Backlit sensors
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: Rich on 6 Mar 2010 14:35 On Mar 6, 4:54 am, Martin Brown <|||newspam...(a)nezumi.demon.co.uk> 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? > > Done right they should have more sensitivity and so lower effective > noise for a given size of sensor site. Top grade astronomical sensors > are always thinned and backlit but it is an incredibly expensive method > so I don't know how Sony are doing it for consumer grade gear. > > They are innovators though some of their low noise sensors already make > it into amateur astronomy actively cooled CCD cameras. A comparison > curve for astronomical grade CCDs front and back lit is online at: > > http://outreach.atnf.csiro.au/education/senior/astrophysics/photometr... > > I am surprised Sony can manufacture them cost effectively for consumer > grade gear. I cannot imagine the general public paying the sort of > premium that professional astronomers will pay for needing 1/3 of the > exposure time or being able to see 3x fainter signals in the same time. > > Regards, > Martin Brown Astronomical CCD cameras are a rip-off. $7,000 for a small, 4 meg sensor, of any kind, in this day and age? All scientific and industrial CCDs are like that. Not to mention their electronics are far simpler than even the lowest digital SLR.
From: Paul Furman on 6 Mar 2010 15:11 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.
From: Ray Fischer on 6 Mar 2010 15:49 Rich <rander3127(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Mar 6, 4:54�am, Martin Brown <|||newspam...(a)nezumi.demon.co.uk> >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? >> >> Done right they should have more sensitivity and so lower effective >> noise for a given size of sensor site. Top grade astronomical sensors >> are always thinned and backlit but it is an incredibly expensive method >> so I don't know how Sony are doing it for consumer grade gear. >> >> They are innovators though some of their low noise sensors already make >> it into amateur astronomy actively cooled CCD cameras. A comparison >> curve for astronomical grade CCDs front and back lit is online at: >> >> http://outreach.atnf.csiro.au/education/senior/astrophysics/photometr... >> >> I am surprised Sony can manufacture them cost effectively for consumer >> grade gear. I cannot imagine the general public paying the sort of >> premium that professional astronomers will pay for needing 1/3 of the >> exposure time or being able to see 3x fainter signals in the same time. > >Astronomical CCD cameras are a rip-off. The idiot with no knowledge of the engineering or costs involved or business economics once again decrees that everybody should charge what he says that should charge. > $7,000 for a small, 4 meg >sensor, of any kind, in this day and age? No, dumbshit. Nobody charges $7,000 for a 4MP sensor. As I have tried to point out to you repeatedly, a sensor is not a camera. -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net
From: Rich on 6 Mar 2010 19:41 rfischer(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in news:4b92bff6$0$1674$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net: > Rich <rander3127(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>On Mar 6, 4:54�am, Martin Brown <|||newspam...(a)nezumi.demon.co.uk> >>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? >>> >>> Done right they should have more sensitivity and so lower effective >>> noise for a given size of sensor site. Top grade astronomical >>> sensors are always thinned and backlit but it is an incredibly >>> expensive method so I don't know how Sony are doing it for consumer >>> grade gear. >>> >>> They are innovators though some of their low noise sensors already >>> make it into amateur astronomy actively cooled CCD cameras. A >>> comparison curve for astronomical grade CCDs front and back lit is >>> online at: >>> >>> http://outreach.atnf.csiro.au/education/senior/astrophysics/photometr >>> ... >>> >>> I am surprised Sony can manufacture them cost effectively for >>> consumer grade gear. I cannot imagine the general public paying the >>> sort of premium that professional astronomers will pay for needing >>> 1/3 of the exposure time or being able to see 3x fainter signals in >>> the same time. >> >>Astronomical CCD cameras are a rip-off. > > The idiot with no knowledge of the engineering or costs involved or > business economics once again decrees that everybody should charge > what he says that should charge. > >> $7,000 for a small, 4 meg >>sensor, of any kind, in this day and age? > > No, dumbshit. Nobody charges $7,000 for a 4MP sensor. As I have > tried to point out to you repeatedly, a sensor is not a camera. > So, er, which part of those cameras costs the extra $6000 and why? The heat sink? The Peltier cooler? The electronics? The fan???! Granted a $20,000 CCD camera might use a medical grade CCD which can cost considerably more than cheap CMOS consumer sensors, but not as much as the camera by a long shot.
From: Ray Fischer on 7 Mar 2010 01:06
Rich <none(a)nowhere.com> wrote: >rfischer(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in >> Rich <rander3127(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>On Mar 6, 4:54�am, Martin Brown <|||newspam...(a)nezumi.demon.co.uk> >>>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? >>>> >>>> Done right they should have more sensitivity and so lower effective >>>> noise for a given size of sensor site. Top grade astronomical >>>> sensors are always thinned and backlit but it is an incredibly >>>> expensive method so I don't know how Sony are doing it for consumer >>>> grade gear. >>>> >>>> They are innovators though some of their low noise sensors already >>>> make it into amateur astronomy actively cooled CCD cameras. A >>>> comparison curve for astronomical grade CCDs front and back lit is >>>> online at: >>>> >>>> http://outreach.atnf.csiro.au/education/senior/astrophysics/photometr >>>> ... >>>> >>>> I am surprised Sony can manufacture them cost effectively for >>>> consumer grade gear. I cannot imagine the general public paying the >>>> sort of premium that professional astronomers will pay for needing >>>> 1/3 of the exposure time or being able to see 3x fainter signals in >>>> the same time. >>> >>>Astronomical CCD cameras are a rip-off. >> >> The idiot with no knowledge of the engineering or costs involved or >> business economics once again decrees that everybody should charge >> what he says that should charge. >> >>> $7,000 for a small, 4 meg >>>sensor, of any kind, in this day and age? >> >> No, dumbshit. Nobody charges $7,000 for a 4MP sensor. As I have >> tried to point out to you repeatedly, a sensor is not a camera. > >So, er, which part of those cameras costs the extra $6000 and why? You mean you don't even know? You just fart your idiocy without even bothering to find out the facts? > The >heat sink? The Peltier cooler? The electronics? The fan???! All those and the development costs. But as we've seen again and again, you think that devices all design and assemble themselves without any help from people. Here's a clue: The price of goods is not decided by communists like yourself who think that you should decide what people charge for their labor. -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net |