quite interesting reading about Sony CMOS used in CX1

[odklizec]

There is a very nice and informative article at Sony web about their high speed CMOS sensors. You can find this article here:
http://www.sony.net/Products/SC-HP/cx_n ... ring1.html

Just follow the link at the end of page to get to next article page. Or you can get the whole article in PDF format here:
http://www.sony.net/Products/SC-HP/cx_n ... ring55.pdf

After reading this article, you will realize that this new Sony sensor opens whole new world of exciting options and features for CX range, like high definition video, possibility of even faster continuous mode (requires a bit larger memory buffer), improved image stabilization, etc, etc... Of course, Ricoh cannot and most probably will not implement them all in one CX generation But I guess that next CX2 will get significantly improved video (higher resolution) and maybe image stabilization? I personally hope for RAW output. But you know. Until the CX range is considered to be user friendly point&shot camera for wide masses, there is not much chance of seeing RAW in CX cameras. But there is still a hope.

 

[bstxx]

Very,very interesting - the article shows what's possible beside the megapixel race to focus to really new innovations like HDR (for me it's an other way Fuji is going with it's EXR-sensor but the same goal or ambition) or really fast shooting.. for what it's necessary to really, really fast read out the sensor information what you only can get with the CMOS-technology. Pavel, do You know or have You a link of a comparision of how good today a such small CMOS-sensor is performing vs a CCD in consideration of image quality (noise etc..) ? For this I didn't find any hints in the article.
Thanks.

 

[adapterik]

Thanks for finding that. It is very interesting.
In that same issue is a shorter article about the specific chip used in the CX1:

http://www.sony.net/Products/SC-HP/cx_n ... 32cqr.html

Is it a coincidence that the Sony publication this appears in is called CX-News?

The pdf version of this article shows a graph of this chip's signal to noise performance by ISO. It shows significant, if not dramatic, improvement over "CCD" (a ccd sensor of the same size?).

However, it seems that the high speed capture rate is what is significant about this chip. Makes interesting applications possible, which it sounds like Ricoh is exploiting to some degree. However, it really seems like they missed the boat by not providing HD video, since the chip is capable of producing it (and then some -- 30fps at 9M and 60 at 2.2M). Perhaps Ricoh had to get this to market before they perfected the hardware to get this converted fast enough to AVHCD or whatever compressed format they would produce?

I am in the market both for a foolproof and quick event camera, but I also need it to be fast light-wise for indoor no-flash work, and would feel like a sucker getting a slow lens, standard video, and no RAW for not much less (in the ball park at least) than an LX3.

However, just a few days until someone posts up their first results, and then we'll see.

Erik.

 

[odklizec]

Is it a coincidence that the Sony publication this appears in is called CX-News?

It's most probably a coincidence. Sony uses this CX-News title for a very long time. But maybe Ricoh marketing people got a strike of inspiration from this Sony title while searching new "R" range name?

The pdf version of this article shows a graph of this chip's signal to noise performance by ISO. It shows significant, if not dramatic, improvement over "CCD" (a ccd sensor of the same size?).

One thing is graph and completely different thing is a reality. I think we just need to wait for some real world examples. Graphs are usually very misleading and produced by marketing people (the same guys who say that we need more and more MPs )

However, it seems that the high speed capture rate is what is significant about this chip. Makes interesting applications possible, which it sounds like Ricoh is exploiting to some degree. However, it really seems like they missed the boat by not providing HD video, since the chip is capable of producing it (and then some -- 30fps at 9M and 60 at 2.2M). Perhaps Ricoh had to get this to market before they perfected the hardware to get this converted fast enough to AVHCD or whatever compressed format they would produce?

I think the main reason why we don't get 30fps at 9MP is the enormous amount of data needed to be processed and saved and this all in a realtime. Neither Sony's DSC HX1 nor Caiso's EX-FC100 equipped with the same sensor can do 30fps in the native 9MP resolution. So the RAW buffer, RAM and processor required for this task needs to be really big and powerful.

As for HD video, I agree that Ricoh needs to improve this, although I personally don't care about video. But people who buy this kind of camera simply expect better and higher res. video mode. I guess we will see an improvement in CX2.

Pity Ricoh apparently decided to use Sony's implementation of MJPEG video encoding, which is now outdated and real space killer. Something MPEG4 based would be much better choice. This would deliver better video quality with less used space.

 

[odklizec]

Pavel, do You know or have You a link of a comparision of how good today a such small CMOS-sensor is performing vs a CCD in consideration of image quality (noise etc..) ? For this I didn't find any hints in the article.
Thanks.

At the moment, I don't have any clue. When the CX1 sample arrives, I will surely do a R7/R10/CX1 comparison. From what I saw, the CMOS used in high speed Casios (and now CX1) produces visibly less color noise than the same sized CCD used for example in R8 and R10. But we should not expect miracle. It's still fingernail sensor crammed with megapixels. The big question now is, how good or bad is the Ricoh's implementation of Noise Reduction in this new camera? It's yet to be seen

 

[thelps]

Pity Ricoh apparently decided to use Sony's implementation of MJPEG video encoding, which is now outdated and real space killer. Something MPEG4 based would be much better choice. This would deliver better video quality with less used space.

Panasonic seemed to have gone with AVCHD Lite codec with their last few digicams. The Lite version does 720P I believe. I think I'd prefer this to mpeg4 but I still want to get a sample of AVCHD Lite to see how easy it is to edit. The full AVCHD has a reputation of needing a fast computer to edit easily, but you do get quite good IQ if the frame rate is high enough. For me though when take video with my compact digicam I dont reallly care much about editing later, its just about getting a snippet of video.

 

[adapterik]

Pity Ricoh apparently decided to use Sony's implementation of MJPEG video encoding, which is now outdated and real space killer. Something MPEG4 based would be much better choice. This would deliver better video quality with less used space.

Panasonic seemed to have gone with AVCHD Lite codec with their last few digicams. The Lite version does 720P I believe. I think I'd prefer this to mpeg4 but I still want to get a sample of AVCHD Lite to see how easy it is to edit. The full AVCHD has a reputation of needing a fast computer to edit easily, but you do get quite good IQ if the frame rate is high enough. For me though when take video with my compact digicam I dont reallly care much about editing later, its just about getting a snippet of video.

For me, the video feature is a simple extension of documentary photography. As such, I would expect a camera of a GRD or GX pro quality to have video and audio on a par with the still image. To me, that means clear 30fps video and clear audio with external mic plug. The actual resolution should be 720p or higher, but even high quality VGA is okay, it isn't really that different. It is, to me, more a matter of the quality of the video image, not just the resolution. Audio in mono is fine, as long as it is crystal clear, and the external mic plug is stereo. The GRD video and audio quality right now is, to put it bluntly, crap. I'd even pay more for a GRD-V camera (with extra video goodies), if it meant not carrying (or rather, forgetting) my flip camera.

Anyway, times are interesting!

 

[michaelra]

I don't really need the HD video on a digital camera so I guess I should be grateful it's not in CX1 (or else I needed to pay more for the camera)