«

Alfred Molon wrote:
> Seems to be old news, but I can't remember having seen this posted here:
>
> http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/News/Pr...69E/index.html
>
> "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. Sony will apply this back-
> illuminated CMOS technology in consumer digital video camcorders and
> digital still cameras to deliver an even higher quality image
> experience."
>
> Pixel pitch 1.75 µ, 5MP
>
> In any case, this technology has no reached the consumer sector.


Something seems not quite right. 8db is not a great SNR in my book.

On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 09:04:28 -0500, Don Stauffer
<> wrote:

>Alfred Molon wrote:
>> Seems to be old news, but I can't remember having seen this posted here:
>>
>> http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/News/Pr...69E/index.html
>>
>> "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. Sony will apply this back-
>> illuminated CMOS technology in consumer digital video camcorders and
>> digital still cameras to deliver an even higher quality image
>> experience."
>>
>> Pixel pitch 1.75 µ, 5MP
>>
>> In any case, this technology has no reached the consumer sector.
>
>
>Something seems not quite right. 8db is not a great SNR in my book.

Sounds like it's saying that it's 8db *better* than existing Sony CMOS
sensors of the same pixel size. 8db *better* SNR is huge in the world
of signal processing.

Steve

Don Stauffer wrote:
> Alfred Molon wrote:
>> Seems to be old news, but I can't remember having seen this posted here:
>>
>> http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/News/Pr...69E/index.html
>>
>> "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. Sony will apply this
>> back-
>> illuminated CMOS technology in consumer digital video camcorders and
>> digital still cameras to deliver an even higher quality image
>> experience."
>>
>> Pixel pitch 1.75 µ, 5MP
>>
>> In any case, this technology has no reached the consumer sector.
>
>
> Something seems not quite right. 8db is not a great SNR in my book.

You're right, but remember these are small sensors with a small pixel
pitch. A full frame sensor will typically have a SNR of over 35dB, and a
pixel pitch 4-5 times larger. A typical professional video camera will
have an SNR of over 60db.

Maybe 8dB is an improvement in the consumer market.

Alfred Molon wrote:
> In article <Dz16m.15258$>, SMS says...
>
>> Maybe 8dB is an improvement in the consumer market.
>
> An increment of 8dB is an increase by a factor of 2.5. Very significant
> in any sector - both consumer and professional.

That article didn't say "an increment".

Alfred Molon wrote:
> SMS says...
>> Alfred Molon wrote:
>>> SMS says...
>>>
>>>> You're right, but remember these are small sensors with a small pixel pitch. A full frame sensor will typically have a SNR of over 35dB, and a pixel pitch 4-5 times larger. A typical professional video camera will have an SNR of over 60db.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe 8dB is an improvement in the consumer market.
>>>
>>> An increment of 8dB is an increase by a factor of 2.5.

So it was 12dB, now 20dB?

>>> Very significant
>>> in any sector - both consumer and professional.
>>
>> That article didn't say "an increment".
>
> It says "Signal-to-noise ratio improvement of +8dB", i.e. 8dB more = an
> increment of 8 dB.


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

all google groups messages filtered due to spam

wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 09:04:28 -0500, Don Stauffer
> <> wrote:

>>Alfred Molon wrote:
>>> Seems to be old news, but I can't remember having seen this posted here:
>>>
>>> http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/News/Pr...69E/index.html
>>>
>>> "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. Sony will apply this back-
>>> illuminated CMOS technology in consumer digital video camcorders and
>>> digital still cameras to deliver an even higher quality image
>>> experience."
>>>
>>> Pixel pitch 1.75 ?, 5MP
>>>
>>> In any case, this technology has no reached the consumer sector.
>>
>>
>>Something seems not quite right. 8db is not a great SNR in my book.

> It doesn't say that. It says "in comparison"

It says +8db, not 8, and what is more specifies that the +8 is made up
of +6 sensitivity and -2 noise. None of that makes any sense at all
except in terms of comparative differences. Numerical db differentials
are usually how engineers make these comparisons.

--
Chris Malcolm

On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 09:04:28 -0500, Don Stauffer wrote:

>> "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. Sony will apply this back-
>> illuminated CMOS technology in consumer digital video camcorders and
>> digital still cameras to deliver an even higher quality image
>> experience."
>>
>> Pixel pitch 1.75 µ, 5MP
>>
>> In any case, this technology has no reached the consumer sector.
>
>
> Something seems not quite right. 8db is not a great SNR in my book.

I've seen a couple of posts in the DPR forums by those who seem to
be quite knowledgeable claiming that backlighting does work, but
that the larger the pixel size, the less effective it becomes. Have
you heard anything like this?

On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 16:01:00 -0500, Idiots R US wrote:

>> I've seen a couple of posts in the DPR forums by those who seem to
>> be quite knowledgeable claiming that backlighting does work, but
>> that the larger the pixel size, the less effective it becomes. Have
>> you heard anything like this?
>
> Well duh, ASSAR, one only has to see the kindergartner's graphics on that
> page to see why.
>
> Holy **** are you ever an idiot troll. Not even a half-assed one.

Must be, since I didn't explicitly point out that this useful new
sensor design would obviously be more beneficial for your teeny
pixel P&S buddies and less useful for the DSLRs that you loathe. You
seem to be devolving by the hour. Is there anything we can do to
help?


. . .

Speed up the process, that is.

On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 00:45:53 +0200, Alfred Molon wrote:

> The problem with front-illumination is among others the wiring
> obstructing the image sensitive area.
>
> With huge pixels the percentage of pixel area covered by wiring is
> probably smaller than with small pixelsand this could be a factor.

Sounds reasonable, but then other than the placement of the wires,
is there any significant difference between front and rear
illumination sensels and possibly the semiconductor's type (such as
P vs. N) first exposed to photons?

? "ASAAR" <> ?????? ??? ??????
news:...
> On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 00:45:53 +0200, Alfred Molon wrote:
>
>> The problem with front-illumination is among others the wiring
>> obstructing the image sensitive area.
>>
>> With huge pixels the percentage of pixel area covered by wiring is
>> probably smaller than with small pixelsand this could be a factor.
>
> Sounds reasonable, but then other than the placement of the wires,
> is there any significant difference between front and rear
> illumination sensels and possibly the semiconductor's type (such as
> P vs. N) first exposed to photons?
>
I think greater quantum efficiency.


--
Tzortzakakis Dimitris
major in electrical engineering
mechanized infantry reservist
hordad AT otenet DOT gr