Re: Sony mass-produces back-illuminated image sensors

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

  1. In article <>,
    Alfred Molon <> wrote:

    > http://www.imaging-resource.com/NEWS/1213308645.html
    >


    This is the key sentence:
    "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."

    This is good news for cell phones and cheap cameras but, if ever
    applied, won't have such an impressive impact on large sensors.

    --
    I will not see your reply if you use Google.
    Kevin McMurtrie, Jun 14, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Kevin McMurtrie wrote:
    > In article <>,
    > Alfred Molon <> wrote:
    >
    >> http://www.imaging-resource.com/NEWS/1213308645.html
    >>

    >
    > This is the key sentence:
    > "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."
    >
    > This is good news for cell phones and cheap cameras but, if ever
    > applied, won't have such an impressive impact on large sensors.


    Why do you say that? Isn't the quantum efficiency improvement in going
    from front- to back-illumination enough to produce a substantial
    sensitivity gain?

    David
    David J Taylor, Jun 15, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Kevin McMurtrie

    Ray Fischer Guest

    David J Taylor <-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote:
    >Kevin McMurtrie wrote:
    >> In article <>,
    >> Alfred Molon <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> http://www.imaging-resource.com/NEWS/1213308645.html
    >>>

    >>
    >> This is the key sentence:
    >> "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."
    >>
    >> This is good news for cell phones and cheap cameras but, if ever
    >> applied, won't have such an impressive impact on large sensors.

    >
    >Why do you say that? Isn't the quantum efficiency improvement in going
    >from front- to back-illumination enough to produce a substantial
    >sensitivity gain?


    Why would it be?

    No, I don't take their marketing BS as fact.

    --
    Ray Fischer
    Ray Fischer, Jun 15, 2008
    #3
  4. Ray Fischer wrote:
    > David J Taylor

    []
    >> Why do you say that? Isn't the quantum efficiency improvement in
    >> going from front- to back-illumination enough to produce a
    >> substantial sensitivity gain?

    >
    > Why would it be?
    >
    > No, I don't take their marketing BS as fact.


    As I understand it, the QE difference is a factor of two or three.

    David
    David J Taylor, Jun 15, 2008
    #4
  5. frederick wrote:
    > David J Taylor wrote:
    >> Ray Fischer wrote:
    >>> David J Taylor

    >> []
    >>>> Why do you say that? Isn't the quantum efficiency improvement in
    >>>> going from front- to back-illumination enough to produce a
    >>>> substantial sensitivity gain?
    >>> Why would it be?
    >>>
    >>> No, I don't take their marketing BS as fact.

    >>
    >> As I understand it, the QE difference is a factor of two or three.
    >>
    >> David
    >>

    > % of photosite surface obscured by wires / transistors would be
    > proportionately much less for larger sensels. That's not to say there
    > mightn't be some benefit.
    > But photosite size might not be a good indicator or efficiency in any
    > case. Doesn't seem to correlate with dslr sensor performance.


    Thanks, Frederick. I take your point. It will be interesting to see how
    it pans out, and whether their technique is applicable to DSLRs.

    Cheers,
    David
    David J Taylor, Jun 15, 2008
    #5
  6. In article <yy15k.9606$>,
    "David J Taylor"
    <-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote:

    > Kevin McMurtrie wrote:
    > > In article <>,
    > > Alfred Molon <> wrote:
    > >
    > >> http://www.imaging-resource.com/NEWS/1213308645.html
    > >>

    > >
    > > This is the key sentence:
    > > "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."
    > >
    > > This is good news for cell phones and cheap cameras but, if ever
    > > applied, won't have such an impressive impact on large sensors.

    >
    > Why do you say that? Isn't the quantum efficiency improvement in going
    > from front- to back-illumination enough to produce a substantial
    > sensitivity gain?
    >
    > David


    The wires block proportionately less light as the sensors get larger.
    The meaning of this improvement has to take into account how terrible
    Sony's small sensors are.

    --
    I will not see your reply if you use Google.
    Kevin McMurtrie, Jun 15, 2008
    #6
    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:
    1,088
    unholy
    Jul 28, 2005
  2. Silverstrand
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    607
    Silverstrand
    Nov 24, 2005
  3. Joey
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    368
  4. ASAAR
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    409
    Paul Furman
    Jun 15, 2008
  5. Don Stauffer
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    703
    Paul Furman
    Jul 14, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page