Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > CCD Imager

Reply
Thread Tools

CCD Imager

 
 
swnw
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-20-2003
Hi,

Why CCD Imagers are usually smaller than 24 x 36 area?

swnw


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Bart van der Wolf
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-20-2003

"swnw" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:bkhg24$13r7$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Hi,
>
> Why CCD Imagers are usually smaller than 24 x 36 area?


1. Cost. They can sell multiple CCDs for the same fixed setup cost.
2. Compactness. They can be used in smaller camera housings, and with
smaller lenses.

Bart


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Alfred Molon
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-20-2003
In article <bkhg24$13r7$(E-Mail Removed)>, http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) says...
> Hi,
>
> Why CCD Imagers are usually smaller than 24 x 36 area?


Because 24x36 mm ones are too expensive to make. Would you want to pay
5000 Euro for a camera ?
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Olympus4040_5050/
Olympus 4040 resource - http://www.molon.de/4040.html
Olympus 5050 resource - http://www.molon.de/5050.html
 
Reply With Quote
 
swnw
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-20-2003
Thanks, swnw.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Eric Gisin
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-20-2003
Because that is a huge amount of silicon, more than any microprocessor. You
get very low yields fabricating such big chips, and very high prices.

"swnw" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:bkhg24$13r7$(E-Mail Removed)...
|
| Why CCD Imagers are usually smaller than 24 x 36 area?


 
Reply With Quote
 
Dave Martindale
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-21-2003
"swnw" <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

>Why CCD Imagers are usually smaller than 24 x 36 area?


Because of the way the cost of a chip scales with its size.

Many good consumer cameras use a chip that is about 1/5 the dimensions
of the 35 mm frame, about 5 x 7 mm. This is 1/25 the area of a
full-frame chip.

If you had a manufacturing process that turned out 100% usable chips,
using a square sheet of silicon, you would get 25 times as many of the
small chips as you would of the full-frame chips, given the same amount
of raw materials. So the large chip has to cost at least 25 times as
much as the cost of the small ones.

In addition, the raw wafer is actually round, and you can pack small
CCDs closer to the edges of the wafer than for the larger ones, so the
factor is slightly larger than 25:1.

But the think that really makes it more expensive is called "yield".
Chip manufacturing isn't perfect, and every wafer has some flaws in it
that are large enough to make the chip containing the flaw into junk.
Now, suppose that the flaws are relatively few, and that when making
the smaller CCDs 99% of them are good, and only 1% of them are bad.
In other words, there is a 99% chance of no "fatal" flaws in any one
CCD. When you make the larger full-frame CCDs, the odds of having no
fatal flaws in an area 25 times as large is (roughly) 0.99^25 = 0.78.
So 78% of the larger CCDs are good, and 22% of them are junk. The
smaller proportion of good large chips means that the good ones have to
cost more by a factor of 1/0.78 just to pay for the raw materials.

As the rate of flaws goes up, it messes up the economics of the large
chips much faster than the smaller ones. A 2% defect rate with the
small-area chips means that 98% are good. With the larger CCDs, only
0.98^25 = 0.60 or 60% work. If 97% of the small chips work (3%
defects), only 47% of the large ones do. If 95% of the small chips
work, only 28% of the large ones do. And if 90% of the small chips
work, only 7.2% of the large ones work. If 80% of the small chips work,
only 0.4% of the large ones work - essentially none at all.

So, in the case where 90% of the small chips work, the large chips have
to cost 25 times more because of area, and 90/7.2 = 12.5 times as much
because of the difference in defect rate. So the *manufacturer's cost*
for the large chip is 312 times the cost of the small one, not 25
times.

And then there are economies of production scale that make the
difference larger yet.

Apparently semiconductor fab houses will not tell you what their defect
rate is - whether it's 1% or 5% or 10%. But the way the mathematics
works, you can pretty much guarantee that the cost of a large chip goes
up much faster than the relative area of the chip.

Dave
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
there are 3-imager video cameras, are there 3-imager still cameras? Bob Fleischer Digital Photography 14 02-07-2010 08:49 PM
95MP imager to be launched into space...... David J Taylor Digital Photography 10 02-23-2009 07:07 AM
Raw Imager Andrew Python 0 02-19-2007 05:54 PM
CMOS imager references? Don Stauffer Digital Photography 2 03-13-2006 04:38 PM
Tech Ques: About 1-ccd, 3-ccd, sensor filters, etc Miguel Gonzalez Digital Photography 5 06-06-2004 05:20 AM



Advertisments