernation  |  Overclocking RAM  |  Making Backups  |  Displays  |  4K / 8K / 16K / etc.  |  Do I need 80+ Platinum?

If you can read this you're using the wrong theme.  You can change it at the bottom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

I think I see where this is coming from.  If I understand correctly, it effectively boils down to capturing at a higher bit depth per output (scaled/combined) pixel, or rather, quantizing the light levels detected less heavily, which effectively means a lower likelihood of "rounding down" a photon to nothing that otherwise would have been registered.  I was looking at this from a purely physics perspective and this is a technical consideration that I didn't have in mind.  It would be interesting to see some actual tests showing what if any impact this has on output quality.  I've never seen anyone mention or look into this before.

I've really only seen it discussed as a result of space photography (where light levels are really low and higher resolutions are better), hence why I am lead to believe it.  But that link has some comparisons of different sensor (sizes and crops) using the same lens, shutter  etc.

Grammar and spelling is not indicative of intelligence/knowledge.  Not having the same opinion does not always mean lack of understanding.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, mr moose said:

I've really only seen it discussed as a result of space photography (where light levels are really low and higher resolutions are better), hence why I am lead to believe it.  But that link has some comparisons of different sensor (sizes and crops) using the same lens, shutter  etc.

That page makes me want to kill myself.  Looks like something out of 2002 and the complete lack of structure or focus on a topic is very hard to follow.  I'll do some more looking around though

Solve your own audio issues  |  First Steps with RPi 3  |  Humidity & Condensation  |  Sleep & Hibernation  |  Overclocking RAM  |  Making Backups  |  Displays  |  4K / 8K / 16K / etc.  |  Do I need 80+ Platinum?

If you can read this you're using the wrong theme.  You can change it at the bottom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

That page makes me want to kill myself.  Looks like something out of 2002 and the complete lack of structure or focus on a topic is very hard to follow.  I'll do some more looking around though

Very hard to read, I think the reason for that is he is trying to be very thorough with what is a complex situation. He has out a lot of effort into setting up the examples. 

 

 

Grammar and spelling is not indicative of intelligence/knowledge.  Not having the same opinion does not always mean lack of understanding.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Very hard to read, I think the reason for that is he is trying to be very thorough with what is a complex situation. He has out a lot of effort into setting up the examples. 

 

 

It actually doesn't seem to be a very common topic.  You'll find people talking about how smaller pixels (or more specifically, the higher resolution you get by having them) is beneficial in good light, even if under low light they all collapse to be equal, and you'll find people debunking the myth that larger pixels are better than more, smaller pixels combined - both of which are things I already understood.  The idea that you can somehow get more light from combining many small pixels though remains new to me, but I'll keep an eye out.  Regardless, in case it isn't clear, I'll just say that, in line with the things I just mentioned above, I don't see this super high res sensor necessarily as a downside at all, even though there are some cons, as imo the potential pros outweigh them, but yeah I expect the improved performance to come from the fact it's straight up larger, and no so much from the fact it's super high res.

Solve your own audio issues  |  First Steps with RPi 3  |  Humidity & Condensation  |  Sleep & Hibernation  |  Overclocking RAM  |  Making Backups  |  Displays  |  4K / 8K / 16K / etc.  |  Do I need 80+ Platinum?

If you can read this you're using the wrong theme.  You can change it at the bottom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, iamdarkyoshi said:

My 1600x1200 sony camera with a floppy drive would like a word with you

 

It does like 1, maybe 2 photos per disk

i wanna see it

✨FNIGE✨

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×