If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Minimum pixel size
Is there a lower limit to pixel size, i.e. could pixel size in a CCD go
to 1 micrometer and below (if we disregard noise issues for a moment) ? -- Alfred Molon ------------------------------ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Olympus_405080/ Olympus 5050 resource - http://www.molon.de/5050.html Olympus 5060 resource - http://www.molon.de/5060.html Olympus 8080 resource - http://www.molon.de/8080.html |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Minimum pixel size
Of course 1 micron is possible, but noise is the key point.
It is also worth mentioning that lens resolution would also need to be very good, which would cost more. You can assume that the camera companies trade off the cost of the lens verses the cost of the sensor. I would imagine relatively small sensors give the lowest total cost for both. The high end cameras have lower noise because of larger pixels. This costs more for the system. Joe "Alfred Molon" wrote in message ... Is there a lower limit to pixel size, i.e. could pixel size in a CCD go to 1 micrometer and below (if we disregard noise issues for a moment) ? -- Alfred Molon ------------------------------ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Olympus_405080/ Olympus 5050 resource - http://www.molon.de/5050.html Olympus 5060 resource - http://www.molon.de/5060.html Olympus 8080 resource - http://www.molon.de/8080.html |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Minimum pixel size
Of course 1 micron is possible, but noise is the key point.
It is also worth mentioning that lens resolution would also need to be very good, which would cost more. You can assume that the camera companies trade off the cost of the lens verses the cost of the sensor. I would imagine relatively small sensors give the lowest total cost for both. The high end cameras have lower noise because of larger pixels. This costs more for the system. Joe "Alfred Molon" wrote in message ... Is there a lower limit to pixel size, i.e. could pixel size in a CCD go to 1 micrometer and below (if we disregard noise issues for a moment) ? -- Alfred Molon ------------------------------ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Olympus_405080/ Olympus 5050 resource - http://www.molon.de/5050.html Olympus 5060 resource - http://www.molon.de/5060.html Olympus 8080 resource - http://www.molon.de/8080.html |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Minimum pixel size
Alfred Molon wrote:
Is there a lower limit to pixel size, i.e. could pixel size in a CCD go to 1 micrometer and below (if we disregard noise issues for a moment) ? My first guess would be that the absolute lower limit would be the wavelength of near infra-red (around 3 microns). Any smaller and you truly run the risk of not being able to capture some of the visible spectrum. Just my 2c. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Minimum pixel size
Alfred Molon wrote:
Is there a lower limit to pixel size, i.e. could pixel size in a CCD go to 1 micrometer and below (if we disregard noise issues for a moment) ? My first guess would be that the absolute lower limit would be the wavelength of near infra-red (around 3 microns). Any smaller and you truly run the risk of not being able to capture some of the visible spectrum. Just my 2c. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Minimum pixel size
In article CTGOc.219271$XM6.177658@attbi_s53, Joseph Schutz
writes "Alfred Molon" wrote in message m... Is there a lower limit to pixel size, i.e. could pixel size in a CCD go to 1 micrometer and below (if we disregard noise issues for a moment) ? -- Of course 1 micron is possible, but noise is the key point. It is also worth mentioning that lens resolution would also need to be very good, which would cost more. The limit must be somewhere of the same order as the limit for computer chips (since the same manufacturing techniques are used). IIRC, these are now using 90nm (0.09 microns) technology. This involves using far-UV light and extremely sophisticated process lenses. However, to take this as a practical proposition overlooks the fact that there is a hard limit to how much a lens can resolve: diffraction. This means that any lens, even a perfect one, will produce not a single point image (of a single point object) but a slightly blurred spot. The size of this spot depends on the relative aperture of the lens (the f-number). Any attempt to resolve below this point will just make the fuzzy dots bigger. When do we reach this point? Well, figures I saw a couple of weeks ago suggest we are there about now. I can't remember where I saw them, it may have been here. However, a quick back-of-the-envelope calculation suggests that for a lens at f/2 the theoretical limit for resolving detail is about 750 lp/mm. Ignoring all the sophisticated aspects of MTF, sampling theory, Nyquist limits and the like, this implies at most 1500 pixels/mm, i.e. 670nm per pixel. Taking the complex sampling issues into account, this is going to come out to 1 micron (1000 nm) or worse. And that is at f/2 - at f/4 it will be 2 microns, at f/8 it will be 4 and so on. If someone can refer us to the more sophisticated table I saw that would of course be in all probability worked out on a more sophisticated basis, but the above should be "in the ball park". The solution? Just as for film: bigger sensor pixels, bigger sensors. It *will* happen, but only when commercial pressure makes it so. You can assume that the camera companies trade off the cost of the lens verses the cost of the sensor. I would imagine relatively small sensors give the lowest total cost for both. The high end cameras have lower noise because of larger pixels. This costs more for the system. Whilst true, this is not what was asked. -- David Littlewood |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Minimum pixel size
In article CTGOc.219271$XM6.177658@attbi_s53, Joseph Schutz
writes "Alfred Molon" wrote in message m... Is there a lower limit to pixel size, i.e. could pixel size in a CCD go to 1 micrometer and below (if we disregard noise issues for a moment) ? -- Of course 1 micron is possible, but noise is the key point. It is also worth mentioning that lens resolution would also need to be very good, which would cost more. The limit must be somewhere of the same order as the limit for computer chips (since the same manufacturing techniques are used). IIRC, these are now using 90nm (0.09 microns) technology. This involves using far-UV light and extremely sophisticated process lenses. However, to take this as a practical proposition overlooks the fact that there is a hard limit to how much a lens can resolve: diffraction. This means that any lens, even a perfect one, will produce not a single point image (of a single point object) but a slightly blurred spot. The size of this spot depends on the relative aperture of the lens (the f-number). Any attempt to resolve below this point will just make the fuzzy dots bigger. When do we reach this point? Well, figures I saw a couple of weeks ago suggest we are there about now. I can't remember where I saw them, it may have been here. However, a quick back-of-the-envelope calculation suggests that for a lens at f/2 the theoretical limit for resolving detail is about 750 lp/mm. Ignoring all the sophisticated aspects of MTF, sampling theory, Nyquist limits and the like, this implies at most 1500 pixels/mm, i.e. 670nm per pixel. Taking the complex sampling issues into account, this is going to come out to 1 micron (1000 nm) or worse. And that is at f/2 - at f/4 it will be 2 microns, at f/8 it will be 4 and so on. If someone can refer us to the more sophisticated table I saw that would of course be in all probability worked out on a more sophisticated basis, but the above should be "in the ball park". The solution? Just as for film: bigger sensor pixels, bigger sensors. It *will* happen, but only when commercial pressure makes it so. You can assume that the camera companies trade off the cost of the lens verses the cost of the sensor. I would imagine relatively small sensors give the lowest total cost for both. The high end cameras have lower noise because of larger pixels. This costs more for the system. Whilst true, this is not what was asked. -- David Littlewood |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Minimum pixel size
In article CTGOc.219271$XM6.177658@attbi_s53, Joseph Schutz
writes "Alfred Molon" wrote in message m... Is there a lower limit to pixel size, i.e. could pixel size in a CCD go to 1 micrometer and below (if we disregard noise issues for a moment) ? -- Of course 1 micron is possible, but noise is the key point. It is also worth mentioning that lens resolution would also need to be very good, which would cost more. The limit must be somewhere of the same order as the limit for computer chips (since the same manufacturing techniques are used). IIRC, these are now using 90nm (0.09 microns) technology. This involves using far-UV light and extremely sophisticated process lenses. However, to take this as a practical proposition overlooks the fact that there is a hard limit to how much a lens can resolve: diffraction. This means that any lens, even a perfect one, will produce not a single point image (of a single point object) but a slightly blurred spot. The size of this spot depends on the relative aperture of the lens (the f-number). Any attempt to resolve below this point will just make the fuzzy dots bigger. When do we reach this point? Well, figures I saw a couple of weeks ago suggest we are there about now. I can't remember where I saw them, it may have been here. However, a quick back-of-the-envelope calculation suggests that for a lens at f/2 the theoretical limit for resolving detail is about 750 lp/mm. Ignoring all the sophisticated aspects of MTF, sampling theory, Nyquist limits and the like, this implies at most 1500 pixels/mm, i.e. 670nm per pixel. Taking the complex sampling issues into account, this is going to come out to 1 micron (1000 nm) or worse. And that is at f/2 - at f/4 it will be 2 microns, at f/8 it will be 4 and so on. If someone can refer us to the more sophisticated table I saw that would of course be in all probability worked out on a more sophisticated basis, but the above should be "in the ball park". The solution? Just as for film: bigger sensor pixels, bigger sensors. It *will* happen, but only when commercial pressure makes it so. You can assume that the camera companies trade off the cost of the lens verses the cost of the sensor. I would imagine relatively small sensors give the lowest total cost for both. The high end cameras have lower noise because of larger pixels. This costs more for the system. Whilst true, this is not what was asked. -- David Littlewood |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Minimum pixel size
In article CTGOc.219271$XM6.177658@attbi_s53, Joseph Schutz
writes "Alfred Molon" wrote in message m... Is there a lower limit to pixel size, i.e. could pixel size in a CCD go to 1 micrometer and below (if we disregard noise issues for a moment) ? -- Of course 1 micron is possible, but noise is the key point. It is also worth mentioning that lens resolution would also need to be very good, which would cost more. The limit must be somewhere of the same order as the limit for computer chips (since the same manufacturing techniques are used). IIRC, these are now using 90nm (0.09 microns) technology. This involves using far-UV light and extremely sophisticated process lenses. However, to take this as a practical proposition overlooks the fact that there is a hard limit to how much a lens can resolve: diffraction. This means that any lens, even a perfect one, will produce not a single point image (of a single point object) but a slightly blurred spot. The size of this spot depends on the relative aperture of the lens (the f-number). Any attempt to resolve below this point will just make the fuzzy dots bigger. When do we reach this point? Well, figures I saw a couple of weeks ago suggest we are there about now. I can't remember where I saw them, it may have been here. However, a quick back-of-the-envelope calculation suggests that for a lens at f/2 the theoretical limit for resolving detail is about 750 lp/mm. Ignoring all the sophisticated aspects of MTF, sampling theory, Nyquist limits and the like, this implies at most 1500 pixels/mm, i.e. 670nm per pixel. Taking the complex sampling issues into account, this is going to come out to 1 micron (1000 nm) or worse. And that is at f/2 - at f/4 it will be 2 microns, at f/8 it will be 4 and so on. If someone can refer us to the more sophisticated table I saw that would of course be in all probability worked out on a more sophisticated basis, but the above should be "in the ball park". The solution? Just as for film: bigger sensor pixels, bigger sensors. It *will* happen, but only when commercial pressure makes it so. You can assume that the camera companies trade off the cost of the lens verses the cost of the sensor. I would imagine relatively small sensors give the lowest total cost for both. The high end cameras have lower noise because of larger pixels. This costs more for the system. Whilst true, this is not what was asked. -- David Littlewood |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Minimum pixel size
"dj_nme" wrote in message
Alfred Molon wrote: Is there a lower limit to pixel size, i.e. could pixel size in a CCD go to 1 micrometer and below (if we disregard noise issues for a moment) ? My first guess would be that the absolute lower limit would be the wavelength of near infra-red (around 3 microns). Any smaller and you truly run the risk of not being able to capture some of the visible spectrum. Doesn't infra-red start at about 0.8 microns? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
max print size with 6.3 MPixel camera ?? | Beowulf | Digital Photography | 35 | July 31st 04 06:25 AM |
how big is a pixel? | geepeetee | Digital Photography | 61 | July 5th 04 01:13 AM |
Anyone kindly let me have pixel to size calculations ? | UKitnewsfroupie²ºº¾ | Digital Photography | 6 | June 30th 04 10:57 PM |
Largest B&W Neg Film Size Available? | Nelson Win | Large Format Photography Equipment | 4 | May 30th 04 05:19 AM |