No more FLASH? EVER? Come on Kodak, really?

[RMThompson]

Check this blogpost out. Sounds interesting, but I sort of think of the flash as a good thing to create more dramatic lighting in some cases:

http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/devlin/11619

Here is the text of the article:

Imagine...no red eye. Period. Or no need for a flash on a digital camera.
Now that digital camera makers have come up with all kinds of ways to eliminate red eye and improve flash technology while stabilizing images, Kodak says it is developing digital technology that will nearly eliminate the need for a flash (and the oft-accompanying red eye) and improve performance in low-light conditions.
Here's how it would work: The new technology would increase light sensitivity of existing image sensors by two to four times. That means a camera's shutter speed could be cut in half, or at least a quarter, which would reduce camera shake and blurring problems. If it works, it also would allow photographers to shoot in low light without producing grainy, speckled photos.
The proof is in the pixels. In most digital cameras, each sensor pixel detects either the color red, green, or blue and places them into a pattern named for Bryce Bayer, the Kodak engineer who developed it. With the new high-sensitivity technology, half of the pixels will be panchromatic, or clear, so they will capture only the brightness, not color. That means a 12-megapixel camera would have 6 million panchromatic pixels, 3 million green pixels, 1.5 million red pixels, and 1.5 million blue pixels. In comparison, today's 12-megapixel cameras have 6 million green pixels, 3 million red, and 3 million.
The announcement is Kodak's latest big play in an intense bid to rebuild into a digital photography company as its film business dwindles. The company's plan is to make use of its proprietary intellectual property, including this image sensor technology, to compete in the crowded digicam market. Kodak entered the printer business this year with models that are slightly higher priced than competitors' but use ink that retails for about half the cost of other cartridges.
Kodak will build its own cameras with the new technology, but it also plans to sell it to other manufacturers since it works with existing image sensors. The new tech will be available in early 2008, but Kodak has given no word on when the first cameras with it fully built in will be on the market.
On each page in my photo albums of the kids since they were little, there's at least one photo besmirched by red eyes, the scourge of the snap shooter. More and more cameras are including tools to remove red eye in camera, while even the most amateur among us have become pretty adept at removing the demonizing glare with tools on photo software, online photo ordering sites, and in-store kiosks. But built-in technology that eliminates the need to tinker before and post shooting would be a welcome feature in a digital camera.
Is this the kind of feature you've been waiting for in a digital camera?

 

[THORHAMMER]

this will only help up to a point, you still can only hold a camera in your hand still for so long, without IS prob 1/10 sec is the max, and with IS i dont know.

You will never be able to do long exposures without some sort of tripod thing.

this is just for shooting people at parties I think. But still itll be very nice.

 

[mysteryscribe]

Wonder how it works for fill flash if they take the flash off the camera theoretically there would be no hotshot and no flash of any kind. I'm thinking shine a penlight in the face in shadow at high noon that should work.

 

[mysteryscribe]

Wonder how it works for fill flash if they take the flash off the camera theoretically there would be no hotshot and no flash of any kind. I'm thinking shine a penlight in the face in shadow at high noon that should work.

 

[Garbz]

Looks like it's for point and shoot cameras. Keep mummy and daddy from using direct flash and destroying some picture which should have been taken by bouncing light off the side wall.

 

[ksmattfish]

This is an ad campaign directed towards point-n-shooters who have lots of problems with tiny flashes in tiny cameras. While this would help eliminate black backgrounds and red-eye for indoor snapshots, people will still need fill flash outdoors in high contrast situations unless they are also increasing the dynamic range dramatically. Kodak is not suggesting that enthusiasts and pros will give up flash photography. Everybody is working on increasing workable ISOs, and they have been since the beginning. Not too long ago ISO 100 was considered fast film. Canon was talking about noiseless ISO 25600 last year in press releases describing the future of digital cameras.

 

[fmw]

I never doubted that future technology would make light sensors more sensitive without introducing lots of noise. No surprise here for me.

 

[EOS_JD]

Looks like it's for point and shoot cameras.

Exactly......

 

[RMThompson]

Oh yeah no doubt this is for Point and Shoots, but the technology is there to let in more light, which can be a benefit for ANY camera. If we are accepting of more light per picture, the camera would have to compensate for less flash, but the pictures would undoubtably be better overall. Church shots would be better, and it might open up a whole new world of f 3.5+ lenses

 

[montresor]

The company's plan is to make use of its proprietary intellectual property, including this image sensor technology, to compete in the crowded digicam market. Kodak entered the printer business this year with models that are slightly higher priced than competitors' but use ink that retails for about half the cost of other cartridges. Kodak will build its own cameras with the new technology

Why do I hear a distant voice calling "620... 620... 620..."?

 

[Digital Matt]

Oh yeah no doubt this is for Point and Shoots, but the technology is there to let in more light, which can be a benefit for ANY camera. If we are accepting of more light per picture, the camera would have to compensate for less flash, but the pictures would undoubtably be better overall. Church shots would be better, and it might open up a whole new world of f 3.5+ lenses

The technology doesn't let in more light. The amount of light coming in is determined by the aperture. That's not changing. The sensitivity to the same amount of light is changing.