Here we go again!! New sensor technology!!

[Jamie Pillers]

DPReview has posted an article today about a new non-silicon based sensor that purports to provide "4x performance and 2x dynamic range" over existing silicone-based sensors.

www.dpreview.com/news/1003/10032201quantumfilm.asp

Some interesting quotes from the article:

"The first QuantumFilm-enabled product, due out later this year, solves the crucial challenge of capturing stunning images using mobile handset cameras."

"Silicon-based image sensors – the technology used today for all digital cameras including handheld, professional, mobile phone, security and automotive cameras – capture on average a mere 25 percent of light. QuantumFilm captures between 90-95 percent, enabling better pictures in even the most challenging lighting conditions. This increase in efficiency will deliver improvements across the entire imaging market, allowing QuantumFilm to be the de-facto next generation camera platform. The first target market for QuantumFilm is mobile handsets, where there is the greatest demand for small, high performance image sensors."

"The process - akin to coating a layer of photoresist onto a standard wafer - adds minimal cost on top of the standard layers of silicon processes."

“The future of imaging is in new materials like QuantumFilm, which will change the competitive landscape and possibly re-ignite the pixel race.”

Better dump the M9's NOW!! You'll be able to capture better images with your iPhone! 😛

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

OK! Another thing that won't change photography!

Cheers,

Juan

 

[40oz]

OK! Another thing that won't change photography!

Cheers,

Juan

My thoughts exactly.

 

[Pickett Wilson]

Chasing technology is as productive as herding cats.

 

[Jamie Pillers]

Of course change will continue! Camera capability and size will continue to change, for the better in my opinion. Humans will change more slowly. 🙂

 

[kdemas]

Having been in the semiconductor industry I have seen, first hand, how dramatically technology can change in a short period of time. I am more than confident that we will all see incredible leaps in the future with capture technology as digital photography moves from it's nascent state.

Film developed over a 100+ year period, we will see the same advances on the digital side I'm sure as well. Just think, 50ASA 35mm film used to be "fast" and "Super Speed"!

Thanks for posting Jamie. Now, back to enjoying my current cameras 🙂

Kent

 

[kdemas]

Of course change will continue! Camera capability and size will continue to change, for the better in my opinion. Humans will change more slowly. 🙂

Well said!

 

[binky]

haha there's a technology called film, which captures a large dynamic range, gives fine resolution and provides superior tonality. It's so advanced that it takes more time to develop than usual.

I'll stick with my 15-megapixel digital camera until I can afford it 😉

 

[Jamie Pillers]

Hi there, Kent! Isn't this Bay Area weather GREAT! Did you resolve that problem with the G2 (when we were out at Chrissy Field)?

By the way, did you see that the new "New Topographics" exhibition is coming to SFMOMA? If not, see The Online Photographer site.
Jamie

 

[Nikon Bob]

Remember when they used to introduce new film emulsions with about as much ballyho? Tech changes at a faster pace today though.

Bob

 

[-doomed-]

Chasing technology is as productive as herding cats.

Ill abandon my herd of cats then, its near impossible to get them to listen.

 

[kdemas]

Hi there, Kent! Isn't this Bay Area weather GREAT! Did you resolve that problem with the G2 (when we were out at Chrissy Field)?

By the way, did you see that the new "New Topographics" exhibition is coming to SFMOMA? If not, see The Online Photographer site.
Jamie

Heya Jamie! I haven't heard about the show but I'll go take a look. Sounds interesting.

The G2 issue was, as usual, driver error. I had accidently rotated a control wheel to the double exposure setting, locking up the camera after pic #2. I had to laugh, discovered it about 5 minutes after you left.

So, the G2 is still rock solid 🙂

Kent

 

[Ronald M]

My M9 is already obsolete! This just is not fair. I giuess I should have waited.

 

[Keith]

Tiny sensors that will fit into a mobile phone or similar sized point and shoot capable of delivering images on a par with full frame digital SLR's kind of seems inevitable to me!

We seem to enjoy mocking each stage of digital development as we no doubt mocked it's initial introduction ... this was the first digital camera:

Do you think we've come very far?

Do you think development is going to stop because we think it's come far enough?

Not bloody likely! 😀

The device was semi-portable, and a massive VCR-sized microcomputer was used to display the images on a TV screen using a primitive frame store, but I doubt that the Kodak executives saw digital technology as a credible threat to their existing product line.

 

[JoeV]

It's like ten days shy of April 1st. I didn't get the memo that we're starting early this year.

~Joe

 

[Finder]

From what I understand, this is to replace small sensors in things such as phones and security cameras. This is not a replacement for large sensors. While the sensor increases in its performance (better signal to noise), it does not address the limits in optics--there is a diffraction limit. I can see this technology helping imaging at nano-scale dimensions (either in temporal or spatial attributes). I don't see this replacing what folks think of cameras here at RFF, at least not soon...

 

[dmdctusa]

OK! Another thing that won't change photography!

Cheers,

Juan

Like the transistor and digital image capture and processing.

David

BTW, I still use film and all mechanical rangefinders.

 

[charjohncarter]

OK! Another thing that won't change photography!

Cheers,

Juan

Right, and more than right.

 

[JPresley]

25% quantum efficiency to 100% is only 2 stops and could compensate for a 4-fold difference in sensor area. I think the gap between cellphones and dslrs is a bit bigger than that. At least unless cellphones get larger ;-).

Still, it would be an improvement. But the bad news is no further gains at a given sensor size allowed by the laws of physics. Ever.

 

[semilog]

25% to 90% overstates the magnitude of the improvement, given that front-illuminated CCD sensors routinely reach 50% quantum efficiency (we have a front-illuminated Sony CCD that is >60% efficient at c. 550 nm wavelength). Back-illuminated sensors are better than that (routinely 90%) and back-illuminated CMOS sensors are already appearing in cell phones.

As JPresley indicates, one cannot do better than 100%. At that point the entire game is SNR and dynamic range: read circuitry and image processing.

There is room for improvement, but existing sensors are already awfully good and pixel sizes are either diffraction-limited or close to it. The wavelength of green light isn't going to get usefully shorter unless you manage to get moving a lot faster.

It's easy to overstate how much room there is for improvement.

Of course, it is possible that this technology will make high-performance sensors a whole lot cheaper, and that would be very cool indeed!