Hang back on that digital camera purchase

[Ezzie]

If they are targeting Cell Phone cameras, then they can only make it on a very small form factor. They probably have uniformity problems when scaling to larger detector geometries. As long as you do not mind a 20x crop factor with your lenses, you can hold off buying that M9.

That's what I get when reading in between the lines.

Haven't you heard? 2.1mm lenses and cameraphones are the future of photography! A sensor a micron squared and with 2Gpixels will do nicely. 😉🙄😱

 

[Sonnar Brian]

The Bokeh on 2.1mm lenses is horrible...

 

[Jamie123]

Ok, so obviously no one in their right mind would hold back on a purchase based on the announcement of an invention. That's just silly.

But let's talk about this technology for a minute. What I find really interesting is that, by the sound of it, it has the potential of having less of a ''digital'' look than current CMOS and CCD sensors. I would assume that, since these quantum dots are ''painted'' on a surface, they would be arranged more or less randomly much like the silver grains on a film base. The question then is will we finally have a digital images that truly look like film?

I admit that I don't fully understand this technology from what I've read in the article so maybe I'm way off.

 

[maddoc]

I was asking myself the exact same question, irregular
distributed within the polymer or regular ? Since you need to "read" out the information about light intensity from the quantum dots (by coupling them via the polymer to a Si wafer), they will be most probably arranged in a regular pattern. The other question is, how large will the pixel-density be ? If enough of the quantum dots can be arranged in a very narrow space, one could "group" them to irregular shaped and distributed cluster by the software and treat them as "grain" like in real film.

But let's talk about this technology for a minute. What I find really interesting is that, by the sound of it, it has the potential of having less of a ''digital'' look than current CMOS and CCD sensors. I would assume that, since these quantum dots are ''painted'' on a surface, they would be arranged more or less randomly much like the silver grains on a film base. The question then is will we finally have a digital images that truly look like film?

 

[literiter]

Well, who said ''film'' is dead? 😉

This sensor, and the ones that come after it, will all be replaced. That is for sure, and I for one will hold off making a big financial digital decision for quite a while.

The whole thing is just a little nuts right now and I can't afford to update/upgrade at every turn and new nuance of photography. If I were a professional I'm sure I'd have a different take on the issue, but I'm just amateur.

Film lives....for now.

 

[kshapero]

Quantum dots- is that what they call those spots you're left seeing after you've looked straight into your Quantum flash?

I remember Quantum dots from the sixties while listening to Jimi Hendrix.😱😱

 

[semilog]

Yay! ... someone who's mind is open and ready to receive improvements in digital image capture! 🙂

I've worked in scientific imaging for well over a decade, and I also have a pretty good understanding of the history of electronic photosensor technology. I understand the developmental arc, as it were, and I understand some of the underlying physics.

So yes, I'm ready for improvements, but first I want to see data from an actual, manufacturable device.

Press releases ≠ data.​

 

[mgd711]

I saw an interview with Norman Koren on the LL where he said that the limit of current sensors was around 5 micron’s, a finer matrix than that resulted in lower quality. However he did say that some sensors in cellphone cameras were down to 2 microns. I believe from the interview (if my memory is correct) that the wave length of light varied between 0.8 and 1.8 microns, so the 2 micron cellphone camera sensors were close to the theoretical limit.

The quantum dot’s might produce a sensor that produces more ‘film’ like images but I doubt that the megapixels will change much.

 

[JPresley]

I have the vague idea from other sources that quantum dots can be very cheap to make, also that they can have fairly complicated behavior. Embedded in a polymer sounds like a good formula for a very cheap detector, but detecting all of the photons and producing how efficiently some kind of signal that could be read out? I agree with semilog that will be difficult to assess without an actual device. Vaporware that has 100% quantum efficiency and infinite dynamic range is easy.

I could use a cheap but crappy detector that could be made in 4 inch by 5 inch size. I happen to have a rangefinder to stick it on ;-).

 

[JPresley]

The wavelength of visible light ranges roughly between 400 and 700 nm. The diffraction limited resolution on the sensor will be worse, and will depend on the physical size of the aperture, which will tend to be small for cell phone cameras.