1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

The future of digital?

Discussion in 'General Equipment Chat & Advice' started by El_Sid, Oct 5, 2017.

  1. El_Sid

    El_Sid Well-Known Member

  2. Andrew Flannigan

    Andrew Flannigan Well-Known Member

    It does look interesting. The comments on fabrication in particular.
  3. Terrywoodenpic

    Terrywoodenpic Well-Known Member

    The implications of very hight ISO and low noise, combined ultra pixel density. would be a game changer in many branches of photography.
    and at comparatively low cost too.
    If sensors can be really cheap, just build them into the lens. would save many problems.
  4. pixelpuffin

    pixelpuffin Well-Known Member

    I admit I was a bit out of my depth reading that, but nonetheless it sounds utterly fascinating.
    If I'm reading it right, do I then assume that smartphones may very well possibly overtake and improve upon conventional image capture as we know it today.
    I can barely wait.....!!
    Can you imagine the freedom
  5. ChrisNewman

    ChrisNewman Well-Known Member

    Thanks for highlighting this fascinating article. Unfortunately, I’m not convinced it offers much for visible light photography.

    The article seems particularly excited about broadband and infrared detection.

    According to http://www.sensorgen.info/ the best current sensors detect more than 50% of photons, and have a read noise of less than 2 electrons. To me this suggests that the only possibility for a significant improvement in sensor performance would be one that could detect all colours across all of the sensor, rather than excluding about ⅔ of them with a Bayer filter (the Foveon sensor does this, but so far not with an efficiency to rival Bayer-type sensors).

    Although the article refers to the sensor being “easy and cheap to fabricate”, it also refers to “coating each CMOS pixel structure with graphene”, suggesting to me that the graphene and PbS quantum dots are being deposited onto something similar to a conventional image sensor. So perhaps it doesn’t offer the prospect of cheap medium- and large-format sensors!

  6. Petrochemist

    Petrochemist Well-Known Member

    They make much of it's broad spectrum response, but don't indicate how far into the non visible spectrum it would work. Everyday silicon based cameras are sensitive to UV, visible & IR when the internal cut filter is removed - but can't see above ~1150nm which is the point where silicon becomes transparent to IR.

    IIRC lead selenide (PbS) is used in mid range IR detection, but I didn't think it's UV sensitivity was as good as silicon...

    Of course they are wrong when they claim there is no physical limit to how small the unit can be made, anything produced by lithography is limited by the wavelength of the light used. PERHAPS the limits are lower than with conventional CMOS, but allowing the market department to make such wild claims makes me feel the whole lot must be treated with a large pinch of salt. :eek:
  7. ChrisNewman

    ChrisNewman Well-Known Member

    It’s trying to make pixels smaller than atoms when it gets really difficult!

    They do qualify “…there appear to be no fundamental physical limits associated with shrinking the pixel size.” with “Pixel pitches down to 1 micron are within reach…”. But I read that some smartphone sensors already use a 1.1 micron pitch.


Share This Page