HappySnapper90 wrote in post #10431440
How do you know what Canon is capable of and is doing in the R&D department?
Are you a worker in that lab?
No, I am not. However, the industry is at where the industry is at. For Canon to make the leap that would be required to apply this technology now would be huge. Ridiculously huge. And again, it would require for them to have already developed global-shutter tech to step off from, and if they had already done so (it would put them well ahead of the competition), why wouldn't they have exploited it in their latest offerings? It would have given them a major competitive advantage- IF they had it.
The likeliest case is that Canon is hard at work on global shutter technology just like everyone else and that it'll start showing up around photokina.
Olympus has had a patent for very similar techniques for quite a while now as well and they don't have the technology to apply it yet either. The patents held by both companies are just textbook preemptory patenting: the design isn't feasible yet, but when it finally is, they have the patents to get a head start.
Pekka wrote in post #10431503
They are not claiming to alter per-pixel gain. They are claiming to alter per-pixel exposure. To preserve per-pixel exposure for highlights you only need to keep the pixel active shorter time.
How I read it: scene is metered so that shadow detail is preserved perfectly, i.e. exposed to the right and somewhat over. You have selected certain ISO for the shot. What the patent suggests is that there is a preliminary exposure which determines how much light each pixel receives in ISO X and time X. The the actual shot is taken, and inside exposure time individual pixels which receive highlights are are SHUT down when their "bucket is full". So this is not changing individual pixel gain, it is stopping pixels individually within exposure time.
So, for example a sunset shot: you set exposure time 1/4s to get perfect exposure of foreground, the sky would be overexposed X stops. With above patented feature you would take that 1/4s shot and the camera would stop pixels for the sky at 1/50 - 1/500 (smooth gradient) and run the rest for 1/4s.
That is exactly the point I was making, which is why I emphasized the use of the phrase "exposure time" in the patent. The post you quoted was my explanation to a previous poster on exactly why exposure time was the important factor rather than gain (since, as I pointed out, they can't do anything by altering gain that we can't already do in post).
Were you intending to reply to the post I was correcting, or did you misread my post?