Samsung outs ultra slim 16 MP ISOCELL sensor, buh bye protruding camera
posted by Daniel P. / Jul 29, 2015, 2:28 AM
Samsung could be going for the kill with its future thin and light premium phones, as it just announced a new 16 MP ISOCELL camera sensor that is 20% thinner than its current crop in, say, the Galaxy S6. Buh bye, protruding camera, hello S5K3P3.
pixel size, in order to fit 13 million or more pixels in the smallish mobile camera sensor areas. Samsung has shrunk this 1.12 standard even further, to 1 micron, allowing it to produce a just 5mm high 16 MP warrior that can be put in devices as slim as the S6, without the protruding hump on the back.Most camera sensors in mobile devices run with the standard 1.12μm
Since Samsung is just announcing this sensor, we doubt it will have found place in the Galaxy Note 5, but who knows what the future will bring, come August 13th, when the premium phablet is about to be unveiled.
Posts: 3718; Member since: Nov 03, 2012
posted on Jul 29, 2015, 2:31 AM 13
Posts: 1239; Member since: Aug 05, 2014
Megapixel is not a big deal for me. I don't click photos to print the hordings or posters. 4 mp would be enough but with more detailing in the images, better low light performance (without flash), no grains at all, fast shutter speed etc etc. Hope Samsung, Sony or any other company who Manufacturers camera, listen to this...
posted on Jul 29, 2015, 2:44 AM 4
Posts: 609; Member since: Apr 10, 2012
that's your (somewhat legit) opinion most of the user still think more pixels = better camera and that's why manufacturers keep on pushing the MP count btw if they can still make the photo quality better then I'm all in for bigger MP count
posted on Jul 29, 2015, 3:14 AM 1
Posts: 5623; Member since: Feb 10, 2013
Samsung's S6 and LG's G4, both 16 MP, are currently by far the best low light phone cameras (except maybe Nokia's, but Nokia's are even more MP) High MP doesn't mean bad low light As long as the lens is bright enough it won't be a problem Personally, as long as actually camera quality continues to improve, I don't care what MP it is If someone makes a 4 MP that's better, then why not? if someone makes a 42 MP that's better, also why not? Real world performance > specs
posted on Jul 29, 2015, 4:19 AM 5
Posts: 521; Member since: Apr 28, 2014
Obv you have no idea about photography. 15 to 20 MP is considered standard. If 4 were enough all DSLRs would be using 4 instead of 15 to 20, and they would ask you for advice. Samsung scientists are not retards idiot, samsung being literaly biggest tech giant in the world dosent just increase MP count because they think it makes photos better, they surely have a reason to do it.
posted on Jul 29, 2015, 3:14 AM 14
Posts: 834; Member since: Jun 23, 2012
Mega Pixel count just increases the size of the Picture being shot. The quality remains the same be it 4MP, 8 MP, or 16MP. The quality of the picture taken is the same. The size of the picture is what is different. Bigger MP's results in bigger printable picture like posters sized or bigger. http://www.geek.com/digital-camera-buyers-guide/megapixels/http://www.digital-slr-guide.com/define-megapixels.html "A camera’s megapixel count simply reflects the number of pixels it can capture by the million. For example, a digital camera capable of 3.1 megapixels has a sensor that can capture an image of 2048 pixels wide by 1536 pixels tall, because 2048 times 1536 = 3,145,728 pixels. If you think about this for a second, you’ll quickly see how out of control the megapixel myth has gotten. A 3.1 megapixels digital camera shoots more pixels than is crisply displayed on a 60-inch, 1080p (1920 x 1080 = 2.1 megapixels) high definition television set showing a Blu-Ray movie. But most people use digital cameras to take 4 x 6 inch prints. Even a 0.3 megapixel digital camera does wonderfully at that." Having a lot of megapixels in your photos: it gives you freedom to crop out and have a decent picture left over.
posted on Jul 29, 2015, 8:09 AM 0
Posts: 515; Member since: Jan 15, 2015
Well it is jot only about printing photos in poster sizes. A more megapixel count would allow one to capture more information in a single shot and it allows for more zooming and cropping without losing detailing. So having more MP is a good thing actually as long as the information captured is worth keeping
posted on Jul 29, 2015, 3:28 AM 3
Posts: 180; Member since: May 28, 2015
In theory, larger the pixel size, better the picture quality. Even the One plus 2 went with 1.3-micron pixels (as opposed to the industry standard of 1.1 micron pixels) in their camera sensors this time around which allows for better picture quality especially in low light conditions. Odd to see Samsung going in the opposite direction. Samsung needs to get rid of the "Thinner, the better" philosophy as soon as possible. The move to reduce the battery capacity just to make the phone thinner was ridiculous. Now they are doing the same with their camera sensor.
posted on Jul 29, 2015, 2:44 AM 6
Posts: 1; Member since: Jul 29, 2015
Isnt the reason for protruding cameras the lens? And the distance between sensor and lens. The reason why the camera lens might not protude is actually a bad one. Apparently Samsung Marketing is working. They simply made the sensor smaller, just 1 Micron pixel size. "thinner" is the wrong word in my opinion here. They simply made the sensor smaller, which will translate in worse Image resolution, worse signal-to noise ratio, therefore more noise even on base ISO, and therefore way more processing needed. Wrong way in my opinion. 1/2.6 inch sensor is perfect size. If it protudes, simply make the phone thicker and include a bigger battery... everyone will be happy.
posted on Jul 29, 2015, 4:09 AM 3
Posts: 855; Member since: Oct 15, 2014
Omnivision listed their 1um 16MP sensor OV16880 months ago. They deserve some credit. 5mm can't be sensor thickness, so it's must be length. There is two different kind of 16MP sensors. 16:9 sensors usually is around 5300 pixels wide just like 21MP 4:3 sensors, on the other hand 4:3 16MP sensors is around 4700 pixels wide. That tells us the S5K3P3 has 4:3 ratio and it's an 1/3" sensor just like Omnivision's OV16880. S6 uses 16:9 sensors, so their camera module's focal length should be closer to 21MP 4:3 sensors. Also it has OIS, it makes even thicker module. (BTW using 4:3 16MP sensor in next flagships would be a step back resolution wise.) Also Samsung's positioning helps making protruding cameras. It's right behind display. Though OLED displays thinner than LCD's, they are still there. If they put same camera module one of the upper corners it would be around 1mm less protruding. That way Sony managed put an 1/2.3" sensor (without OIS) a 6.9mm thick body without making it protruding at Z3+. As long as Samsung didn't compromise over resolution or camera positioning or overall thickness of the handsets their cameras will continue to protruding a while more.
posted on Jul 29, 2015, 4:23 AM 0
Posts: 21; Member since: Oct 17, 2014
True,Plus Omnivision's OV16880 has dimensions of 5640 x 4560 µm that is a small sensor though,However the article should mention the exact lenght (in micron) so we can determine optical format,It may have less length,Who knows??? The reason why there is hype for this is-Shrinking the sensor size and maintaining higher res- Unfortunately both Sony and Omnivision are focusing on this point,Indeed we should have bigger image sensors...not smaller,Plus i thought that Samsung would make kickass custom BSI sensors just like the one in Lumia 1080... Next Xperia smartphones will be equipped with IMX 230 instead of 220,Leaving the Note 4 and S6 using IMX 240...weird.. Samsung iws topping smartphone display technology,How could you say this??? sAMOLEDs are way better than latest IPS panels you can find in any smartphones
posted on Jul 29, 2015, 5:59 AM 0
Posts: 6474; Member since: Jan 28, 2013
They shouldn't go for smaller pixels. The camera bump is perfectly fine. I went from a bump less Z3 to a GS6 and the bump hasn't bothered me in the slightest. I also used the M9 for a bit that has barely a bump but the thickness of the handset bothered me so Samsung did the right thing IMO. No need for this sensor unless they can do this without the expense of pixel size.
posted on Jul 29, 2015, 8:02 AM 0
Send a warning to post author
Send a warning to Selected user.
The user has 0 warnings currently.
Next warning will result in ban!
Ban user and delete all posts
Message to PhoneArena moderator (optional):