Kodak digital breakthrough

it's only one stop. I'm assuming the idea that this would eliminate the need for wide apertures is a joke :)
 
CNN

Doubles the light sensativity sounds good to the lay-person. I wonder if the quantum effieciency would be better for larger photosites of a APS-c sensor. Might be interesting for 4/3 sensors.

Mark
 
So it is only one stop and fails to address the dynamic range issue...
It is still a step forward, and to me we're not all that many steps from making digital my medium of choice.
May they keep coming!
 
What this actually means is that lenses can be designed a full stop crappier, and that the marketing buzzword for this filter allows cameras to be sold for twice the price..

Seems like the whole concept of shallow DOF is going down the drain, isn't it?
 
we dont all use fast lenses just because they see better in low light....selective depth of field is the main reason my lenses are all fast

and besides, ever time a new sensor technology comes out someone pops up and calls it a breakthrough or revolution....yawn....
 
I had the same thought as Mark ... the implications for cameras based on the 4/3 standard is a positive. The knock on the E1 was that its high ISO performance didn't put it in pro territory, even though the body and ZD lenses are certainly pro spec. I don't really care that much about high ISO performance, but I can't deny that the success of the E System is at least somewhat dependence on it gaining at least some market share in a pro market.

I also agree that any advance, whether it be quantum or incremental, is good, and benefits anyone who needs or uses digital capture.

In terms of RFs, I think this means that there is now a better chance (even if slight) for a digital RF with a 4/3 sensor. Given that one of the value propositions of 4/3 is the possibility of smaller bodies and lenses, I see this as an incremental step that supports the development of that. Yes, it excludes M mount and LTM lenses, but I think there is room for a dRF with another mount. Call me crazy.
 
Forgive my slow brain - does this breakthrough mean we will have a sensor that is half b&W (panchromatic, but presumably this means just records the "amount" of light) and half colour sensitive (ie the usual pixels we have now).

Is resolution the same or halved?
 
Last edited:
This announcement is both more and less than it seems to some.

First, the big news here is that the Bayer mosaic is what is being replaced. This is what limits resolution in many cases:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayer_filter

This is what gets the Foveon folks so hot and bothered when people tell them that their new Sigma camera is NOT a 14mp camera, because the 14mp arrived at are stacked three deep, not side-by-side, and the Foveon folks reply that a 'normal' 14mp sensor isn't one either, because the total is arrived at by GUESSING. And before you argue with me, 'interpolate' means 'guess'. Look it up. It's a reasonably good guess, but it's a guess.

What Kodak has done, apparently, is replace the Bayer filter (which they also invented) with a new type of filter (undefined in public as yet) combined with a new type of light sensor that is more sensitive to all colors of light. Combined, these technologies will have two effects.

First, they will allow faster shutter speeds at lower light, which will reduce blurring of moving objects - sports photographers will like that.

Second, the technology will be patented and licensed - as the Bayer mosaic is now. Kodak desperately needs revenue streams.

And just as a side note. A personal axe to grind here, please forgive me. There is a person who likes to post from time to time "Kodak isn't innovative and hasn't produced anything of note since Tri-X." I would like to point out that Kodak files more patents in a year than 99% of all US companies and more than most other photo-related companies with the possible exception of Canon. They invented digital photography (and failed utterly to capitalize on it), they supply the image sensors for many of the digital cameras in use today in a number of high-end digital cameras such as Hasselblads and Leicas. I've had this person I'm speaking of challenge me on this, I proved they were wrong, but they never admitted it or apologized, and that person continues to state that Kodak does not make the high-end sensors for medium format digital cameras. So, that person is a liar. You can choose to believe him if you wish. Kodak innovates. They are quite inventive. It may be their only stock in trade at this point, due to amazing mismanagement and poor marketing in recent years. But they do innovate. This may well prove to be a nice breakthrough, affecting us all in time. End of rant.
 
Bill - is that you?

Not trying to start a flame war, just trying to understand. I can appreciate the Foveon argument, since the pixels are all colour - albeit stacked. This seems something of a hybrid - very welcome if it works well and it provides another alternative to photographers.

Regarding Kodak - couldn't agree more. I understand that with perhaps one exception, Kodak are the only volume manufacturer of mf sensors.

Welcome back btw.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, it's me. As far as I can tell, anyway.

And I just hope Kodak survives. Call it nostalgia, but I like Kodak. I think they're trying really hard to make the right moves now, although they'd admittedly been pretty brain-dead for a long time.
 
pvdhaar said:
Seems like the whole concept of shallow DOF is going down the drain, isn't it?
Click to expand...

I really don't think that Joe Consumer (or Jo Consumer) has the slightest clue what DOF is, let alone cares about it when taking digicam snapshots.
 
bmattock said:
Yeah, it's me. As far as I can tell, anyway.

And I just hope Kodak survives. Call it nostalgia, but I like Kodak. I think they're trying really hard to make the right moves now, although they'd admittedly been pretty brain-dead for a long time.
Click to expand...

I have a certain brand loyalty myself. Although I like Ilford films' drying characteristics over Kodak, and like 25 ISO b/w film, Kodak was my first love in films. They gave me terrific museum shots in the late 50's and early 60's. They took care of police photographers without making a big deal of it. More of a public service kind of thing. And in Vietnam, they were a big help with my crime scene photo processing! Then they just sort of seemed to die in the marketplace. Hopefully they can not only keep their head above water, but grow to offer more to us photographers.
 
While the possibility isn't discussed, how would you all feel if a side effect of the new filter made the angle of light entry unimportant? By this I mean the new filter/ sensor design allowed RF lenses to perform at their best?
 
Bryce: I would be ecstatic if that were the case, but I don't know the technology well enough to guess if it's possible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top