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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Sony mass-produces back-illuminated image sensors
Kevin McMurtrie wrote:
In article , Alfred Molon wrote: http://www.imaging-resource.com/NEWS/1213308645.html This is the key sentence: "The newly developed CMOS image sensor achieves a signal-to-noise ratio of +8dB(+6dB sensitivity, -2dB noise) in comparison to existing Sony CMOS image sensors of the same pixel size." This is good news for cell phones and cheap cameras but, if ever applied, won't have such an impressive impact on large sensors. Why do you say that? Isn't the quantum efficiency improvement in going from front- to back-illumination enough to produce a substantial sensitivity gain? David |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Sony mass-produces back-illuminated image sensors
David J Taylor wrote:
Kevin McMurtrie wrote: In article , Alfred Molon wrote: http://www.imaging-resource.com/NEWS/1213308645.html This is the key sentence: "The newly developed CMOS image sensor achieves a signal-to-noise ratio of +8dB(+6dB sensitivity, -2dB noise) in comparison to existing Sony CMOS image sensors of the same pixel size." This is good news for cell phones and cheap cameras but, if ever applied, won't have such an impressive impact on large sensors. Why do you say that? Isn't the quantum efficiency improvement in going from front- to back-illumination enough to produce a substantial sensitivity gain? Why would it be? No, I don't take their marketing BS as fact. -- Ray Fischer |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Sony mass-produces back-illuminated image sensors
Ray Fischer wrote:
David J Taylor [] Why do you say that? Isn't the quantum efficiency improvement in going from front- to back-illumination enough to produce a substantial sensitivity gain? Why would it be? No, I don't take their marketing BS as fact. As I understand it, the QE difference is a factor of two or three. David |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Sony mass-produces back-illuminated image sensors
Paul Furman wrote:
frederick wrote: Paul Furman wrote: frederick wrote: ASAAR wrote: On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 00:01:21 +1200, frederick wrote: They mention a 1.7um square pixel size. At 6mp, that extrapolates to a sensor about 40 x 26mm, a "1/3.6" perhaps. Typo? A 1/3.6" sensor's dimensions are about 3mm x 4mm. Your 40mm x 26mm sensor would be slightly larger than Full Frame (FX). Yes - please call it a typo. It sounds better than dumb error ;-0. It is 5mp, not 6mp so 2592 x 1944 * 1.7 = 4.4 x 3.3 Unsure of working with microns, I checked: http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta...l.size.matter/ "small sensor, 2.3 micron pixel pitch, Canon S70 point and shoot consumer camera is compared to that from a large sensor, 8.2 micron pixel pitch, Canon 1D Mark II DSLR" So 1.7 microns is a very small pixel. I took 1.7um square as meaning 1.7 square um. Ah! but still... The square root of 1.7 is an even smaller 1.3 so a 3.4mm x 2.5mm sensor. Yeah - somehow I was thinking 6mp, I wrote 6mp above, but the article does indeed say 5mp. Reason for that is that press releases are written by people in marketing departments. Or targeted to commercial cell phone designers. Even a sensor that size would be huge for a cellphone camera wouldn't it? |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Sony mass-produces back-illuminated image sensors
David J Taylor wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote: David J Taylor [] Why do you say that? Isn't the quantum efficiency improvement in going from front- to back-illumination enough to produce a substantial sensitivity gain? Why would it be? No, I don't take their marketing BS as fact. As I understand it, the QE difference is a factor of two or three. David % of photosite surface obscured by wires / transistors would be proportionately much less for larger sensels. That's not to say there mightn't be some benefit. But photosite size might not be a good indicator or efficiency in any case. Doesn't seem to correlate with dslr sensor performance. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Sony mass-produces back-illuminated image sensors
frederick wrote:
David J Taylor wrote: Ray Fischer wrote: David J Taylor [] Why do you say that? Isn't the quantum efficiency improvement in going from front- to back-illumination enough to produce a substantial sensitivity gain? Why would it be? No, I don't take their marketing BS as fact. As I understand it, the QE difference is a factor of two or three. David % of photosite surface obscured by wires / transistors would be proportionately much less for larger sensels. That's not to say there mightn't be some benefit. But photosite size might not be a good indicator or efficiency in any case. Doesn't seem to correlate with dslr sensor performance. Thanks, Frederick. I take your point. It will be interesting to see how it pans out, and whether their technique is applicable to DSLRs. Cheers, David |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Sony mass-produces back-illuminated image sensors
frederick wrote:
Paul Furman wrote: frederick wrote: Paul Furman wrote: frederick wrote: ASAAR wrote: On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 00:01:21 +1200, frederick wrote: They mention a 1.7um square pixel size. At 6mp, that extrapolates to a sensor about 40 x 26mm, a "1/3.6" perhaps. Typo? A 1/3.6" sensor's dimensions are about 3mm x 4mm. Your 40mm x 26mm sensor would be slightly larger than Full Frame (FX). Yes - please call it a typo. It sounds better than dumb error ;-0. It is 5mp, not 6mp so 2592 x 1944 * 1.7 = 4.4 x 3.3 Unsure of working with microns, I checked: http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta...l.size.matter/ "small sensor, 2.3 micron pixel pitch, Canon S70 point and shoot consumer camera is compared to that from a large sensor, 8.2 micron pixel pitch, Canon 1D Mark II DSLR" So 1.7 microns is a very small pixel. I took 1.7um square as meaning 1.7 square um. Ah! but still... The square root of 1.7 is an even smaller 1.3 so a 3.4mm x 2.5mm sensor. Yeah - somehow I was thinking 6mp, I wrote 6mp above, but the article does indeed say 5mp. Reason for that is that press releases are written by people in marketing departments. Or targeted to commercial cell phone designers. Even a sensor that size would be huge for a cellphone camera wouldn't it? I think it's a bit on the small side, or maybe average. -- Paul Furman www.edgehill.net www.baynatives.com all google groups messages filtered due to spam |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Sony mass-produces back-illuminated image sensors
In article ,
"David J Taylor" wrote: Kevin McMurtrie wrote: In article , Alfred Molon wrote: http://www.imaging-resource.com/NEWS/1213308645.html This is the key sentence: "The newly developed CMOS image sensor achieves a signal-to-noise ratio of +8dB(+6dB sensitivity, -2dB noise) in comparison to existing Sony CMOS image sensors of the same pixel size." This is good news for cell phones and cheap cameras but, if ever applied, won't have such an impressive impact on large sensors. Why do you say that? Isn't the quantum efficiency improvement in going from front- to back-illumination enough to produce a substantial sensitivity gain? David The wires block proportionately less light as the sensors get larger. The meaning of this improvement has to take into account how terrible Sony's small sensors are. -- I will not see your reply if you use Google. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Pixel per pixel, which DSLR produces the best image? | RichA | Digital SLR Cameras | 11 | March 8th 07 05:13 AM |
lens vs. image sensors in digital photgraphy | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 219 | December 24th 06 11:42 AM |
Vertical capacitors for image sensors | Alfred Molon | Digital Photography | 18 | June 8th 06 03:13 PM |
CNN - Bad image sensors by Sony to be replaced ?? | Joey | Digital Photography | 2 | October 29th 05 01:03 PM |
dynamic range of digital image sensors | Mr.Adams | Digital Photography | 0 | April 5th 05 11:23 AM |