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

Sony mass-produces back-illuminated image sensors



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old June 14th 08, 09:34 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Alfred Molon[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,591
Default Sony mass-produces back-illuminated image sensors

http://www.imaging-resource.com/NEWS/1213308645.html

For the moment only small sensors, but it should not be a problem to
also make larger sensors. For your information, back-illuminated sensors
are about three times as sensitive as standard front-illuminated
sensors.

I'd guess we can expect a new crop DSLRs with a base ISO of 600 and
extending comfortably up to ISO 5000 or 10000 (i.e. 1600 x 3 and 3200 x
3).
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0 and E3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
  #2  
Old June 14th 08, 01:01 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
frederick
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,525
Default Sony mass-produces back-illuminated image sensors

Alfred Molon wrote:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/NEWS/1213308645.html

For the moment only small sensors, but it should not be a problem to
also make larger sensors. For your information, back-illuminated sensors
are about three times as sensitive as standard front-illuminated
sensors.

I'd guess we can expect a new crop DSLRs with a base ISO of 600 and
extending comfortably up to ISO 5000 or 10000 (i.e. 1600 x 3 and 3200 x
3).


I'd expect that it's probably currently intended for very small sensors
with very high pixel density - efficiency gains would probably be much
less as photosite size increases.
They mention a 1.7um square pixel size. At 6mp, that extrapolates to a
sensor about 40 x 26mm, a "1/3.6" perhaps.
For comparison, current dslrs have sensels roughly in the range of 25-70
um square, so it might be premature to assume that efficiency gains to
the extent you suggest may be possible.
  #3  
Old June 14th 08, 02:23 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
ASAAR
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,057
Default Sony mass-produces back-illuminated image sensors

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).

  #4  
Old June 14th 08, 02:31 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
frederick
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,525
Default Sony mass-produces back-illuminated image sensors

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.
  #5  
Old June 14th 08, 04:37 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Paul Furman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,367
Default Sony mass-produces back-illuminated image sensors

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.

--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam
  #6  
Old June 14th 08, 05:19 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Kevin McMurtrie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 247
Default Sony mass-produces back-illuminated image sensors

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.

--
I will not see your reply if you use Google.
  #7  
Old June 14th 08, 09:55 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Alfred Molon[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,591
Default Sony mass-produces back-illuminated image sensors

In article 1213444424.544337@ftpsrv1, frederick says...

I'd expect that it's probably currently intended for very small sensors
with very high pixel density - efficiency gains would probably be much
less as photosite size increases.


Why would you think so, or do you have any data about spectral
efficiencies of DSLR sensors?
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0 and E3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
  #8  
Old June 14th 08, 10:50 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Paul Furman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,367
Default Sony mass-produces back-illuminated image sensors

Alfred Molon wrote:
In article 1213444424.544337@ftpsrv1, frederick says...

I'd expect that it's probably currently intended for very small sensors
with very high pixel density - efficiency gains would probably be much
less as photosite size increases.


Why would you think so, or do you have any data about spectral
efficiencies of DSLR sensors?


From the diagrams, it looks like they are combating components getting
in the way on very tightly packed pixels. That's just my non-expert
guess, maybe way off.

--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam
  #9  
Old June 14th 08, 10:56 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
frederick
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,525
Default Sony mass-produces back-illuminated image sensors

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.
Reason for that is that press releases are written by people in
marketing departments.
  #10  
Old June 15th 08, 02:03 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Paul Furman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,367
Default Sony mass-produces back-illuminated image sensors

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.


Reason for that is that press releases are written by people in
marketing departments.


Or targeted to commercial cell phone designers.

--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam
 




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
Pixel per pixel, which DSLR produces the best image? RichA Digital SLR Cameras 11 March 8th 07 06:13 AM
lens vs. image sensors in digital photgraphy [email protected] Digital Photography 219 December 24th 06 12:42 PM
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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:58 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.