How about a sensor size of Humongous??

That sounds promising. Especially the part about quantum dot sensors being simpler to produce (which hopefully means less expensive for the end user).

This is the paragraph that most interested me:

"Additionally, the researchers say that making the sensors is much simpler and the resulting sensor has high photosensitivity and great durability, meaning the design could be used for high-resolution sensors across a wide variety of applications."

- Murray

PS. I think your title might be misleading. The article isn't talking about larger sensors, it's talking about much denser, more efficient sensors that would replace CMOS technology. This would benefit all current digital formats, but it could especially breathe new life into M4/3 and APS-C.
 
CMur12 said:
That sounds promising. Especially the part about quantum dot sensors being simpler to produce (which hopefully means less expensive for the end user).

This is the paragraph that most interested me:

"Additionally, the researchers say that making the sensors is much simpler and the resulting sensor has high photosensitivity and great durability, meaning the design could be used for high-resolution sensors across a wide variety of applications."

- Murray

PS. I think your title might be misleading. The article isn't talking about larger sensors, it's talking about much denser, more efficient sensors that would replace CMOS technology. This would benefit all current digital formats, but it could especially breathe new life into M4/3 and APS-C.
Click to expand...

Hey, I'm, a LibArts major. I'm not supposed to understand that stuff. ;o)
 
I learned from a friend who shoots a Blad medium format digital that many times it is more important to have large pixels rather than how many. The big advantage according to Darrel is the sensitivity of the larger pixel and the detail it can capture that is a different kind of resolution or power to resolve and record data.

Anyways this makes sense to me.

Know that I still love and shoot a Leica MM that is a very primitive camera. Also know that I am an early adopter of the Leica SL and helped develop the SL2 by being involved in a focus group.

The files from the 47.3 MP SL2 are crazy huge already. I really love the “L”-glass especially the APO Crons, but this camera is way overkill.

For me I wish Leica would create a SL2 like camera that exploits all the current “L”-glass but has a square sensor.

The idea here is that my SL2 has a user interface that allows shooting the square, but this crops the sensor. I tend to shoot vertically, all the data of the full frame is recorded, so pretty much in Lightroom I can get the full frame and crop to square to gain perspective control, and in effect I have a 31.5 MP sensor when shooting the square, which is ample resolution.

Anyways the L-glass has really great edge to edge performance and sharp corners, so without the need for a new lens design they could build a square sensor camera that uses current “L”-glass and can provide more data and pixels, larger pixels, along with a larger sensor.

In theory a way to look at it is that the current Leica glass is already future proofed to 120 MP, the glass is that good (Perfect), but IMHO the best way to exploit this virtue would be with either larger pixels along with a larger sensor.

BTW all the AF “L”-mount Crons are APO. I already have too much data than I can use and I am known for printing big.

Also another brutal camera would be a SL2 Monochrom. Without a Bayer filter array, and along with the Leica “L”-glass, the resolution would be mucho crazy. I am very-very disappointed in Leica because they have not built me the camera I really wanted. It is clear to me that the “L”-glass is supreme.

Cal
 
boojum said:
Hey, I'm, a LibArts major. I'm not supposed to understand that stuff. ;o)
Click to expand...

B,

Don’t ever underestimate how us liberal arts majors can be mighty clever because we are not fenced in by rules and laws, especially true artists.

IMHO in research labs I encounter mucho rigid thinking. Use liberal arts majors may be less specialized, but we are also more adaptable, and we enjoy a much broader understanding.

Also know that in particular that my own unique form of being clever, knowing facts, and building on them to the experts and well educated with PhD’s that I have worked with over decades found it mucho annoying.

A major point, Artists by definition I think are problem solvers. Anyways clever ones are.

Cal
 
From the article: "The device density of our photodetector array is 5,500 devices per square centimeter, which is remarkably larger than that reported for previous solution-processed flexible photodetectors, which reaches up to 1,600 devices.”

What am I missing? Is a Device an RGB Pixel? a 35mm full-frame camera is 2.4cm by 3.6cm. That is 8.64 square centimeters.

A 4.25" by 4.25" camera has 117 square centimeters. Times 5500 per square centimeter, it is 640K devices.

If they are using this for Displays- makes sense. Then it is 0.14mm dot pitch. 1/(SQRT( 5500)/10). My Sony was 0.26mm dot pitch.
 
What I found both interesting and exciting is that current research is providing ways to capture better photographs. We have come a long way from my 2000 Sony Cybershot DSC S70 with its 3.3 megapixel sensor even though that small sensor gave up some wonderful images. I may dust it off for a week or two run of photos with it. What fascinates me is the continuing progress. And the spillover effect into photography. Our current technology is an endless source of interest. Even with my limited technical background this stuff amazes me.
 
I've watched digital imaging for 40 years now. From when we needed flight racks of electronics to where they are now.
 
I started working when the WW-II engineers were still around. The Difficult we do today, the impossible might take a little longer.
 
What is scary- I've been there for 43 years now. Now I'm one of the old engineers. That remembers how to make code run in 2Kwords of memory. Comes in useful for embedded work.
 
There is an older technology out there that could be described as an indirect sensor that is capable of recording an 8x10 image with trillions of discrete points. It utilizes a combination of electro-chemistry, photochemistry, and various available manufacturing techniques. Of course the discrete points are either black or white, so tonality needs to be achieved through rasterization, so it is truly a digital technology (i.e., black =1, white =0). Filters layers can be embedded to create a CMYK or RGB color image also. Someday solid state electronic capability may catch up to this technology (in terms of number of discrete points).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom