Low-light photography gets a boost - bit-tech.net Forums

Da Dego · 23rd May 2007, 17:08

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2007/05...gets_a_boost/1

Developers at the South Korea Electronic Technology Institute (KETI) have announced an amazing breakthrough - a new sensor that can take a bright, clear picture in just one lux of light.

yodasarmpit · 23rd May 2007, 17:13

Wouldn't it be great if this could come out with minimal noise increase, would save a fortune on big wide open lenses.

Bauul · 23rd May 2007, 18:12

Excellent breakthrough, flashes are such a hit and miss affair as it is, and decent ones are not only bulky but weigh alot as well. Can't wait to see this in action.

Tyinsar · 23rd May 2007, 18:24

Shweeet. A lot of times a direct flash is the only reasonable option for a spur of the moment picture (that or a really grainy picture) and I dislike the way a direct flash photo looks.

scq · 23rd May 2007, 19:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by yodasarmpit

Wouldn't it be great if this could come out with minimal noise increase, would save a fortune on big wide open lenses.

I wonder what lense-makers will think of this? While it certainly helps to push cameras, it's going to destroy glass makers who demand that 4-digit price for that F/2.8 over F/4, since people who buy these lenses probably wouldn't pay such a premium for the extra bulk and the bit of extra bokeh.

pendragon · 23rd May 2007, 20:15

this is really neat.. however, it sucks that i just bought a nice 5 megapixel camera a year ago :-/ ...that's technology for ya

supermonkey · 23rd May 2007, 21:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by pendragon

this is really neat.. however, it sucks that i just bought a nice 5 megapixel camera a year ago :-/ ...that's technology for ya

No, it doesn't suck for you at all. There is nothing in the original article other than a lot of funky claims.

IF this technology is real, it will be several years before any of us see it in a digital camera. It seems more suited to surveillance than casual digital photography.

Also, I don't think it will destroy prime lenses at all. One of the greatest things a wide aperture gives us is narrow depth of field. Shooting at ISO 3543^5 at a dark wedding might be fun, but you'll still want to open up the aperture to isolate grandma from the busy background.

Even taking all that into consideration, this will not put an end to flashes. Any professional photographer worth his salt is still going to light the scene artificially. Unless ambient light plays a role in the image, there is almost always a flash.

I'll believe it when I see it.

-monkey

scq · 23rd May 2007, 23:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by supermonkey

No, it doesn't suck for you at all. There is nothing in the original article other than a lot of funky claims.

IF this technology is real, it will be several years before any of us see it in a digital camera. It seems more suited to surveillance than casual digital photography.

Also, I don't think it will destroy prime lenses at all. One of the greatest things a wide aperture gives us is narrow depth of field. Shooting at ISO 3543^5 at a dark wedding might be fun, but you'll still want to open up the aperture to isolate grandma from the busy background.

Even taking all that into consideration, this will not put an end to flashes. Any professional photographer worth his salt is still going to light the scene artificially. Unless ambient light plays a role in the image, there is almost always a flash.

I'll believe it when I see it.

-monkey

True that large apertures will isolate, but is one stop worth double or triple the price when better noise handling can take care of it? We're not talking about $20 over $10, or even $200 over $1000, an extra stop can be the difference between $5000 and $1500.

Fod · 23rd May 2007, 23:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by scq

True that large apertures will isolate, but is one stop worth double or triple the price when better noise handling can take care of it? We're not talking about $20 over $10, or even $200 over $1000, an extra stop can be the difference between $5000 and $1500.

is 50 extra bhp worth the £10k tuning kit?
is 10 extra fps worth the £100 extra for the 8800Ultra?
is £1000 worth it for that 1dB more sensitivity in your speakers?

i could go on, but the point is: the high end is there for those people who simply don't need to ask that question.

Carbon_Arc · 24th May 2007, 10:10

But something else to consider..... the big expensive fast lenses are not just for that extra f-stop, they also have better optical properties that the cheaper lenses. They control distortions, aberrations, vignetting, sharpness, etc, better.

That's why i carry a 1.3 kg Nikon 80-200 f2.8 lens around on my D80, it may be twice the price of the newer 80-300 f4.5/5.6 VR lens, but in terms of sharpness and image quality its worth every penny. Plus f2.8 at equivalent of 300mm is perfect for things like motorsport photography, using the depth of field to isolate the subject.

I guess it comes down to personal preference, i'm a glass junkie when it comes to lenses, but i know people who swear by smaller, lighter, 'slower' lenses with Vibration Reduction.

This looks more like an innovation for camera phones and the like, where small sensors and high pixel counts mean noise is a real issue. So an inherently more sensitive sensor and less amplification of the signal should be a real boost to image quality.

scq · 24th May 2007, 10:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fod

is 50 extra bhp worth the £10k tuning kit?
is 10 extra fps worth the £100 extra for the 8800Ultra?
is £1000 worth it for that 1dB more sensitivity in your speakers?

i could go on, but the point is: the high end is there for those people who simply don't need to ask that question.

I'm not arguing this new sensor will kill any demand. There will always be the nuanced bunch who demand the extra stops - but I'm saying that it would reduce the need for faster, larger, and heavier lenses for many.

AndyO · 24th May 2007, 14:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by scq

I'm not arguing this new sensor will kill any demand. There will always be the nuanced bunch who demand the extra stops - but I'm saying that it would reduce the need for faster, larger, and heavier lenses for many.

Gotta agree with this...I know better bokeh may tempt a few people to 2.8s but low light performance is just as big a pull, and probably more of a concern for the bulk of users?

If this new tech is scalable to high resolution sensors and combined with more conventional stuff so the highlights are retained I really do think it would make a serious difference to many an indoor photographers kit bag

Regardless, one more incentive to leave the tripod at home can only be a good thing

When I can get that tack-sharp sunset at F22 and 1/2000 thanks to my uber-nightsight sensor with full dynamic range I'll be a happy camper

Just hope noone turns a torch on behind the horizon or it'll look like the space shuttle taking off.

devdevil85 · 24th May 2007, 18:01

Screw my College Savings Fund....I'm investing in KETI!

hehe...I'm rich beeotch!

23rd May 2007, 17:08	#1
Da Dego Brett Thomas Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Cleveland, OH USA Posts: 3,906	Low-light photography gets a boost http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2007/05...gets_a_boost/1 Developers at the South Korea Electronic Technology Institute (KETI) have announced an amazing breakthrough - a new sensor that can take a bright, clear picture in just one lux of light. __________________ "Frankly that seems overkill. iluvtrees2 arguing with spec is the intellectual equivalent of a bunny rabbit taking on a pissed-off lion." - Nexxo

23rd May 2007, 17:13	#2
yodasarmpit The other Brett. Moderator Join Date: May 2002 Location: West Lothian , Scotland Posts: 9,664	Wouldn't it be great if this could come out with minimal noise increase, would save a fortune on big wide open lenses. __________________ The Rt. Hon. Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson - "Ping Pong is coming home" www.yodasarmpit.com clickr my flickr

23rd May 2007, 18:24	#4
Tyinsar 6 screens / 1 card Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: AB.CA Posts: 2,005	Shweeet. A lot of times a direct flash is the only reasonable option for a spur of the moment picture (that or a really grainy picture) and I dislike the way a direct flash photo looks. __________________ It's not about how life treats you, it's about how you treat life.

23rd May 2007, 20:15	#6
pendragon I pickle they Join Date: May 2004 Location: Massachusetts,usa Posts: 630	this is really neat.. however, it sucks that i just bought a nice 5 megapixel camera a year ago :-/ ...that's technology for ya __________________ -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- GCS d-@ s-:>: a- C++$ UL---@ P++>+++++$ L+ E----@ W+++ N o? K? w++>+++++ O---@ M-- V? PS--() PE+@ Y? PGP-@ t+(+++) 5(+)@ X@ R+(++) tv@ b++ DI@ D++ G e++>+++++ h! r(%) y? ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

23rd May 2007, 18:12	#3
Bauul Sir Bongaminge Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Godalming, near Guildford Posts: 1,553	Excellent breakthrough, flashes are such a hit and miss affair as it is, and decent ones are not only bulky but weigh alot as well. Can't wait to see this in action.

24th May 2007, 10:10	#10
Carbon_Arc Minimodder Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 27	But something else to consider..... the big expensive fast lenses are not just for that extra f-stop, they also have better optical properties that the cheaper lenses. They control distortions, aberrations, vignetting, sharpness, etc, better. That's why i carry a 1.3 kg Nikon 80-200 f2.8 lens around on my D80, it may be twice the price of the newer 80-300 f4.5/5.6 VR lens, but in terms of sharpness and image quality its worth every penny. Plus f2.8 at equivalent of 300mm is perfect for things like motorsport photography, using the depth of field to isolate the subject. I guess it comes down to personal preference, i'm a glass junkie when it comes to lenses, but i know people who swear by smaller, lighter, 'slower' lenses with Vibration Reduction. This looks more like an innovation for camera phones and the like, where small sensors and high pixel counts mean noise is a real issue. So an inherently more sensitive sensor and less amplification of the signal should be a real boost to image quality.

24th May 2007, 18:01	#13
devdevil85 Hypermodder Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: US of A Posts: 884	Screw my College Savings Fund....I'm investing in KETI! hehe...I'm rich beeotch!