Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Re: Backlit sensors

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: Backlit sensors

 
 
Chrlz
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-06-2010
On Mar 6, 6:07*pm, Alfred Molon <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> A few compact cameras with backlit sensors have been launched. Are there
> any reviews or comparisons detailing how the performance is compared to
> standard cameras?
> --
>
> Alfred Molon


I think the Nikon P100 is the only back-illuminated sensor camera out
so far. The few reviews I've seen are not in depth, but they didn't
seem overly impressed with the image quality/high ISO performance.
(Having said that, Nikon's (non-dslr) design team doesn't exactly
shine when it comes to wringing performance out of their pretty
mediocre bridge and p&s cameras...)

Fuji's upcoming HS10 has pretty wild specifications on paper. Fuji
has been known to get a couple of their little cameras to perform well
in the high ISO area, so that one might be more interesting. However,
pushing a superzoom that far (24-720?...!!!) has gotta be asking for
trouble, even if the sensor is good. There's some optical science
standing in the way of such feats...

As always, I think the hype will exceed the reality significantly -
but any improvement in photon-efficiency is a step in the right
direction.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Paul Furman
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-06-2010
Chrlz wrote:
> Alfred Molon wrote:
>> A few compact cameras with backlit sensors have been launched. Are there
>> any reviews or comparisons detailing how the performance is compared to
>> standard cameras?

>
> I think the Nikon P100 is the only back-illuminated sensor camera out
> so far. The few reviews I've seen are not in depth, but they didn't
> seem overly impressed with the image quality/high ISO performance.


I suspect part of the reason for putting the wiring on the back is to be
able to get full 1080 HD video out at 30fps. Sony has done this for some
video cameras, claiming double the sensitivity but remember doubling is
just one stop.
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0908/09080601sonycmos.asp
"However, compared to conventional front-illuminated structures,
back-illuminated structures commonly causes problems such as noise, dark
current, defective pixels and color mixture that lead to image
degradation and also cause a decrease in the signal-to-noise ratio."

> (Having said that, Nikon's (non-dslr) design team doesn't exactly
> shine when it comes to wringing performance out of their pretty
> mediocre bridge and p&s cameras...)
>
> Fuji's upcoming HS10 has pretty wild specifications on paper. Fuji
> has been known to get a couple of their little cameras to perform well
> in the high ISO area, so that one might be more interesting. However,
> pushing a superzoom that far (24-720?...!!!) has gotta be asking for
> trouble, even if the sensor is good. There's some optical science
> standing in the way of such feats...
>
> As always, I think the hype will exceed the reality significantly -
> but any improvement in photon-efficiency is a step in the right
> direction.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
David J Taylor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-07-2010
"Alfred Molon" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) ...
> In article <hmucu8$eke$(E-Mail Removed)-september.org>, paul-@-
> edgehill.net says...
>> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0908/09080601sonycmos.asp
>> "However, compared to conventional front-illuminated structures,
>> back-illuminated structures commonly causes problems such as noise,
>> dark
>> current, defective pixels and color mixture that lead to image
>> degradation and also cause a decrease in the signal-to-noise ratio."

>
> Strange. The ability to capture more light should lead to less noise,
> not more.


Yes. more light, but other problems caused by back-illumination, so
there's a trade-off point where the problems caused by back-lighting are
less than than the gains, and when that's reached, backlit sensors become
a better choice. I think we saw something similar as CCD has been
gradually replaced by CMOS.

Cheers,
David

 
Reply With Quote
 
David J Taylor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-07-2010

"Alfred Molon" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) ...
> In article <hn013e$1f7$(E-Mail Removed)-september.org>, david-
> http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed)lid says...
>
>> Yes. more light, but other problems caused by back-illumination, so
>> there's a trade-off point where the problems caused by back-lighting
>> are
>> less than than the gains, and when that's reached, backlit sensors
>> become
>> a better choice.

>
> What other problems are you referring to?
> --
>
> Alfred Molon


The ones you originally referred to in:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0908/09080601sonycmos.asp

David

 
Reply With Quote
 
Paul Furman
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-07-2010
Alfred Molon wrote:
> In article<hn013e$1f7$(E-Mail Removed)-september.org>, david-
> (E-Mail Removed)lid says...
>
>> Yes. more light, but other problems caused by back-illumination, so
>> there's a trade-off point where the problems caused by back-lighting are
>> less than than the gains, and when that's reached, backlit sensors become
>> a better choice.

>
> What other problems are you referring to?


It was in the link and quote.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0908/09080601sonycmos.asp
"...back-illuminated structures commonly causes problems such as noise,
dark current, defective pixels and color mixture that lead to image
degradation and also cause a decrease in the signal-to-noise ratio."

CCD used to be considered better than CMOS but technology advances, CMOS
has more room for circuitry so advanced things can be done to improve
performance, probably similar to the back illumination issue. I believe
the very high end scientific sensors are still CCD though. Meh, I should
shut up, I only have the vaguest idea <g> but have seen these issues
discussed...
 
Reply With Quote
 
David J Taylor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-08-2010
"Pete D" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed). au...
[]
> Surprisingling though some the best low noise cameras at the moment are
> still CCD.
>
> I think we saw something similar as CCD has been
>> gradually replaced by CMOS.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> David


Well, not that surprising as the point where CMOS become better will
depend on so many factors that the point in time will be different for
various processes, and from what factors the designers consider important.

Cheers,
David

 
Reply With Quote
 
David J Taylor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-08-2010
"Alfred Molon" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) ...
> In article <hn12c5$t1f$(E-Mail Removed)-september.org>, david-
> (E-Mail Removed)lid says...
>>
>> The ones you originally referred to in:
>>
>> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0908/09080601sonycmos.asp

>
> I didn't refer to any problems, but it looks that you don't know what
> you are talking about.
> --
>
> Alfred Molon



You posted:

_________________________________________________
In article <hmucu8$eke$(E-Mail Removed)-september.org>, paul-@-
edgehill.net says...
> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0908/09080601sonycmos.asp
> "However, compared to conventional front-illuminated structures,
> back-illuminated structures commonly causes problems such as noise, dark
> current, defective pixels and color mixture that lead to image
> degradation and also cause a decrease in the signal-to-noise ratio."


Strange. The ability to capture more light should lead to less noise,
not more.
_________________________________________________


Your "strange" suggested to me that you had not appreciated the problems
to which DP Review referred.

Why the personal insult?

David

 
Reply With Quote
 
Bruce
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-08-2010
On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 07:55:03 -0000, "David J Taylor"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>"Alfred Molon" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:(E-Mail Removed) m...
>> In article <hn12c5$t1f$(E-Mail Removed)-september.org>, david-
>> (E-Mail Removed)lid says...
>>>
>>> The ones you originally referred to in:
>>>
>>> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0908/09080601sonycmos.asp

>>
>> I didn't refer to any problems, but it looks that you don't know what
>> you are talking about.
>> --
>>
>> Alfred Molon

>
>
>You posted:
>
>_______________________________________________ __
>In article <hmucu8$eke$(E-Mail Removed)-september.org>, paul-@-
>edgehill.net says...
>> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0908/09080601sonycmos.asp
>> "However, compared to conventional front-illuminated structures,
>> back-illuminated structures commonly causes problems such as noise, dark
>> current, defective pixels and color mixture that lead to image
>> degradation and also cause a decrease in the signal-to-noise ratio."

>
>Strange. The ability to capture more light should lead to less noise,
>not more.
>_______________________________________________ __
>
>
>Your "strange" suggested to me that you had not appreciated the problems
>to which DP Review referred.
>
>Why the personal insult?



You seem very over-sensitive to having your ideas criticised. Do you
take every little disagreement personally? If so, why?

This is Usenet. Get used to it. And stop throwing your toys out of
the pram every time someone disagrees with you. It is your ideas that
they are disagreeing with.

 
Reply With Quote
 
David J Taylor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-08-2010

"Bruce" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
[]
> You seem very over-sensitive to having your ideas criticised. Do you
> take every little disagreement personally? If so, why?
>
> This is Usenet. Get used to it. And stop throwing your toys out of
> the pram every time someone disagrees with you. It is your ideas that
> they are disagreeing with.


Bruce,

I felt that Alfred's comment: "it looks that you don't know what you are
talking about." was uncalled for, and he offered no justification. It's
not the same as saying: "I don't agree with you" or "you misunderstood
what I wrote".

For example, I know that we don't agree on choice of equipment, but that's
because we have different aims and objectives. I don't say that "you
don't know what you are talking about" just because you have different
ideas.

I don't take insults in my personal life, so I see no reason to do so
here, and I use my kill-file accordingly. Banter between friends in one
thing, a public accusation of incompetence is something else.

Cheers,
David

 
Reply With Quote
 
John McWilliams
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-08-2010
David J Taylor wrote:
>
> "Bruce" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> []
>> You seem very over-sensitive to having your ideas criticised. Do you
>> take every little disagreement personally? If so, why?
>>
>> This is Usenet. Get used to it. And stop throwing your toys out of
>> the pram every time someone disagrees with you. It is your ideas that
>> they are disagreeing with.

>
> Bruce,
>
> I felt that Alfred's comment: "it looks that you don't know what you are
> talking about." was uncalled for, and he offered no justification. It's
> not the same as saying: "I don't agree with you" or "you misunderstood
> what I wrote".
>
> For example, I know that we don't agree on choice of equipment, but
> that's because we have different aims and objectives. I don't say that
> "you don't know what you are talking about" just because you have
> different ideas.
>
> I don't take insults in my personal life, so I see no reason to do so
> here, and I use my kill-file accordingly. Banter between friends in one
> thing, a public accusation of incompetence is something else.



Well said.

--
john mcwilliams

Remember: Opinions are like buttocks; only those which are well-formed
should be shown in public.

 
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
More Important: 1/7 Sensor or Backlit? Bubba Digital Photography 12 05-31-2010 10:57 AM
Any LED backlit external monitirs for laptop use? me@privacy.net C++ 2 05-28-2010 11:36 PM
Any LED backlit external monitirs for laptop use? me@privacy.net Computer Support 0 05-28-2010 05:46 PM
Re: Backlit sensors Martin Brown Digital Photography 5 03-07-2010 06:06 AM
Photo in Backlit Lightbox Don Digital Photography 6 09-06-2005 10:52 AM



Advertisments