Shrinking Cameras Mandate Reinventing the Lens. New Future Image research study explores the challenging new landscape for optical designers and the innovative responses of the leading vendors of software-enhanced optics.

Over the past ten years, photographic cameras have almost completely transitioned from silver halide film to electronic sensors. But the other key component — the lens — has remained largely unchanged... Until now. The mobile phone industry, with its huge demand for embedded cameras, is driving a broad set of new requirements for miniaturized, rugged, low-cost, low-power, high-performance lenses. As they come to market, the superior value proposition of those lenses will threaten to displace traditional optics in cameras of all types. As a result, the business of designing and making lenses is undergoing its most fundamental upheaval since the Renaissance.

CMOS sensor developers have responded to consumer preferences for slimmer and slimmer handsets by shrinking their chips so that more pixels can be squeezed into an ever-smaller footprint. This presents a growing challenge to optics designers to supply lenses that can focus the light entering the camera down to a smaller and smaller spot. As pixel sizes shrink, the standard fixed-focus lenses found on must camera-phones cannot meet this challenge. As they continue to shrink — sensors that will reach the market next year will have sub-2-micron pixels — even auto-focus lenses composed of traditional glass and plastic lenses will be inadequate.

“Reinventing the Lens: Software-enhanced Optics,” a research study just published by Future Image, the leading independent center of expertise on the convergence of imaging, technology, and business, and host of the 6Sight® Future of Imaging conference, indicates that the combination of specially designed optical components and image processing techniques may offer the best solution to this daunting technical challenge. “We think it’s inescapable that ‘software-enhanced optics’ in one form or another will play a pivotal role in next generation camera-phones, in a wide range of capture devices for automotive, security, medical, and industrial applications, and even in ‘pure play’ camera optics,” said Tony Henning, Editor of the Future Image Mobile Imaging Report and author of the study. “The benefits of the technology are too numerous and too significant not to find traction in the value chain. The only question that remains is which one — or which ones — will find commercial success.”

The 41-page report with 21 illustrations looks first at the changing requirements for mobile camera modules brought about by changing consumer preferences, including the latest developments in CMOS image sensors and explains why these changes require a new approach to the optical components. The study then describes in general terms the process of co-designing the optics and image-processing components to optimize the image captured by the sensor and summarizes the unique benefits that result from this approach. Future Image conducted a survey and follow-up interviews with the three leading vendors of software-enhanced optics: CDM Optics Inc. (OmniVision Technology Inc.), Dblur Technologies Ltd., and DxO Labs. All three vendors and their solutions are profiled. The study concludes with our analysis of the competing solutions and the outlook for their success.

Among the more than two-dozen topics covered by our vendor survey were the following:
2. Technology Description
3. Advantages
3.1 Compared to traditional glass or plastic lenses
3.2 Compared to competing technologies
3.3 Compared to competing products that employ similar technology
4. Disadvantages
4.1 Compared to traditional glass or plastic lenses
4.2 Compared to competing technologies
4.3 Compared to competing products that employ similar technology
5. Product Information
5.6 Speed — responsiveness, time in seconds to achieve focus (if applicable)
5.7 User experience — what, if any, differences will the end-user notice when using a camera-phone or camera that has your lens vs. a standard, traditional lens?
5.11 Manufacturing supply (can you meet the quantity and quality requirements of the CMA?)
5.12 Track record (evidence of reputation, reliability, financial stability, etc.)

Copyright Notice
.
Table of Figures
About the Author / Future Image
Definitions & Methodology
I. Introduction
1. Reinventing the lens
1.1 Challenges
1.2 A Setback
1.3 Industry Response
1.4 The Incredible Shrinking Sensor
1.5 Innovation Required
2. Software-enhanced optics
2.1 Magic or Smoke & Mirrors?
2.2 Imperfect Lenses
Sidebar: History of the Lens
2.3 Unique Benfits
2.4 How Do They Do That?
II. Vendor Profiles
3. CDM Optics, Inc. (OmniVision Technology, Inc.)
3.1 Company Profile
3.1.1 Primary Contact
3.2 Technology
Sidebar: Ray Diagrams
3.3 Advantages
3.3.1 Compared to traditional glass or plastic lenses?
3.3.2 Compared to competing technologies?
3.3.3 Compared to competing products that use similar technology?
3.4 Disadvantages
3.4.1 Compared to traditional glass or plastic lenses
3.5 Product Information
3.5.1 Product name
3.5.2 Release dates
3.5.3 Target customer and market segment
3.5.4 Product size
3.5.5 Unit price
3.5.6 Speed
3.5.7 User experience 
3.5.8 Power requirements
3.5.9 Other requirements
3.5.10 Ruggedness
3.5.11 Manufacturing supply
3.5.12 Track record 
Reinventing The Lens: Software-enhanced Optics © Tony Henning and Future Image, Inc. 2006 www.futureimage.com iv
4. Dblur Technology Ltd.
4.1 Company Profile
4.1.1 Primary Contact
4.2 Technology
4.3 Advantages
4.3.1 Compared to traditional glass or plastic lenses?
4.3.3 Compared to competing products that use similar technology?
4.4 Disadvantages
4.4.1 Compared to traditional glass or plastic lenses?
4.4.2 Compared to competing technologies?
4.4.3 Compared to competing products that use similar technology?
4.5 Product Information
4.5.1 Product name
4.5.2 Release dates
4.5.3 Target customer and market segment
4.5.4 Product size 
4.5.5 Unit price
4.5.6 Speed
4.5.7 User experience
4.5.8 Power requirements
4.5.9 Other requirements
4.5.10 Ruggedness
4.5.11 Manufacturing supply
4.5.12 Track record 
5. DxO Labs
5.1 Company Profile
5.1.1 Primary Contact
5.2 Technology
5.3 Advantages
5.3.1 Compared to traditional glass or plastic lenses?
5.3.2 Compared to competing technologies?
5.3.3 Compared to competing products that use similar technology?
5.4 Disadvantages
5.4.1 Compared to traditional glass or plastic lenses
5.4.2 Compared to competing technologies?
5.4.3 Compared to competing products that use similar technology?
5.5 Product Information
5.5.1 Product name
5.5.2 Release dates
5.5.3 Target customer and market segment
5.5.4 Product size
5.5.5 Unit price
5.5.6 Speed
5.5.7 User experience
5.5.8 Power requirements
5.5.9 Other requirements
5.5.10 Ruggedness
5.5.11 Manufacturing supply
5.5.12 Track record
III. Conclusions & Outlook
6. Conclusions & Outlook
6.1. The Need Exists
6.2. CDM Optics
6.3. Dblur Technologies
6.4. DxO Labs
6.5 The Proof of the Pudding