>
New Topic
>
Reply<
Esato Forum Index
>
General discussions >
Rumours
> SE plans to impove K750 in July/August
Bookmark topic
I fully agree with both mmsman and etaab
one thing Id like to comment though
#mmsman, we cannot say for sure that quality definately will be better, first off Eldar hasnt seen any live pictures to compare with yet, the improvements mentioned are only "expected improvements" said by the company. Secondly the expected improvements mentioned are in specifik areas, you could theoretically have degration of quality in other areas of the photos that are just not mentioned. CCD isnt better than CMOS in every area and S//E are still keeping CMOS in their higher end upcoming 3mp cameras, which should indicate that there are actually good reasons for using cmos. The "announcement" also mentions some downsides to doing this switch such as poorer batterytime and longer savingtimes which may prove to be a bigger downside than the supposed qualityincrease is worth.
When I read between the lines of the "announcement" I actually find it much more plausible that the main reason for doing this, is not to improve quality by a few percent. Its to big a step just for that. Especially seeing how well it performs allready, they coul easily live with this cam untill next model is announced, there really isnt any need for this switch to ccd from a quality point of view.
I find it more plausible that the reason for doing this is 2 things:
1: They got a much better deal from the supplier of the new ccd sensors than they have with the current supplier of the cmos sensors, which when producing millions of handsets could bring down overall production costs extensively. But they cannot announce publicly that they are switching to something else to save money, that would degrade the public opinion of the phone and hurt sales, ergo the qualityupgrade story.
2: Marketingstrategy, as we have seen in these forums almost everyone thinks that CCD is automatically allways better than CMOS in every situation, therefore being able to write CCD in all marketingmaterial for the phone could boost sales in competition with other cameramobiles like the N-series
[ This Message was edited by: numb on 2005-05-28 08:42 ]
--
Posted: 2005-05-28 09:38:22
Edit :
Quote
Quote:
On 2005-05-28 00:19:03, mmsman wrote:
well i think you took me a little too seriously, it's certainly going to take better pictures but i'm very sceptic about how much better it's going to be, and the comment about production costs was a little off
Nah i didnt, i just agreed that its not all that important. Its not as if the majority of K750i owners would take notice of what sensor their K750i has anyway.
Its my opinion that only because they plan to switch sensors does not automatically mean better pictures. Its also my opinion that the CCD sensor will be cheaper for SE to manufacture into the phones, rather than SE wanting the improve the phone at all.
I'd bet money on when these new K750i's are released, we wont be able to tell the difference in quality of pictures taken with either of the sensors.
--
Posted: 2005-05-28 19:06:45
Edit :
Quote
@numb
Great post - makes perfect sense!
Now I'm going to order a K750i; and there's one definate advantage with this CMOS one - I can take piccies over summer!
--
Posted: 2005-05-28 23:55:16
Edit :
Quote
oh, sorry i guess i was a little out of my world at the time of postin, i agree with both etaab and numb,
@etaab, sorry i thought you were sarcastic because of the smilie, anyway to be honest i don't know anything about ccd and cmos prices.... i would probably say that cmos would still be ceaper because it was out first but then again why would se change it then? they probably got a better contract or something,
although i am still sure that the ccd will be better, maybe just a little as i said before or at least the same as i believe, but i certainly don't think that it's going to be worse because i doubt se would do that to us....
yes the article says that high class phones will have cmos chips but i understand that as new cmos chips (3mpx)
and considering i own a d20 and before that a d300 which both had a cmos chip i know perfectly good that cmos can be even better than ccd if it's correctly done....
my 2 cents are (sheesh after two long posts) that i strongly suggest buying a k750 now as the upgrade is surely going to be neglectable (maybe a better dark picture but i doubt even that), or if you have time to spent then wait for w800 and you'll get a 512 mb card
--
Posted: 2005-05-29 00:42:30
Edit :
Quote
By searching for CMOS vs CCD by using
Google Search you can find some quite useful information. A brief summary follows.
CMOS vs CCD and the Future of Imaging (Kodak Research) by Kodak
Both CMOS and CCD imagers are manufactured in a silicon foundry
Developed in the 1970s and 1980s specifically for imaging applications, CCD technology and fabrication processes were optimized for the best possible optical properties and image quality. The technology continues to improve and is still the choice in applications where image quality is the primary requirement or market share factor.
This (the CCD) architecture produces a low-noise, high-performance imager. That optimization, however, makes integrating other electronics onto the silicon impractical. In addition, operating the CCD requires application of several clock signals, clock levels, and bias voltages, complicating system integration and increasing power consumption, overall system size, and cost.
A CMOS imager, on the other hand, is made with standard silicon processes in high-volume foundries. Peripheral electronics, such as digital logic, clock drivers, or analog-to-digital converters, can be readily integrated with the same fabrication process.
This architecture allows the signals from the entire array, from subsections, or even from a single pixel to be readout by a simple X-Y addressing technique—something a CCD can’t do.
The biggest opportunities for CMOS sensors lie in new product categories for which they are uniquely suited. Keys to their success are
Lower power usage
Integration of additional circuitry on-chip
Lower system cost
Such features make CMOS sensors ideal for mobile, multifunction products ...
CCDs have been mass-produced for over 25 years whereas CMOS technology has only just begun the mass production phase. Rapid adoption was also hindered because some early implementations of these devices were disappointing: they delivered poor imaging performance and poor image quality.
... the current sensor market divides itself into two areas: the high-performance, low-volume branch, and the low-cost, high-volume branch. In the high-performance branch are applications that will continue to be dominated by CCD technology, but CMOS technology will find market share too, especially for lower cost or more portable versions of these products. The second area is where most of the CMOS activity will be. Here, in many applications CCD sensors will be replaced with CMOS sensors. These could include some security applications, biometrics and most consumer digital cameras.
Most of the growth, though, will likely come from products that can employ imaging technology—automotive, computer video, optical mice, imaging phones, toys, bar code readers and a host of hybrid products that can now include imaging. These kinds of products will require millions of CMOS sensors.
CCD vs. CMOS by Dalsa
CCD (charge coupled device)
CMOS (complementary metal oxide semiconductor)
CCDs and CMOS imagers have unique strengths and weaknesses that make them appropriate to different applications. Neither is categorically superior to the other ...
In a CCD sensor, every pixel's charge is transferred through a very limited number (often one) of output nodes to be converted to voltage, buffered, and sent off-chip as an analog signal. All of the pixel can be devoted to light capture, and the output's uniformity (a key factor in image quality) is high.
In a CMOS sensor, each pixel has its own charge-to-voltage conversion, and the sensor often also includes digitization circuits, so that the chip outputs digital bits. These other functions reduce the area available for light capture, and with each pixel doing its own conversion, uniformity is lower. But the chip requires less off-chip circuitry for basic operation.
CCDs have been the dominant solid-state imagers since the 1970s, primarily because CCDs gave far superior images with the fabrication technology available.
Only recently has semiconductor fabrication advanced to the point that CMOS image sensors can be useful and cost-effective in some mid-performance imaging applications.
CCDs offer superior image performance (as measured in quantum efficiency and noise), and flexibility at the expense of system size. They continue to rule in the applications that demand the highest image quality, such as most industrial, scientific, and medical applications.
CMOS imagers offer more integration (more functions on the chip), lower power dissipation (at the chip level), and smaller system size at the expense of image quality and flexibility. They are well-suited to high-volume, space-constrained applications where image quality is not paramount, such as security cameras, PC peripherals, toys, fax machines, and some automotive applications.
CMOS cameras may require fewer components and less power, but they may also require post-processing circuits to compensate for the lower image quality.
The money and attention concentrated on CMOS imagers means that their performance will continue to improve, eventually blurring the line between CCD and CMOS image quality.
... for the forseeable future, CCDs and CMOS will remain complementary. Each can provide benefits that the other cannot.
Feature and Performance Comparison
FeatureCCDCMOS
Signal out of pixelElectron packetVoltage
Signal out of chipVoltage (analog)Bits (digital)
Signal out of cameraBits (digital)Bits (digital)
Fill factorHighModerate
Amplifier mismatchN/AModerate
System NoiseLowModerate to High
System ComplexityHighLow
Sensor ComplexityLowHigh
Camera componentsPCB + multiple chips + lensChip + lens
Relative R&D costDepends on ApplicationDepends on Application
Relative system costDepends on ApplicationDepends on Application
PerformanceCCDCMOS
ResponsivityModerateSlightly better
Dynamic RangeHighModerate
UniformityHighLow to Moderate
Uniform ShutteringFast, commonPoor
UniformityHighLow to Moderate
SpeedModerate to HighHigher
WindowingLimitedExtensive
AntibloomingHigh to noneHigh
Biasing and ClockingMultiple, higher voltageSingle, low-voltage
Digital Camera Sensor Technology: CMOS vs. CCD by ExtremeTech
All CCD cameras use interpolation to create images. For example, a 3 megapixel digital camera only has 750,000 red, 750,000 blue, and 1.5 million green pixels, but the camera's on-board processor generates a 3 million pixel RGB color image by interpolating the data from each neighboring pixel.
CMOS sensors have several advantages over CCDs. They use only 1/5 to 1/10 as much power as CCDs, making them a good choice for battery-powered cameras. CMOS sensors are made using the same techniques and equipment as more familiar CMOS circuits like CPUs and RAM memory, so they cost less to produce than CCDs, which require specialized fabrication equipment.
Each pixel in a CMOS sensor has its own amplifier circuit, so the signal amplification is performed before the image is scanned.
... CMOS sensors often contain additional image processing circuitry (including analog-to-digital converters and JPEG compression processors) directly on the chip, making it easier and faster to retrieve and process the picture information. This results in a lower chip count, increased reliability, reduced power consumption, and a more compact design.
A key problem in older CMOS sensors was that some pixels often had more or less sensitivity than their neighbors. This unevenness translates into noise.
Image Sensor Technology: CMOS vs. CCD by Hewlett Packard
... CMOS components are fabricated in mainstream silicon foundries, resulting in significant cost reductions, process line improvements, and a higher level of circuit integration on the chip.
This on-chip circuitry enables CMOS image sensors to achieve a significant advantage in functionality over CCDs. The result? A more compact system that decreases defects, increases reliability and reduces the need for peripheral support chip packaging and assembly, further reducing cost.
Stated simply, CMOS sensors consume much less power than that of similar CCD sensors—at least 10 times less, in fact. This advantage is particularly important for applications such as digital cameras, PC videocameras, laptop computers, cellular phones and toys.
Unlike CMOS components, CCD systems require multiple 5-15 V power supply levels and voltage regulators for operation. CMOS typically uses a single, 3.3 volt (or 5 volt supply), increasing power supply efficiency.
With CMOS, signal processing can be integrated directly on the chip.
Higher yields and less susceptibility to defects make CMOS a lower cost technology than CCD for image sensors. Fewer parts, a smaller form factor, and higher reliability in the end product system mean cost savings to the systems manufacturer.
CCDs rely on a process that can leak charge to adjacent pixels when the CCD register overflows; thus bright lights “bloom” and cause unwanted streaks in the image. CMOS architecture is inherently less sensitive to this effect.
In addition, smear—caused by charge transfer in the CCD under illumination—is non-existent with CMOS.
The choice between CMOS- and CCD-circuitry is obviously neither black nor white.
_________________
/bico
[ This Message was edited by: bico on 2005-05-29 21:49 ]
--
Posted: 2005-05-29 21:14:54
Edit :
Quote
Very helpful and interesting read. thanks bico
--
Posted: 2005-05-30 07:00:55
Edit :
Quote
Quote:
On 2005-05-26 14:10:28, gbrooks3 wrote:
@Marcus_129
What the Hell is wrong with you? Dont talk to someone you dont know like that! Comeback when you have something useful to say! You think that i have well over 1000 posts at esato and i am not familiar with the concept of Upgrades? hahahaha, joker.
I was just saying that before the this ugrade the K750i was not a great phone in my opinion. Now with these improvements the phone is definatley worth buying.
I dont know what you interpreted that as! Seems simple to me.
I can´t see that´s it anything wrong with me. Only get so sick and tired of you negative people. Don´t know what you get out of complaining on everything?
K750 is a great phone as it is and when the update service gets up it will become even better. Even if there´s a update in hardware coming the K750 isn´t a bad phone. And many of you complaining that it´s coming a update were complaining that it took too long with a successor from K700
--
Posted: 2005-05-30 07:35:29
Edit :
Quote
@bico,
interesting info there...but the conclusion is what? CCD or CMOS? which one is the better one? or is it no definite answer to it?
--
Posted: 2005-05-30 13:32:12
Edit :
Quote
The comparison thread is really good and informative, but what we should really know is what difference will it make in a 2MP phone? In other words, for the K750, in what conditions will each system have an advantage or disadvantage?
--
Posted: 2005-05-30 16:58:38
Edit :
Quote
@
K750i: Which technology is the better one? The definite answer is that it's certainly not definite. Both technologies has its pros and cons.
My personal conclusion is that it doesn't really matter that much. The camera in the K750i phone is more than good enough. Especially considering it's a phone with a built in camera, not a camera with a builtin phone.
_________________
/bico
[ This Message was edited by: bico on 2005-05-30 22:13 ]
--
Posted: 2005-05-30 20:25:19
Edit :
Quote
New Topic
Reply
