Samsung Introduces the 200-Megapixel Image Sensor for the Ultimate High Resolution Experience in Flagship Smartphones

[Eric]

200 megapixels is insane for any camera let alone a phone, will be interesting to see real world results.

Samsung Introduces the 200-Megapixel Image Sensor for the Ultimate High Resolution Experience in Flagship Smartphones

The new Samsung ISOCELL HP2 boosts capacity for maximum pixel performance, allowing for detailed and seamless photos in any light condition

news.samsung.com

Samsung Electronics today introduced its latest 200-megapixel (MP) image sensor, the ISOCELL HP2, with improved pixel technology and full-well capacity for stunning mobile images in tomorrow’s premium smartphones.

“The Samsung ISOCELL HP2 harnesses Samsung’s high-resolution image sensor technologies and know-how at the cutting edge for epic details,” said JoonSeo Yim, Executive Vice President of Sensor Business Team at Samsung Electronics. “Our leadership comes from innovative pixel technologies that allow our sensors to go beyond the number and size of pixels. We will continue to open new horizons and solidify our presence in the expanding ultra-high-resolution sensor market.”

The ISOCELL HP2 packs 200-million 0.6-micrometer (μm) pixels in a 1/1.3” optical format, a sensor size that is widely used in 108MP main smartphone cameras. This enables consumers to enjoy even higher resolutions in the latest high-end smartphones without larger camera bumps in their devices.

 

[theorist9]

As the description indicates, they don't use this to produce 200 MP images. Instead, signals from multiple pixels are combined to reduce noise (at the highest resolution, 50 MP, they would be combining 2x2 pixel blocks, unless they use some fancy overlapping algorithm). What's the advantage of this approach over using 50 M pixels, each four times as large?

I expect you'd have a bit more light-gathering area in the latter case, because you'd have less loss from the gridlines (how much difference depends on the relative aperture ratio of the two sensors).

 

[Cmaier]

As the description indicates, they don't use this to produce 200 MP images. Instead, signals from multiple pixels are combined to reduce noise (at the highest resolution, 50 MP, they would be combining 2x2 pixel blocks, unless they use some fancy overlapping algorithm). What's the advantage of this approach to using 50 M pixels, each four times as large?

I expect you'd have a bit more light-gathering area in the latter case, because you'd have less loss from the gridlines (how much difference depends on the relative aperture ratio of the two sensors).

True.

But more (smaller) pixels allows image processing algorithms that can improve things. You can use silly AI techniques to decide how to bin pixels. They may also do interesting things with the color filter on top of the sensor.

 

[theorist9]

True.

But more (smaller) pixels allows image processing algorithms that can improve things. You can use silly AI techniques to decide how to bin pixels. They may also do interesting things with the color filter on top of the sensor.

And yet the many of the top full-frame DSLR's, like the Nikon D6 (20.8 MP) and Canon EOS-1D (20.1 MP), have gone in the opposite direction. At first it seems paradoxical that larger sensors are optimized by having fewer pixels than smaller ones. But it appears the idea is that full-frame cameras with great lenses are inherently able to capture beautiful images, and adding more pixels so you can do extra processing would compromise that. By contrast, smart phone cameras are (relatively speaking) so compromised to start with that the artifacts introduced by fancy processing are minor relative to the serious problems it can mitigate.

 

[Eric]

And yet the many of the top full-frame DSLR's, like the Nikon D6 (20.8 MP) and Canon EOS-1D (20.1 MP), have gone in the opposite direction. At first it seems paradoxical that larger sensors are optimized by having fewer pixels than smaller ones. But it appears the idea is that full-frame cameras with great lenses are inherently able to capture beautiful images, and adding more pixels so you can do extra processing would compromise that. By contrast, smart phone cameras are (relatively speaking) so compromised to start with that the artifacts introduced by fancy processing are minor relative to the serious problems it can mitigate.

Watching the evolution of utilizing AI and algorithms is impressive though there's only so much they can do to replicate a full sized sensor and real glass on such a small device. They're still excellent for basic point and shoot but even with the latest I'm unable to get even close to what I can do with my Sony or Canon cameras.

 

[Cmaier]

And yet the many of the top full-frame DSLR's, like the Nikon D6 (20.8 MP) and Canon EOS-1D (20.1 MP), have gone in the opposite direction. At first it seems paradoxical that larger sensors are optimized by having fewer pixels than smaller ones. But it appears the idea is that full-frame cameras with great lenses are inherently able to capture beautiful images, and adding more pixels so you can do extra processing would compromise that. By contrast, smart phone cameras are (relatively speaking) so compromised to start with that the artifacts introduced by fancy processing are minor relative to the serious problems it can mitigate.

Sure. All else equal, you‘d rather have a large sensor. But if you are going to have a tiny sensor, AI algorithms help.