How can a Megapixel camera reach 2K x 1K+ Res on 1/3 CCD?

[Fiona 0]

Yes, I have researched this but I cannot find an explanation.

 

Question: How are megapixel cameras achieving such huge resolutions when they are using the same CCDs employed in analogue cameras?

[Soundy 1]

They're not using the same CCDs. An analog camera's chip is typically around only 811 x 508 pixels.

[Fiona 0]

Quote fro AsMag: "Shawn Aoki, Manager of Global Marketing Group, Security and AV Systems Business Unit, Panasonic System Networks:

For the most part, network and analog cameras use the same sensors. "

Sony rep claimed:

Yoshikazu Hirano (a Sony Electronic GM) said. “This simultaneous processing and adjustment of both light and dark areas of the scene delivers improved WDR performance with enhanced scene visibility. New solutions can provide a nearly fourfold increase in sensitivity at normal shutter speeds, Hirano said."

Full transcript:

http://www.asmag.com/showpost/10965.aspx

Some information suggests that 1/3" CCDs should provide no more than the 800 x 500 resolution mentioned.

[ak357 0]

Quote fro AsMag: "Shawn Aoki, Manager of Global Marketing Group, Security and AV Systems Business Unit, Panasonic System Networks:

For the most part, network and analog cameras use the same sensors. "

Sony rep claimed:

Yoshikazu Hirano (a Sony Electronic GM) said. “This simultaneous processing and adjustment of both light and dark areas of the scene delivers improved WDR performance with enhanced scene visibility. New solutions can provide a nearly fourfold increase in sensitivity at normal shutter speeds, Hirano said."

Full transcript:

http://www.asmag.com/showpost/10965.aspx

Some information suggests that 1/3" CCDs should provide no more than the 800 x 500 resolution mentioned.

 

Have a look

 

http://www.aptina.com/products/image_sensors/

 

http://www.aptina.com/products/image_processors_soc/

[Soundy 1]

Quote fro AsMag: "Shawn Aoki, Manager of Global Marketing Group, Security and AV Systems Business Unit, Panasonic System Networks:

For the most part, network and analog cameras use the same sensors. "

What part of that is unclear? HE IS NOT SAYING THEY'RE IDENTICAL.

 

For that matter, he's not specifying MEGAPIXEL cameras - there are plenty of standard-def (usually VGA output at 640x480) network cameras out there as well.

 

Some information suggests that 1/3" CCDs should provide no more than the 800 x 500 resolution mentioned.

That information is either incorrect, or more likely has been misinterpreted.

[Fiona 0]

REALLY SOUNDY THERE IS NO NEED TO SHOUT.

 

Thanks for that AK357.

The AR0331 is listed for surveillance:

Optical Format 1/3-inch

Active Array 2052x1536

Imaging Area 2048x1536

 

 

Okay then, so much higher resolution.

 

I don't expect anyone to answer this but I'll put it up anyway:

Q1: Are these sensors being manufactured by companies independent of Sony and Panasonic?

 

Q2: Are companies like Avigilon, Axis, Arecont etc., using these independently manufactured sensors?

 

Q3: Do the main megapixel camera manufacturers disclose the details of the sensors in their cameras?

 

I tried to find the price for an Avigilon camera but I have hit the Aviligon Cloak of Silence.

[ak357 0]

 

Okay then, so much higher resolution.

 

I don't expect anyone to answer this but I'll put it up anyway:

Q1: Are these sensors being manufactured by companies independent of Sony and Panasonic?

 

For example I know Arecont is using Micron sensors (Aptina) now

but how u process signal from it is their " big know-how secret"

Q2: Are companies like Avigilon, Axis, Arecont etc., using these independently manufactured sensors?

 

Absolutely

Q3: Do the main megapixel camera manufacturers disclose the details of the sensors in their cameras?

 

details possible to get

I tried to find the price for an Avigilon camera but I have hit the Aviligon Cloak of Silence.

 

are u really interested ?

probably can help you

[Fiona 0]

ak357, you always hit the mark.

 

I do not want Distributors and Installers to give away Commercially Sensitive Information which might jeopardize their positions with companies like Avigilon.

 

Soundy, directed me to an Avigilon image the other day and, well, one thing lead to another.

 

Naturally, I am interested to know what such a camera costs...

[Soundy 1]

That airport picture is from a 16MP Avigilon Pro camera. It uses a full-size 35mm CMOS sensor, the same as you'll find in a full-frame digital SLR. In fact, Avigilon Pro-series cameras use the Canon EF lens mount that will fit the full line of Canon EOS lenses (and third-party lenses that use the EF mount as well).

 

Suffice to say, the camera runs in the five-digit range; lenses can be had for anywhere from $150 to $15,000.

 

Check out this rig: viewtopic.php?f=19&t=11322&start=82

 

And further discussion of the equipment: viewtopic.php?f=19&t=11322&start=108

[joseph.chen0312 0]

Yes all is CMOS sensor unless one 1.3 mega pixel from SONY " exmore" or some name.

 

And it depends on how is size in CMOS sensor to cature how high resolution.

[Fiona 0]

It appears that CCD sensors and CMOS sensors were developed at roughly the same time in the 1960s. Though the CMOS sensors had benefits which are only now being widely exploited today, the commercial application of CMOS was restricted due to the complexities of the digital signal which found no corollary in DSP performance. All the while, CCD produced an easy to handle analogue signal. This explains why CCD has enjoyed a protracted dominance over CMOS.

[joseph.chen0312 0]

As you stated some aprts is right but most point is how is producing those in Semiconduct Silicon industry. I believe you would find a lot paper then tell us how and why.

[Soundy 1]

It appears that CCD sensors and CMOS sensors were developed at roughly the same time in the 1960s. Though the CMOS sensors had benefits which are only now being widely exploited today, the commercial application of CMOS was restricted due to the complexities of the digital signal which found no corollary in DSP performance. All the while, CCD produced an easy to handle analogue signal. This explains why CCD has enjoyed a protracted dominance over CMOS.

I read this post yesterday on my phone and didn't have the chance to reply... I see you've removed the part questioning CMOS's higher power consumption.

 

Realistically, that difference in consumption is negligible from an operational standpoint. There are plenty of other components and sub-systems to a camera that would draw as much or more power than the sensor (especially if the camera has IRs). Most non-IR-equipped cameras draw only a few watts anyway, not enough that the difference between CMOS and CCD power consumption would be a concern to most designs.

 

The only place it would be a consideration would be specialized low-power applications like spycams or trail cams that need to operate on battery power for extended periods, and again, other parts of the design would probably be bigger power draws anyway.

 

Outside of the surveillance world, megapixel CMOS and CCD sensors still have a fairly even balance - a number of DSLR cameras (most notably Nikons) still use CCDs, and CCD vs. CMOS is quite a heated ongoing debate in digital photography forums.

[Fiona 0]

As you stated some aprts is right but most point is how is producing those in Semiconduct Silicon industry. I believe you would find a lot paper then tell us how and why.

I haven't found a single document that explains this. And I have been through at least a dozen.

 

CMOS sensors appear to produce far higher resolutions for a given sensor size than equivalently sized CCD sensors. The endless plethora of net articles which dissect ‘photoactive epitaxial layers’ and ‘shift registers’ hardly mention the differences in resolution. For so many very high resolutions to occur from CMOS, one would expect an occasional reference to this anomaly. (Notwithstanding marketing hyperbole.)

 

For example: Sanyo VCC-HD2500 at about 2K x 1K resolution. Sensor - 1/3” CMOS

 

http://www.mayflex.com/_assets/downloads/VCC-HD2100-2300-2500P-final.pdf

 

Plus the Samsung SCB-6000 HD at about 2K x 1K resolution. Sensor - 1/3" CMOS

 

http://www.samsung-security.com/SAMSUNG/upload/Product_Specifications/SCB-6000_Specifications.pdf

 

The CNB IGC2050F at about 2K x 1K resolution. Sensor - 1/3" CMOS

 

http://www.cnbtec.com/en/html/product/product.php?seqx_prod=1278

Edited February 18, 2012 by Guest

[Soundy 1]

CMOS sensors appear to produce far higher resolutions for a given sensor size than equivalently sized CCD sensors.

If that's the case, it would seem to be unique to the CCTV world... there doesn't seem to be any technological limitations to CCD, it appears to more a matter of a manufacturer's choice:

http://www.dpreview.com/products/search/cameras#criterias=SpecsCoreParams%2CSpecsSensorType&includeDiscontinued=No&sort=newestFirst&view=list&page=1&paramSpecsCoreParamsBodyType=LargeSLR%2CRangefinder%2CMirrorless%2CCompactSLR%2CMidSizeSLR&paramSpecsSensorType=CCD

 

Note the Pentax 645D, which is a medium-format camera using a 44mm x 33mm, 40MP CCD sensor, and the Leica S2, which uses a 45mm x 30mm 37.5MP CCD.

 

Seriously, you're way over-thinking this - CMOS vs. CCD have their various pros and cons, but maximum resolution vs. sensor size is NOT a factor.

[Fiona 0]

Axis website appears to hedge it bets on CMOS versus CCD to protect its analogue market share:

 

http://www.axis.com/products/video/camera/megapixel/index.htm

 

Seems like there's an elephant in the room. If CMOS is getting a fourfold increase in resolution, then the cost of a 2K x 1K image has to be divided by 4 before it can be compared to the cost of an analogue image:

[Soundy 1]

[Fiona 0]

CMOS Elephant

[Fiona 0]

The short answer to the original question must be Pixel Miniaturisation.

 

CMOS sensor manufacture must have managed to miniaturise the pixels sufficiently to allow the resolution to increase by a factor of 5.8 times as can be seen in the Axis illustration and comparison of pixel dimensions per given area. Pixel miniaturisation is therefore allowing greater resolution within any given sensor dimension. This will have implications where camera dimensions cannot be increased: i.e. chassis cameras.

 

http://www.crazyengineers.com/toshiba-1-12-micrometer-pixel-cmos-image-sensor-launched-576/

 

I would have to simply assume that pixel minitarisation is less practical for CCD sensors.

[Soundy 1]

It's your room, and your elephant. There's nothing in that article you linked about CMOS or CCD or why Axis would use either.

 

Whether a single 2MP camera is able to functionally replace four analog cameras is one of the oldest debates for the IP vs. analog crowd - the answer, as with everything else, is, "it depends".

 

You haven't uncovered anything new or shocking or hidden here. There are no conspiracies to the choice of CCD vs. CMOS.

 

If CMOS is preferred for IP cameras, it's probably no more complicated than the fact the already-digital signal is more readily processed, thus making it simpler and cheaper to design around. Again, there are NO technical limitations on the resolution of CCD sensors compared to CMOS.

[Soundy 1]

The short answer to the original question must be Pixel Miniaturisation.

Ummm, I believe someone already mentioned that. Are you not paying attention to what anyone is telling you?

 

CMOS sensor manufacture must have managed to miniaturise the pixels sufficiently to allow the resolution to increase by a factor of 5.8 times as can be seen in the Axis illustration and comparison of pixel dimensions per given area. Pixel miniaturisation is therefore allowing greater resolution within any given sensor dimension.

 

I would have to simply assume that pixel minitarisation is less practical for CCD sensors.

DON'T ASSUME. READ WHAT I POSTED ON THE LAST PAGE.

 

Why am I bothering? People are trying to answer your questions on this thread and you're just ignoring them, blundering along talking to yourself and posting irrelevant links in an attempt to support some sort of technological conspiracy theories.

 

I'm done. Have fun.

[Fiona 0]

Seriously, do you have Tourette Syndrome or something like that?

 

This would explain your endlessly abusive personality.

 

Pixel miniaturisation was not mentioned.

 

"Pixel Miniaturisation" there, how hard was that?

[rory 0]

Whether a single 2MP camera is able to functionally replace four analog cameras is one of the oldest debates for the IP vs. analog crowd

 

like the 2MP camera cant see around corners nor has xray vision **running man**