Sony’s wants to create a “Super Reality” sensor!
You can download the full presentation at Sony.net (Click here). You can also click on the thumbnails below to enlarge the image. So what are the key info?
- Sony is already the number one producer of CCD image sensors and want’s to become number one in the CMOS market too.
- The biggest market for image sensors is the cellular market (Example: The iPhone 4 uses a Sony sensor)
- Sony is working to increase, both image quality and frame rate.
But here is the real big news: Sony wants to create a “Super Reality” sensor that surpasses Human Vision. That’s why they created a new filter layout which includes “W” pixels (no color) to increase the dynamic range. At first look this will come at cost of the color information but I guess Sony has some kind of “secret” weapon to avoid that. Can’t wait to see such a senor in use in a “real” camera.
Personal note: Would love if Sony sensors could come close to the B&W image quality of medium format cameras.

















Mato34
9 months ago |Some say “Super Reality”, some say Truesense Color Filter…
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0706/07061401kodakhighsens.asp
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0802/08020602kodaktruesense.asp
Even there is a 29 MP sensor using that technology: http://www.kodak.com/ek/US/en/Kodak_Announces_Highest_Resolution_Interline_Transfer_CCD_Image_Sensor.htm
Saludos.
Essenobi
9 months ago |@Mato34 are there any consumer cameras using that Truesense Color Filter technology? Because I’d like to see what the results are
Mato34
9 months ago |Hi Essenobi
As far as I know, nope. I wanted to post a link talking about a presentation of one of those sensor in some show/expo, which I saw some weeks ago, but didn’t found it. But it seems this technology is being applied more on other areas than on digital photography.
But then, Sony Semiconductors seems to be more focused on making sensors for photography than Kodak does, so we should see some results
The idea isn’t new, but at the moment there isn’t any useful result for us (I think).
Saludos!
RichT
9 months ago |Exactly, Kodak came up with this idea years ago
Michal
9 months ago |Increase dynamic range, not megapixels – GREATE!!!
Alfonso Cuitiño
9 months ago |Yay and then make a medium format NEX ^^
Josh
9 months ago |The iPhone 4 has an OmniVision sensor for the camera, but the next model is reported to use a Sony sensor.
john42
9 months ago |am I missing something? if it “surpasses human vision” whats the point, we mere mortals wont be able to see it!! or are they building it for their robots for when skynet takes over
Raghav
9 months ago |Ha ha… Good point…
Although it would be useful for Astro Photographers who need to see InfraRed & maybe even UV Spectrum…
Steve Jones
9 months ago |You mean like microscopes aren’t of any use because they surpass human vision?
AVESTA
9 months ago |microscopes don’t surpass human vision in spectrum, merely in magnification. but it’s really a moot point considering microscopes can’t even function without human vision. So, they don’t surpass us in anything.
Jacco
9 months ago |Nope, it’s to replace your eyeballs. Getting ‘augmented’.
ahhh-lpha100
9 months ago |Yep: “We are the Borg..”
shamb
9 months ago |I think they mean ‘we will make the sensor so good that you will no longer need to do any postprocessing in camera, and neither will you need to use techniques such as HDR, and peaking will be a thing of the past’.
At least, thats what we all hope they mean
Hellven
9 months ago |HDR and IR photography also surpasses human vision, and can see them, cant you? think a litlle out of the box!
john42
9 months ago |HDR does not surpass human vision, the whole point of HDR is that the human eye has a higher dynamic range than any digital camera, hence HDR works because we can see a larger range and can handle combined input from multiple exposures at different settings.
IR combined with the visible spectrum!! cannot imagine what that would look like but if the new sensor can produce both and you can then extract 2 images from the file (one visible and one IR) it would certainly save having to have a cameras converted for IR.
acolyte
9 months ago |No wonder cameras can’t ever completely capture what I see..
Hellven
9 months ago |sorry but you are wrong, HDR can surpass the human vision, when you do a HDR you can set the limits of the dynamic range, you can go beyond human eye’s dynamic range easily.
and about IR, it already exists, but it’s not native in camera sensors because of the filters, and it also exists in film
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tailspin/4690562427/
AVESTA
9 months ago |I think the explanation is getting a bit complicated here. People just need to remember that the moment you view an image on a monitor or a printed you basically loose any of the extra “super reality” information.
when you take a IR photo and print it out, you’re obviously not viewing that image in IR. You’re viewing a visible light representation of IR light. The same goes for IR video cameras. They film in IR, but what they show you is a false color representation.
HDR photos might “surpass” human vision in a practical sense, but not in terms of spectrum, which is what this sensor is suposed to do. Regardless of if HDR went beyond human dynamic range or not is irrelevant, because if you can see it on the monitor then obviously it hasn’t gone “BEYOND” your vision. if it went beyond your vision you wouldn’t be able to see it anyways so whats the point. HDR is a gimmick!
Steve Jones
9 months ago |The eye doesn’t have a bigger dynamic range than a camera if you include both as a system, and not just a sensor. The eye has a total dynamic range approaching a million to one, or a bit under 20 stops. However, that dynamic range cannot be perceived at the same time – that’s something a bit under 10,000:1 or about 13 stops. To achieve the full dynamic range, the eye has to adapt by altering the iris and, for low light, some chemical changes in the retina. As it is, that 13 stops is a good match for the DR of good DSLR sensors. Some CCD sensors can manage another couple of stops above that.
However, if we include the ability to stop down a lens, which typically gives another 7 stops, the camera’s full DR is also about 20 stops. Beyond that there are ND filters (but then we can wear sunglasses).
It’s also worth noting the eye sacrifices colour perception at low light levels and is also only able to gain full resolution over a small portion of the scene – we gain an illusion of having high acuity across a scene because we “scan” it rapidly.
To be fair to the eye, we do manage this 13 stops of DR on a moving image, although I’m not sure it is strictly possible to treat these the same. As the “persistence of vision” issue shows, our visual processing has its limits. It’s known that the eye has a “fast route” into the brain that perceives potential danger much faster than that which goes through or conscious mind.
If Sony do go down the route of adding “white light” photosites to augment the colour ones, this will neatly mirror the eye’s structure where we have more sensitive rods for B&W perception with cones to add colour.
I’d also be interested to see if any manufacturer could produce a sensor which had a pseudo-random placement of photosites of different colour sensitivities. That would have the great advantage of eliminating many artefacts caused by regular patterns, such as moiree, but at the cost of being fiendishly difficult to process.
It’s also interesting to wonder what a B&W sensor might achieve. Bayer pattern filters throw away about two-thirds of the light. A dedicated B&W sensor could expect to gain better than a stop on a colour camera and have better DR (as the noise-floor due to photon shot noise will be reduced).
acolyte
9 months ago |Thank you for the explanation, especially the reference to stops. It made it even more easier to relate.
Don Cox
9 months ago |Cameras already surpass human vision. Your eye gives a sharp image only over a narrow central angle; most of the retina gives a low resolution image for detecting movement.
The camera gives a sharp full colour image all over.
It needs to because you could point the centre of your eye at any part of the picture. You could also get close to a big print and examine a part of it closely.
The purpose of photo-technology is not to imitate the eye with all its limitations but to provide information for the eye similar to that provided by the outside world.
Holy Bear
9 months ago |I’m happy with current sensors’ dynamic range,even the colours. But please please please give me more details.
Hellven
9 months ago |more detail then a 24mpx sensor?
Crazy
9 months ago |i what they mean by super reality is like the mechanical version of the THIRD EYE that we can SEE SPIRITS AND GHOSTS!!!
ray oody
9 months ago |I’d like to see some ghosts once and a while LoL…
acolyte
9 months ago |I wouldn’t.
Watch Shutter.
Sahaja
9 months ago |Some see ghosts with SLT cameras
pancanikonpus
9 months ago |that turn anyone else body naked
great sensor
lol…
acolyte
9 months ago |You read too much Doraemon.
Zstan
9 months ago |Or maybe we can sneak into the realms of a parallel universe.
Savic
9 months ago |Andrea, any news about new FF, is any chance to see CCD in new FF or Sony will use only CMOS in new FF.
Nikko
9 months ago |Looking very interesting. If things go well, Sony should have some very strong imaging products coming out next year.
mugen
9 months ago |The most of this are old news.
Here is video from February 2010 – http://isscc.org/media/2010/2010_Plenary_Session_3.flv
David
9 months ago |Sounds great, and good to have even more confirmation of Sony sticking in the imaging/photography business for the long run!
totalreader
9 months ago |Great idea but how many years we have to wait?
acolyte
9 months ago |Selling the future is as important as selling the present.
Totalreader
9 months ago |You are 100% right!
Bart
9 months ago |I really like Sony doing this.
Innovation is image sensors!
Aaron Martin-Colby
9 months ago |Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t Fuji actually produce cameras with a similar philosophy? Namely, photosites that do nothing but detect the light level. This was why Fuji’s S3 and S5 blew every other camera out of the water as far as dynamic range went. I’m assuming that Sony expects greater success.
acolyte
9 months ago |I don’t like the name..
Super Reality..
I don’t want it to go down the road of Samsung’s AMOLED..
LED -> AMOLED -> Super AMOLED -> Super Amoled Plus/HD Super Amoled
Soon it sounds like power rangers trying to add more and more names to their special moves/machines.
Sony Aiming for #1 in the Camera Cmos Sensor Business! | sonyalphalab.com
9 months ago |[...] of SonyAlphaRumors.com I just found out about Sony’s press release on there Cmos Sensor Technology. Sony’s [...]
Jay
9 months ago |Looks like there using their autoHDR technology as a standard now??
Erational
9 months ago |HDR is “A gimmick” you say ? I better go back and wipe my hard-drive of the 500 or so gimmick HDR pictures I have. Who did I think I was loving HDR photography ? I must not be a ‘real’ photograper, huh ? ;- )
Dave Cox
9 months ago |+1. HDR is actually more ‘real’ than non-HDR. The human eye rarely sees anything in silhouette because the pupil constricts to allow the correct amount of light in to allow resolution of detail in the area of focus. Simply speaking, the ‘gimmick’ of HDR is actually the ‘gimmick’ of human vision. A human eye will never see exactly what a camera ‘sees’, whether that be HDR or not. Who is to say which is correct?
Dave Cox
9 months ago |+1
HDR is actually more ‘real’ than non-HDR. The human eye rarely sees anything in silhouette because the pupil constricts to allow the correct amount of light in to allow resolution of detail in the area of focus. Simply speaking, the ‘gimmick’ of HDR is actually the ‘gimmick’ of human vision. A human eye will never see exactly what a camera ‘sees’, whether that be HDR or not. Who is to say which is correct?
Lucario
9 months ago |I hope they make a RED EPIC competitor
David Vogt
9 months ago |And are you trying to tell us that the purpose of photography is to capture reality? I hardly think so.
EddyH
9 months ago |Andrea: why do you say that adding a white pixel would mean a loss of color information? Kodak says that their Truesense (same principle) doesn’t sacrifice color information.
Here is an interesting presentation about the Kodak Truesense (which was already mentioned by Mato34): http://vimeo.com/7727439
acolyte
9 months ago |Google ‘rgb white pixels loss of detail’
Found ‘So the result is we are getting 4 RGB pixels values (4*3 bytes) from 6 bytes. This means reducing the size of transferred data to half, with a loss of quality.’
Doesn’t sound like a common result, so it might just be a first impression.
EddyH
9 months ago |I’m sorry but the result you point to (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YUV) is about color transformations between YUV and RGB, it is not about white pixels on a sensor. Other results from ‘rgb white pixel loss of detail’ point to screen (monitor) technology. I didn’t find any result, except this thread
, in the first two pages that points to white pixels on a sensor.
And it just doesn’t make sense to me why it would mean a loss of color information: in a regular Bayer pattern there is a color filter on *every* pixel (either Red, Green, Blue), which means that every pixel looses color information (from the other two colors). That loss of color information is ‘covered up’ by some clever interpolation (during raw processing e.g.). Ok, the white pixel may not have specific color information on the Red part of the spectrum, but neither does the Green pixel. To have information on Red in a Green pixel, you need interpolation. So why should having a clear pixel mean less color information? Because the clear pixel covers the complete spectrum (from red to violet), you could even have more/better color information (assuming some even cleverer interpolation).
Clyde
9 months ago |So it’s “Super” is it? Doesn’t “super reality” mean the same thing as “supernatural”?
When does “super” become normal? Will its replacement be called “super duper”?
Sony should get a clue and drop all that “super” stuff like “super steady shot”… (and they don’t have to remind me every time it’s “inside”).
Clever up Sony… Call it something clever like “Orchid” or “Wave” or “Lytro”… Oh sorry, “Lytro” is already taken. Call it “Chocolate”. Everybody loves “Chocolate”!
sgts
9 months ago |no one beats kodak sensors, sadly kodak arent really pushing them.
passer-by
9 months ago |If Canon uses Sony sensor, Nikon’s advantages/disadvantages will be neutralized. And Sony can become number one CMOS sensor maker, yay!
grumps
9 months ago |To be frank, I would like it if Sony just made a medium format camera that REALLY shot like a DSLR (not like an S2, but better) meaning being able to shoot faster fps and higher ISO at very low noise have a DSLR AF system, the best of both worlds. Let Sony buy Zeiss optics and make Leaf shutter lenses and I’m sure they will rule the world.
Let them sell this giant of a camera at $20K with lenses in the $3-5k region. Sure it’s out of reach for a lot of regular folk, but let this be their Pro camera system, and let lower end camera live off certain features of this little beast!
Simple huh!
Erational
9 months ago |You guys are right that the name kinda sux. Yes, we don’t need cheap stickers to remind us SUPER Steady Shot is still inside. But, I’m willing to cut Sony some slack over these gaffes. They have pushed the other camera companies to think outside the box, for sure.