A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Minimum pixel size



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old July 31st 04, 05:59 AM
Alfred Molon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old July 31st 04, 07:21 AM
Joseph Schutz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old July 31st 04, 07:21 AM
Joseph Schutz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old July 31st 04, 07:35 AM
dj_nme
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old July 31st 04, 07:35 AM
dj_nme
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old July 31st 04, 10:36 AM
David Littlewood
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old July 31st 04, 10:36 AM
David Littlewood
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old July 31st 04, 10:36 AM
David Littlewood
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old July 31st 04, 10:36 AM
David Littlewood
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old July 31st 04, 11:26 AM
scott
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:43 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.