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
|
|||
|
|||
Canon's 250mp 1.3 crop sensor. Why not today?
Whisky-dave wrote:
RichA wrote: Why is it these things get confined to ultra-expensive scientific cameras? Because they're super-expensive to make. They can obviously make them just like other sensors, so perhaps 9/10 of them are too flawed to sell? I recon the cost of prodicing such a thing is probbaly what ensures that it won't be in commercail cameras. It comes down to cost from statistics. With a 250MP field, if one is satisfied with only 99.99% of the sensor locations being good, that means that you still still have 25,000 bad pixels. Up the bar to 99.999 9% and you're now down to "only" 250 bad pixels per unit. Now contemplate the manufacturing process to etch/wash/plate/etc a wafer through all of its steps to get from raw material to finished product; In a nutshell, its safe to say that there's going to be at least 40 steps. Normalized, to make material that's 99.999 9%, you need each step to perform at 99.999 997 5% (or better). Since that's not possible, you're IMO easily looking at a scrap rate of over 4000:1 (on a good day) and probably over $20,000* in scrap ... per unit built. * - this is just the raw material costs and doesn't include any fab processing costs .. probably safe to triple this number. -hh |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Canon's 250mp 1.3 crop sensor. Why not today?
In article , -hh
says... It comes down to cost from statistics. With a 250MP field, if one is satisfied with only 99.99% of the sensor locations being good, that means that you still still have 25,000 bad pixels. Up the bar to 99.999 9% and you're now down to "only" 250 bad pixels per unit. Now contemplate the manufacturing process to etch/wash/plate/etc a wafer through all of its steps to get from raw material to finished product; In a nutshell, its safe to say that there's going to be at least 40 steps. Normalized, to make material that's 99.999 9%, you need each step to perform at 99.999 997 5% (or better). Since that's not possible, you're IMO easily looking at a scrap rate of over 4000:1 (on a good day) and probably over $20,000* in scrap ... per unit built. * - this is just the raw material costs and doesn't include any fab processing costs .. probably safe to triple this number. 99.99% good pixels or even just 99.9% good pixels (1 bad pixel in 1000 good pixels) could suffice, as long as all bad pixels are not all in one place. Bad pixels can be easily mapped out. They make DRAM with billions of memory cells at very low manufacturing prices, so it shouldn't be that difficult to make an image sensor with 250 million pixels. -- Alfred Molon Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/ http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Canon's 250mp 1.3 crop sensor. Why not today?
Alfred Molon wrote:
-hh says... It comes down to cost from statistics. With a 250MP field, if one is satisfied with only 99.99% of the sensor locations being good, that means that you still still have 25,000 bad pixels. Up the bar to 99.999 9% and you're now down to "only" 250 bad pixels per unit... 99.99% good pixels or even just 99.9% good pixels (1 bad pixel in 1000 good pixels) could suffice, as long as all bad pixels are not all in one place. Bad pixels can be easily mapped out. True, they could be, although the key assumption here is the assumption that there's no clustering. Given that flaws in the substrate material will cause clustering, that assumption is problematic. They make DRAM with billions of memory cells at very low manufacturing prices, so it shouldn't be that difficult to make an image sensor with 250 million pixels. True, but DRAM doesn't utilize one huge chunk of homogenous material to scale up. As such, it can bin out the bad ones (and localized remapping to pre-emplaced onboard spares). FWIW, an alternative to having one big chunk of material would be to use a a bunch of smaller ones ... which in the context of an optical sensor would then mean that an already spatially combined signal needs to be broken into discrete sub-pieces to then redirect to each sub-sensor assembly. Can be done (brute force engineering), although it gets messy quite quickly. -hh |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Canon's 250mp 1.3 crop sensor. Why not today?
In article , -hh
says... True, they could be, although the key assumption here is the assumption that there's no clustering. Given that flaws in the substrate material will cause clustering, that assumption is problematic. On what do you base your assumption that all defects are in one small location? True, but DRAM doesn't utilize one huge chunk of homogenous material to scale up. What does that mean? As such, it can bin out the bad ones (and localized remapping to pre-emplaced onboard spares). ??? Please explain what you mean. -- Alfred Molon Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/ http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Canon's 250mp 1.3 crop sensor. Why not today?
Alfred Molon wrote:
-hh says... True, they could be, although the key assumption here is the assumption that there's no clustering. Given that flaws in the substrate material will cause clustering, that assumption is problematic. On what do you base your assumption that all defects are in one small location? There's a general correlation between circuit defects and material flaws, and the latter are known to be discrete. As such, defects are more likely to cluster around flaws. The general challenge with larger structures is that as the size of the chip grows, the likelihood of the substrate having a flaw increases too...and thus, the likelihood of a circuit defect. True, but DRAM doesn't utilize one huge chunk of homogenous material to scale up. What does that mean? Simplistically, that a wafer full of DRAM's doesn't need to all be perfect: you fab, test, dice & scrap the bad ones, sending only the good ones forward for assembly into a DIMM. In this context, you care about the yield rates on a wafer level, not the chip level, because you're making & using multiples of them. As such, it can bin out the bad ones (and localized remapping to pre-emplaced onboard spares). ??? Please explain what you mean. Binning is to removed bad chips. Localized remapping is an option on some architectures, where there's a "spare" circuit already onboard which can be employed through mapping out of bad stuff to have the chip still meet its specifications. Remapping only is viable when the spatial location of the circuits in question are not critical, which means that this doesn't apply well to photon receptor wells. -hh |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Canon's 250mp 1.3 crop sensor. Why not today? | PeterN[_6_] | Digital Photography | 5 | September 13th 15 09:04 AM |
Canon's 250mp 1.3 crop sensor. Why not today? | nospam | Digital Photography | 1 | September 11th 15 07:58 AM |
Canon's 250mp 1.3 crop sensor. Why not today? | Me | Digital Photography | 0 | September 10th 15 12:49 AM |
Canon's 250mp 1.3 crop sensor. Why not today? | Savageduck[_3_] | Digital Photography | 0 | September 9th 15 05:34 AM |
Canon 40D... on a 1.3x crop sensor? | [email protected] | Digital SLR Cameras | 4 | September 9th 06 11:33 AM |