LatentE said at 4:37 p.m. on May 20, 2007: Fuji has something like this in a few of their models where a portion of the pixel level sensors are for capturing highlights (less sensitive). Your diagram looks more like a video camera where the light is divided into the primary colors for separate sensors. That I think is to avoid the usual digital still camera Bayesian sensor pattern where the primary colors are captured in out of register arrangement which must then be mathematically constructed into a single in register tri color image.
The Foveon sensor of the Sigma high end camera captures the primary colors in register inline at different depths avoiding the Bayesian pattern image fudging but there's no attempt to provide multiple levels of tone capture.
Some new digital cameras do have dual sensors but only to allow large sensored DSLRs to provide continuous screen viewing rather than only after the shot is taken. The large sensors use too much power to be left on continuously and the dual sensor cameras have a second smaller sensor in the viewfinder area to provide image info for the digital view screen. I think Sony has come up with a low power large sensor and so the second sensor for the view screen may not be necessary much longer. Still the mirror of a DSLR prevents continuous exposure of a sensor so the SLR nature would have to be dropped. At this point though the eye level digital viewfinders don't match the quality of an SLR viewfinder.
But I don't see any reason why what you suggest can't be done (it is done somewhat with some Fujis). I think we've already gone beyond enough pixels per image so using those pixels to produce a better toned image seems reasonable. The key is likely cost and then getting market interest.
I've wondered about something like the thyresistor quality of automatic flashes where the flash is shut off or truncated (on the level of within ten thousands of a second). What if something like that could be done with the individual pixel sensors? The sensor provides light level information as is done now but instead of a max high value for highlights that value is extended by a cutoff timing value. An HDR camera without multiple exposures.
But comparing digital to film, we're at about 1850 in terms of technological advance. I had thought it would take a lot longer to surpass the quality of film using digital still cameras but that's happened already and much faster than I had anticipated. The future for photography is going to be amazing. The feather weight camera that we wear as a head band or sunglasses that captures everything we see like a Tivo and then allows us to quickly dump (edit) what's not interesting will cost $12.95. But then Microsoft will charge $179.95 for the software needed to process the images and HP will charge $59.95 for the cartridges to print them - till we've gone fully digital with albums.
Zero42 said at 5:39 p.m. on May 20, 2007: thanks for all the facts. that was an interesting read. lots of it, i didn't know. my recently gained HDR knowledge spawned this idea and i was thinking it would be neat if there were an HDR cam that took 3, 5, 9 pics with one button press. 5-9 made me think it would have to be mounted, so i settled on 3. ...maybe use one sensor to take the three pics. it could take all three at the same time, saving parts of the data from each image into the next image as it goes across the entire exposure, with the longest being the last, saving the images as 'adobe-like' layers in one file? ...and it would have an anti-gravity device with a full remote control panel too. yeah.
Please wait while we load