43 RumorsLog in

I bet this requires a telecentric lens (light rays impinging perpendicular to sensor). So new life for Four Thirds lenses perhaps.

Gee, Nikon’s three-color sensor patent is even older. Must be even more ready for production ;~)

What Panasonic proposes, like Nikon, probably requires changes to the stepper process in fab. Doing anything beyond lithography is technically challenging, and it doesn’t always work out in production the way you think (you can get low yields, for example).

NTSC was referred to by most engineers jokingly as meaning Not The Same Color twice.

Artifacts show up in different ways in transforms. As Esa points out the usual problem is that you end up with noise in the color channels. Remember, noise is the thing we’re trying to avoid by removing the Bayer filters, but we’re adding it back in via another method. That’s one reason why I wrote “partial breakthrough”: the implied gain was one stop (actually 0.85 stop IIRC from the original Panasonic documents), the actual gain will be less than that. Gains are gains, sure, but as Sony has proven with the EXMORs, reducing read noise brought a big bang for the buck, and has no downside. We used to have DSLR cameras with read noise in the 10 e- range. Now we have one that’s 1.4 e-. The signal to noise ratio is generally stated as saturation minus read noise. The smaller the sensor is, the lower the saturation number is, making it more important to lower read noise. But if you then add in a new computational noise, you don’t make a gain.

So sony now somehow can make live mos sensors without getting into legal problems with Panasonic? Live mos is licensed under Panasonic and they themselves said they havent sold rights to it. The comment that the omd sensor was sony was a bad translation that was taken down by the original source. But people will beoieve anything, people will actually believe first that panasonic used a sony sensor in the gh3 than one of their own…

You silly people, still thinking the omd sensor is sony…

That would mean that each type of pixel have a different capacity. There might be som clever way to achieve that, but it sound like a really complex design.

Problem isn’t in human eye’s colour resolution but the fact that just like Foveon this sensor doesn’t output RGB signal but mishmash with colours messed together.

Extracting RGB data from that mess is going to add noise/lower real efficiency.
Question is now how much more does removal of colour filter increase amount of light/photons hitting photosites than required processing lowers efficiency.
Remember that also Foveon has 100% light capture efficiency (all light getting to photosites) but all that processing lowers final efficiency even far below Bayer whose colour filter array filters away 50% of green light and 75% of blue and red light.

Olympus will never use Panasonic sensors again. They have a good sensor provider in Sony now. Panasonic is a crumb feeding bully. Olympus would at best get G3 sensor from Panasonic, even in 2020.

+1. Everyone in the photographic world except the Panasonic suicide bomber brigade.

>X-Trans CFA layout has irregular aliasing and is usually visually unnoticeable.
Bullshit. It is as “unnoticeable” as far as Bayer CFA go

No, partial breakthrough.

The Panasonic design has the same problem that the old CYMG sensors had. CYMG was tried as a substitute for RGBG (Bayer) because CYM filters take away less light than R&B filters do. The hope was that by letting more light through you’d get better low light performance. To a large degree that was true, but the problem is that you need RGB pixels eventually, which means that you have to move the values in color space. That turned out to be the problem with CYMG and it will be a serious problem with W/W-R/W-B too.

But the gain in the Panasonic approach is higher than in the CYMG approach. So the question is whether the problems with moving the colors around after the fact is less than the gain from extra light. It almost certainly is given Panasonic’s presented data, but is it at breakthrough levels? I doubt it.

I’d also be a little concerned about telecentricity with this design. I suspect that you need higher telecentricity for it to work than you do with Bayer, and that puts some restrictions on lenses.

ohhh – I love the optimisum… but a year is not that long – I bet most of this level of manufacture is closer to a 5yr cycle.

What I hope is Pana can make sensors as good as Sony but also include this so gaining near a stop over the Sony! – unfortunatly all I think this tech will do is make panasonic only very slightly better than sony as sont have 1/2-1 stop advantage as it stands!

Sony sensors (used in Sony, Nikon, Olympus and Pentax bodies) and Fuji sensor are better. Competition is not inside micro43 but outside – mirrorless cameras (NEX, NX, Fuji, Canon M) and small DSLR (APS). If Panasonic wants to compete with them needs similar IQ. Specially dynamic range is lower form Panasonic sensors.

Without better sensors Panasonic won’t be able to compete with others.

Foevon has one superiority over future Panasonic sensors – it exists now. And Sigma is able to make mirrorless body with Foevon within half of the year (if Sigma will want to do it).

I think we still think (or know) that Sony is making the 4/3′s sensor for Olympus.

Otherwise youll stick with olympus with panasonic sensors? Or do we still think sony now somehow makes live mos sensors?

Sorry. f < 0.5 fs

So is this going to be in the GX2 ?

Foveon is out of the frying pan into the fire solution.
Fixing one thing and breaking another.

“There’s also the issue of differential sensing and uncorrelated noise, making reading low values from the sensor twice as noisy as a non-differential Bayer, so it’s really more like 8x (or that the Foveon actually only uses about 4% of the light, in a low light situation”
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/36405363

Hopefully Panasonic is researching this design as long term goal:
http://www.43rumors.com/foveon-like-sensor-patent-from-panasonic-flash-sync-patent-from-olympus/
Because that’s what the ideal sensor would be like: Full per pixel colour data like in Foveon but without totally messed up signals of stacked photosite design.

it’s different from Foveon

Actually there needn’t be much overhead. They measure a linear combination of signals and one can use this to demix to RBG by a fancy version of what would otherwise be a 3×3 matrix inversion. This is all compiled into ASICs anyway (i.e. this is done in hardware), so the computational overhead is probably quite minimal. It’s different for algorithms that’ll be programmed in the Venus engine.

hahahaha!!! it was a joke right?

Admin. The typo ‘splutter’ actually sounds OK in this.

Should bring panasonic up to the performance of Nikon D2h.

They talk about issues with color purity in their current version. Let’s see if their R&D efforts can alleviate that. It would be quite revolutionary if they could get competitive color purity.

Anything like the sigma sensors iq and it will be revolutionary, the micro contrast is insane.