Re: Sony mass-produces back-illuminated image sensors

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by ASAAR, Jun 14, 2008.

  1. ASAAR

    ASAAR Guest

    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).
    ASAAR, Jun 14, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. ASAAR

    Paul Furman Guest

    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/imagedetail/does.pixel.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, Jun 14, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. ASAAR

    Paul Furman Guest

    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/imagedetail/does.pixel.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, Jun 15, 2008
    #3
  4. ASAAR

    Paul Furman Guest

    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/imagedetail/does.pixel.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
    Paul Furman, Jun 15, 2008
    #4
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Silverstrand

    Sunbeam Pro-Series Illuminated Keyboard Review

    Silverstrand, Jul 27, 2005, in forum: Front Page News
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,162
    unholy
    Jul 28, 2005
  2. Silverstrand
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    637
    Silverstrand
    Nov 24, 2005
  3. Joey
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    391
  4. Kevin McMurtrie

    Re: Sony mass-produces back-illuminated image sensors

    Kevin McMurtrie, Jun 14, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    340
    Kevin McMurtrie
    Jun 15, 2008
  5. Don Stauffer
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    721
    Paul Furman
    Jul 14, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page