'Quantum Dots' for phone cameras

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8580372.stm

Lotto wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8580372.stm

Yeah, too much marketing BS to make me happy. Note that they're only
producing _small_ sensors initially and have no sample images as yet.
I wonder if the advantages of the technology make it suitable only
for small sensors used in phones.

--
Ray Fischer

In article , Ray Fischer
wrote:

Yeah, too much marketing BS to make me happy. Note that they're only
producing _small_ sensors initially and have no sample images as yet.
I wonder if the advantages of the technology make it suitable only
for small sensors used in phones.

Hype to get investors. Seen that before...

--
Charles

On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 06:08:21 -0400, Charles wrote:

Yeah, too much marketing BS to make me happy. Note that they're only
producing _small_ sensors initially and have no sample images as yet. I
wonder if the advantages of the technology make it suitable only for
small sensors used in phones.

Hype to get investors. Seen that before...

No. It's because small sensors benefit the most from better light-
gathering technology, and because small sensors are easier to produce (at
a lower failure rate), especially when using a new production process.

So starting with small sensors is nothing but common sense.
There' no hype involved.

--
Regards, Robert http://www.arumes.com

On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 07:46:04 -0700 (PDT), rjn wrote:

Charles wrote:

Hype to get investors. Seen that before...

Could be, and just last year.
"Quantum Dots!
It's the new Black Silicon."

The sionyx.com web site has seen remarkably
little activity since the flurry of press babble in 2009.

It would be nice to see some breakthroughs on photonic
conversion, both for imaging and for power. Alas, crooks
know this, so it can be hard to distinguish between
authentic innovations and venture capital scams. We
also can't rule out self-deluded geeks who misread the data.

Then there's the risk of various moneyed parties
buying up the IP so they can either protect their current
products, or just bury the new thing in the sand.

There's a good example of this that I followed, an article first published
in an early-mid '80's OMNI magazine. The Australian inventor came up with a
way to make photovoltaic shingles for houses for less than $1 per sq. foot.
I waited a year or two to see what would come of that. Then years later I
remembered that article, when the net began to reach deeply into
documentation and reference resources in the mid 90's. I decided to see if
I could find and follow the trail from that article to what happened to the
patent. The final word was that the patent was bought up in the late 80's
by a relative of the owner of one of the main oil companies in the USA. The
trail ended there.

On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 06:11:43 -0700, DanP wrote:

No. It's because small sensors benefit the most from better light-
gathering technology, and because small sensors are easier to produce
(at a lower failure rate), especially when using a new production
process.

So starting with small sensors is nothing but common sense. There' no
hype involved.

And smaller sensors are the worst (biggest room for improvement).

That's (part of) what I said: small sensors benefit the most from this
technology. Even if a high-quality sensor is used (a frame transfer
design, for example), a sensor of that size is limited by the small
diameter of the lens. Even an F/1.0 lens in front of a typical phone
camera has a very small aperture to capture light.

For example, the Sony-Ericsson K800i has a 5.1mm f/2.8 lens. I don't have
any reliable information about the sensor size, but let's say the lens is
comparable to 35mm on a 36x24mm sensor camera. F/2.8 may sound reasonable,
but the actual diameter of the lens opening is only 5.1/2.8=1.8mm, which
is comparable to _F/19_ on a real 35mm lens.

--
Regards, Robert http://www.arumes.com

On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 16:57:04 +0100, Robert Spanjaard
wrote:

On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 06:11:43 -0700, DanP wrote:

No. It's because small sensors benefit the most from better light-
gathering technology, and because small sensors are easier to produce
(at a lower failure rate), especially when using a new production
process.

So starting with small sensors is nothing but common sense. There' no
hype involved.

And smaller sensors are the worst (biggest room for improvement).

That's (part of) what I said: small sensors benefit the most from this
technology. Even if a high-quality sensor is used (a frame transfer
design, for example), a sensor of that size is limited by the small
diameter of the lens. Even an F/1.0 lens in front of a typical phone
camera has a very small aperture to capture light.

For example, the Sony-Ericsson K800i has a 5.1mm f/2.8 lens. I don't have
any reliable information about the sensor size, but let's say the lens is
comparable to 35mm on a 36x24mm sensor camera. F/2.8 may sound reasonable,
but the actual diameter of the lens opening is only 5.1/2.8=1.8mm, which
is comparable to _F/19_ on a real 35mm lens.

Since the light has to cover so much less sensor area, you're now just
grasping at straws to justify why you waste so much money on your camera
gear.

On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 11:31:22 -0500, GGBrowne wrote:

For example, the Sony-Ericsson K800i has a 5.1mm f/2.8 lens. I don't
have any reliable information about the sensor size, but let's say the
lens is comparable to 35mm on a 36x24mm sensor camera. F/2.8 may sound
reasonable, but the actual diameter of the lens opening is only
5.1/2.8=1.8mm, which is comparable to _F/19_ on a real 35mm lens.

Since the light has to cover so much less sensor area,

That doesn't improve its light gathering ability at all.
Then again, I didn't expect you to know anything about basic science.

--
Regards, Robert http://www.arumes.com

On 23/03/10 12:37 AM, Ray Fischer wrote:
wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8580372.stm

Yeah, too much marketing BS to make me happy. Note that they're only
producing _small_ sensors initially and have no sample images as yet.
I wonder if the advantages of the technology make it suitable only
for small sensors used in phones.

I heard that another company has sensors that have three layers, and use
silicon color separation. Combine this with quantum dots and put it all
inside a Sigma camera and you'd have something unbelievable!

On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 09:57:15 -0700, SMS wrote:

On 23/03/10 12:37 AM, Ray Fischer wrote:
wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8580372.stm

Yeah, too much marketing BS to make me happy. Note that they're only
producing _small_ sensors initially and have no sample images as yet.
I wonder if the advantages of the technology make it suitable only
for small sensors used in phones.

I heard that another company has sensors that have three layers, and use
silicon color separation. Combine this with quantum dots and put it all
inside a Sigma camera and you'd have something unbelievable!

You mean like these psychotic troll's delusions of yours?

http://www.wifi-forum.com/wf/showpost.php?p=448381&postcount=101