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 |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
In article . com,
says... The size of the capacitor is a volume problem. The area of the pixel fixes two of the dimensions, the ability to create deep diffusions fixes the other dimension. If one tries to make a really deep capacitor, one runs into the problem that one cell might short out to its neighbor. Not sure if I understand this. With DRAM we are at the point where they make vertical capacitors, because if they made a simple horizontal capacitor, this would not be able to store enough charge. Why can't they make vertical capacitors also for CCDs ? -- Alfred Molon ------------------------------ Olympus 4040, 5050, 5060, 7070, 8080, E300 forum at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/ Olympus 8080 resource - http://myolympus.org/8080/ |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Alfred Molon wrote:
In article , David J Taylor says... There are limits to the capacitor area directly related to the pixel size. If you could capture more photo-electrons in the well, you would get an improved signal-to-noise ratio, but needing more photon would result in a decreased sensitivity. We already see sensitivities down to ISO 50 in some 8MP cameras - do we want lower? Well no, sensitivity is not decreased, because you don't need more electrons. With a larger well you essentially have more dynamic range (it takes longer before each pixel saturates). With a constant pixel area and lens f/number, the photon flux is constant. To get the improved SNR, you need to collect more photons, therefore you need to expose for a longer time. I.e. to take advantage of a bigger well, and get a better SNR, you need to reduce sensitivity. Simply getting a larger dynamic range may only help you capture specular highlights better. Cheers, David |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Alfred Molon wrote:
In article , David J Taylor says... There are limits to the capacitor area directly related to the pixel size. If you could capture more photo-electrons in the well, you would get an improved signal-to-noise ratio, but needing more photon would result in a decreased sensitivity. We already see sensitivities down to ISO 50 in some 8MP cameras - do we want lower? Well no, sensitivity is not decreased, because you don't need more electrons. With a larger well you essentially have more dynamic range (it takes longer before each pixel saturates). With a constant pixel area and lens f/number, the photon flux is constant. To get the improved SNR, you need to collect more photons, therefore you need to expose for a longer time. I.e. to take advantage of a bigger well, and get a better SNR, you need to reduce sensitivity. Simply getting a larger dynamic range may only help you capture specular highlights better. Cheers, David |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
"Mr.Adams" wrote in message m... Hello Ng, My questions regards the dynamic range of digital image sensors (CCDs and CMOS). I understand that this is mostly limited by the size of the capacitor / well that holds the electrons and the amount of electronic noise produced by the sensor. But if the capacitor size is a limiting factor, why donīt the manufacturers use larger ones ? Is there a special relationship between the size of the capacitor and the size of of each pixel that keeps them from doing so ? They do in fact make sensors with larger sensels (each individual sensor element), and they do deliver better signal/noise ratios. But there are some drawbacks: The overall sensor size equals sensel size*megapixels, so in the push to get more megapixels, either the overall sensor size must be larger, or the individual sensel size must be smaller. Larger sensor size = larger lens=bigger heavier camera=(generally) less market appeal. Just like all integrated circuits, the larger the sensor, the lower the yield of acceptibly good chips, hence manufacturing costs climb significantly. Larger sensels require more light to saturate them, hence they have a lower native ISO equivalence. So while a sensor made with larger sensels may deliver exceptional SN ratio, it might be at it's best at ISO 25 equivalence. Once amplification has been applied to deliver ISO 100 or higher equivalence, the SN ratio will have dropped, and may not be significantly better than a smaller sensel that has a native ISO 100 equivalence. Thus, the actual sensor chips used are at a size where the manufacturer feels they have the best trade-off between SN ratio on the one hand vs cost and overall size on the other hand. Thanks for your input! Mr.Adams |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
"Mr.Adams" wrote in message m... Hello Ng, My questions regards the dynamic range of digital image sensors (CCDs and CMOS). I understand that this is mostly limited by the size of the capacitor / well that holds the electrons and the amount of electronic noise produced by the sensor. But if the capacitor size is a limiting factor, why donīt the manufacturers use larger ones ? Is there a special relationship between the size of the capacitor and the size of of each pixel that keeps them from doing so ? They do in fact make sensors with larger sensels (each individual sensor element), and they do deliver better signal/noise ratios. But there are some drawbacks: The overall sensor size equals sensel size*megapixels, so in the push to get more megapixels, either the overall sensor size must be larger, or the individual sensel size must be smaller. Larger sensor size = larger lens=bigger heavier camera=(generally) less market appeal. Just like all integrated circuits, the larger the sensor, the lower the yield of acceptibly good chips, hence manufacturing costs climb significantly. Larger sensels require more light to saturate them, hence they have a lower native ISO equivalence. So while a sensor made with larger sensels may deliver exceptional SN ratio, it might be at it's best at ISO 25 equivalence. Once amplification has been applied to deliver ISO 100 or higher equivalence, the SN ratio will have dropped, and may not be significantly better than a smaller sensel that has a native ISO 100 equivalence. Thus, the actual sensor chips used are at a size where the manufacturer feels they have the best trade-off between SN ratio on the one hand vs cost and overall size on the other hand. Thanks for your input! Mr.Adams |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
"Not sure if I understand this. With DRAM we are at the point where
they make vertical capacitors, because if they made a simple horizontal capacitor, this would not be able to store enough charge. Why can't they make vertical capacitors also for CCDs ? " Verticle electron storage blocks the incomming light! This would not be an issue with back illuminated sensors. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
"Not sure if I understand this. With DRAM we are at the point where
they make vertical capacitors, because if they made a simple horizontal capacitor, this would not be able to store enough charge. Why can't they make vertical capacitors also for CCDs ? " Verticle electron storage blocks the incomming light! This would not be an issue with back illuminated sensors. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
"Not sure if I understand this. With DRAM we are at the point where
they make vertical capacitors, because if they made a simple horizontal capacitor, this would not be able to store enough charge. Why can't they make vertical capacitors also for CCDs ? " Verticle electron storage blocks the incomming light! This would not be an issue with back illuminated sensors. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
In article .com,
says... Verticle electron storage blocks the incomming light! This would not be an issue with back illuminated sensors. Then let's make a vertical storage back-illuminated CCD - more sensitivity and dynamic range! -- Alfred Molon ------------------------------ Olympus 4040, 5050, 5060, 7070, 8080, E300 forum at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/ Olympus 8080 resource - http://myolympus.org/8080/ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
How to Buy a Digital Camera | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 0 | January 18th 05 03:39 PM |
digital vs 35mm - status now | Robert Feinman | 35mm Photo Equipment | 83 | December 3rd 04 09:31 AM |
Dynamic range of digital and film: new data | Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) | Digital Photography | 51 | November 14th 04 06:09 AM |
Dynamic range of digital and film: more data | Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) | Digital Photography | 0 | November 12th 04 12:45 AM |
Thumbnail Software? | Dave | Digital Photography | 40 | September 23rd 04 06:28 AM |