Apple patents 'super resolution' multi-sensor cameras, display-integrated light sensor tech

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 25
    unicronunicron Posts: 154member
    hmlongco said:
    So tell me... why can't I use, say, a three-sided sensor with a red filter ed sensor and a blue filtered sensor and another sensor with no filter only, just b&w? The b&w sensor provides high low-light sensitivity due to the lack of any filter at all, and you should be able to extrapolate green by combining the outputs of the three sensors. (i.e. lot's of light here but little red and blue... hmmmm.... what color could it be???)

    Maybe I'm not understanding your question, but cameras already use green for luminance. That's why the color space is still commonly 4:2:0. That's changing quickly of course and this new configuration would better support wider color gamuts such as 4:4:4. 
    Color sampling  color gamut.  You can have P3 wide color gamut and still sample at 4:2:0. And you can have 4:4:4 sRGB.
  • Reply 22 of 25
    igorskyigorsky Posts: 757member
    ireland said:
    The reflective periscope design is a no-brainier to get rid of the camera bump.

    Sounds eazy-peazy.  What the hell do those engineers at Apple do all day?
    fastasleep
  • Reply 23 of 25
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,510member
    hmlongco said:
    So tell me... why can't I use, say, a three-sided sensor with a red filter ed sensor and a blue filtered sensor and another sensor with no filter only, just b&w? The b&w sensor provides high low-light sensitivity due to the lack of any filter at all, and you should be able to extrapolate green by combining the outputs of the three sensors. (i.e. lot's of light here but little red and blue... hmmmm.... what color could it be???)
    The best results are with three individual color sensors. We used to do it this way many years ago. Today, the sensor can be tuned to receive one color of light without a filter, but it's tricky, and expensive.

    ive been suggesting designs like this for years here, and in other places. But my main concern is the complexity of the design. Normally, it's pretty simple to do a tiny box with the sensor and the lens stacked above. But this is really complex. That means it costs a lot more. It also means that the tolerances need to be very strictly controlled on a number of surfaces.
  • Reply 24 of 25
    As for saving depth/thickness, the sensor size(area) is still a limiting factor. Specifically the one at the bottom, perpendicular to the screen.
  • Reply 25 of 25
    alivateRocketalivateRocket Posts: 1unconfirmed, member
    Soli said:
    We've been talking about this concept in phones for years to allow for better optics in a thinner casing.
    Except that concepts are easy to come up with based on needs. 
    HOW to make that concept to work is another matter.

    Everyone knows about teleportation from sci-fi. 
    Have you seen any actual device that can teleport more than just a single photon?
    Teleportation and "Quantum Teleportation" is way overhyped in the media. That includes most technology/science media, which is concerning.

    1. A wave-like quantum state can end up resolving on the other side of a barrier. This is random with a low chance of such "Quantum Tunneling"
    2. Quantum Entanglement links two particles instantaneously, they are synchronised in "state", but they can't be used to "communicate information" instantaneously
    3. If Sci-Fi teleportation somehow involved instant "communication", it would require: instant scanning of the object, instant transmission, and instant reconstruction on the other side. There would be a clone copy. Do you destroy the original? Ideally, a kind of wormhole or superluminal warp bubble would be used instead, if it's really possible in the real world.

    Now you know, please help me educate the rest of the internet.
Sign In or Register to comment.