Apple Just Patented an Image Sensor With 20 Stops of Dynamic Range

[Erato]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Y.M.Cinema Magazine articale release date: 2025-06-25

Apple might be quietly preparing one of the biggest advancements in image sensor design — and it could change everything from iPhones to professional cinema tools. Y.M.Cinema Magazine is the first to uncover a newly published Apple patent titled “Image Sensor With Stacked Pixels Having High Dynamic Range And Low Noise”. This revelation points to a breakthrough that could reshape both mobile and professional imaging. With claims of a staggering 20 stops of dynamic range packed into a stacked sensor architecture, Apple might be gearing up to rival — or even surpass — the giants of cinema camera technology.

Apple’s New Sensor Promises 20 Stops of Dynamic Range and Ultra-Low Noise

 

A Sensor That Could Outperform the Best
A newly published Apple patent titled “Image Sensor With Stacked Pixels Having High Dynamic Range And Low Noise” reveals a major step forward in imaging tech. While Apple is known for its custom chips and camera software, this patent hints at something far more ambitious: a fully in-house image sensor design with the potential to rival or even surpass leading cinema cameras in dynamic range. And we’re not just talking theory — this sensor architecture claims a dynamic range of 120 dB, which translates to nearly 20 stops of range. That’s more than current industry titans like the ARRI ALEXA 35.

For more details about this patent, please visit YY.M.Cinema Magazine official website for further reference.

https://ymcinema.com/2025/06/25/apple-just-patented-an-image-sensor-with-20-stops-of-dynamic-range/

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[M11 for me]

That would come near a human eye!!

 

[SrMi]

Patents are filed to protect an idea. It does not mean that the patent can be manufactured.

[Einst_Stein]

My impression that a patent must reveal the realization method. It cannot be just an imagined idea.

Edited July 31 by Einst_Stein

[adan]

Interesting that the schematic shows the use of two LOFICs (Lateral OverFlow Integration Capacitors - I had to look it up also) - per pixel.

Which (very roughly) means that if a given exposure saturates (overflows, blows out) the primary storage capacity of the pixel's electron well, the excess electrons can be stored in the LOFIC(s) instead of being lost, and can still be "counted" in the final signal (voltage) coming out of the pixel.

One can get "three bags full" of dynamic range ("yes sir, yes sir!"), instead of just one or two.

Presumably, Apple uses some "new art" over OmniVision's TheiaCel™ version, not just the extra per-pixel capacitor(s). Or they can duke it out in Court.

https://www.ovt.com/technologies/theiacel-technology/

[IkarusJohn]

12 hours ago, Einst_Stein said:

My impression that a patent must reveal the realization method. It cannot be just an imagined idea.

I’m not a patent attorney, but as I understand it there are some standards under the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) under which patents can be challenged (colleagues of mine arbitrate the disputes).

To be patentable, the concept must be original and capable of production - applications are typically supported by voluminous engineering and scientific reports.

[250swb]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

17 hours ago, M11 for me said:

That would come near a human eye!!

 

In any one scene the human eye can see detail in the 10 to 14 stops range, meaning you can't employ the full 20 stops to see detail in both the darkest shadows and the brightest highlights in the same scene. It's only by the eye adapting to the lighting level that a full 20 stops can be discerned, and again, not all at the same time. If we could see all the 20 stop range in one go it may look like HDR and we all love HDR don't we.....? 

Edited August 1 by 250swb

[IkarusJohn]

8 minutes ago, 250swb said:

If we could see all the 20 stop range in one go it may look like HDR and we all love HDR don't we.....? 

Oooer …

[M11 for me]

vor 39 Minuten schrieb 250swb:

In any one scene the human eye can see detail in the 10 to 14 stops range, meaning you can't employ the full 20 stops to see detail in both the darkest shadows and the brightest highlights in the same scene. It's only by the eye adapting to the lighting level that a full 20 stops can be discerned, and again, not all at the same time. If we could see all the 20 stop range in one go it may look like HDR and we all love HDR don't we.....? 

You are certainly right with that. And I am clearly no eye specialist.

One thing I know for sure:

When my M11 (15 stops DR) gives me blown out skies and at the same time black areas with no information then I am disappointed with that result. And when I remember the sceene and I remember clearly the blue sky and lots of details in the dark areas then I conclude that it would be nice to have a sensor with more dynamic range.

Do I care that my eye sees only 10 stops when my 15 stop dynamic range sensor on the M11 is perceived as not being good enough?

Then we have the question to answer: Today we have sensors with a dynamic range of roughly 15 stops. Imagine we could go to 20 stops: Is that a progress or do our eyes see no difference as this is above our capabilities? 

[evikne]

Is there any chance that Leica will ever take advantage of this, or do I have to buy a new iPhone? 🤔

[Einst_Stein]

If there is a way, there is a will!

Just like extra pixels, the extra stops are meant to be throw away!

[250swb]

3 hours ago, M11 for me said:

You are certainly right with that. And I am clearly no eye specialist.

One thing I know for sure:

When my M11 (15 stops DR) gives me blown out skies and at the same time black areas with no information then I am disappointed with that result. And when I remember the sceene and I remember clearly the blue sky and lots of details in the dark areas then I conclude that it would be nice to have a sensor with more dynamic range.

Do I care that my eye sees only 10 stops when my 15 stop dynamic range sensor on the M11 is perceived as not being good enough?

Then we have the question to answer: Today we have sensors with a dynamic range of roughly 15 stops. Imagine we could go to 20 stops: Is that a progress or do our eyes see no difference as this is above our capabilities? 

But often photographers say they like 'natural' looking images but there is nothing natural about exceeding what the eye can take in. If you see a bright cloud on a bright day it may make you squint or put sunglasses on, but you don't see the bright cloud and detail in the dark shadow at the same time even in the same scene, you look at the cloud and see detail, then your eye adapts to the shadow and sees detail. And the dynamic range of the M11 is exactly what makes many of the images posted on this forum look flat and boring, they exceed the range of the eye in many circumstances and the high contrast the eye see's is artificially flattened by the cameras sensor. It could be helped if photographers knew how to rebalance the image in post processing, but that is something a 20 stop range would only make worse.

[M11 for me]

vor 44 Minuten schrieb 250swb:

that is something a 20 stop range would only make worse

You could easily reduce the DR back to what the eye sees in post processing.

Would that be it?

[evikne]

Actually, I don't think it's possible to have "too much" DR, and in any case, it's better than having too little. It's probably just a matter of the right post-processing.

[250swb]

1 hour ago, M11 for me said:

You could easily reduce the DR back to what the eye sees in post processing.

Would that be it?

It could be done by Leica dropping the price of the camera, then people wouldn't so invested in the idea that they've spent $9000 and damn it they'll get every ounce of DR even if it means natures white fluffy clouds become a series of off-white greys. But yes, that's being facetious, but if the photographer had the thought 'is that what I saw' instead of trusting the guy who wrote the firmware who almost certainly wasn't there the world would have some more refined and thoughtful photographs.

[Einst_Stein]

Certainly Apple do this not for the “natural look (whatever it means)”, but for the future computational photography.

[pgh]

15 years ago I saw a lot digital images that suffered from the sensor's lack of dynamic range.

I don't anymore. I barely see it at all. Even when it is evident that the scene is not fully rendered in detail, it's still got plenty of information for a photograph. 

I believe sensors can get better yet, sure. I don't think that at this point I believe they will help make photography any better. There is more to good photography than it just being an increasingly high fidelity proxy of what our eyes see. Maybe my imagination fails me for what Apple is doing. 

[pgk]

On 8/1/2025 at 2:06 PM, evikne said:

Actually, I don't think it's possible to have "too much" DR, and in any case, it's better than having too little. It's probably just a matter of the right post-processing.

Perhaps its more about our perceptions of the end result?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[SrMi]

1 hour ago, pgh said:

15 years ago I saw a lot digital images that suffered from the sensor's lack of dynamic range.

I don't anymore. I barely see it at all. Even when it is evident that the scene is not fully rendered in detail, it's still got plenty of information for a photograph. 

I believe sensors can get better yet, sure. I don't think that at this point I believe they will help make photography any better. There is more to good photography than it just being an increasingly high fidelity proxy of what our eyes see. Maybe my imagination fails me for what Apple is doing. 

I still see a lack of dynamic range (noise) even at base ISO and with maximum exposure in high contrast scenes when heavy shadow lifting occurs. People still bracket at base ISO for a reason.

At higher ISOs (low exposures), one can see maybe six stops of dynamic range, which is not much.

[pgh]

23 minutes ago, SrMi said:

I still see a lack of dynamic range (noise) even at base ISO and with maximum exposure in high contrast scenes when heavy shadow lifting occurs. People still bracket at base ISO for a reason.

At higher ISOs (low exposures), one can see maybe six stops of dynamic range, which is not much.

I see high iso is a diff story, that’s true, and I see what you see too but it’s so subtle these days in most cases it just really has no impact (for me, as a viewer) with regards to whether or not it is a strong photograph. Then again, I very rarely see that heavy of shadow lifting ever really helping pictures either. 

Edited August 13 by pgh