Velocity Reviews

Velocity Reviews (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/index.php)
-   Digital Photography (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/f37-digital-photography.html)
-   -   Re: Sony mass-produces back-illuminated image sensors (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/t620207-re-sony-mass-produces-back-illuminated-image-sensors.html)

ASAAR 06-14-2008 01:23 PM

Re: 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).


Paul Furman 06-14-2008 03:37 PM

Re: 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

Paul Furman 06-15-2008 01:03 AM

Re: 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

Paul Furman 06-15-2008 04:15 PM

Re: Sony mass-produces back-illuminated image sensors
 
frederick wrote:
> Paul Furman wrote:
>> 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.
>>

> Yeah - somehow I was thinking 6mp, I wrote 6mp above, but the article
> does indeed say 5mp.
>>
>>> Reason for that is that press releases are written by people in
>>> marketing departments.

>>
>> Or targeted to commercial cell phone designers.
>>

> Even a sensor that size would be huge for a cellphone camera wouldn't it?


I think it's a bit on the small side, or maybe average.

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

all google groups messages filtered due to spam


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:59 PM.

Powered by vBulletin®. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO ©2010, Crawlability, Inc.