New Camera Sensor 1000x More Sensitive Than Current Sensors

[kbg32]

http://petapixel.com/2013/05/31/new-camera-sensor-1000x-more-sensitive-than-current-sensors/

 

[Snowbuzz]

That's amazing.

 

[MarylandBill]

Thats almost 10 stops!... Whats the dynamic range going to be like though? If it has good dynamic range...

--
Bill

 

[kbg32]

I hope they produce it. The technology is pretty incredible.

 

[JMQ]

the 64000 dollar question : is it economically feasible?

 

[Keith]

I suppose it was always only going to be a matter of time before current sensor technology took a quantum leap ... not that this has done that of course but the signs are there!

Before long we'll be reminiscing about the good old days of CCD and CMOS and discussing how much more 'real' the images were. 😀

 

[semilog]

That's amazing.

I just looked at the actual research article. So far as I can tell it's "amazing" because the summary article referenced in the original post is wrong. These devices are not 1000x better than current state-of-the-art CCD or CMOS detectors. They are 2-3 orders of magnitude better than current graphene detectors. Which, currently, suck. The new devices reported in the paper have a quantum efficiency of ~2.3% (darned good for a device a single molecule thick).

CCDs and CMOS devices currently on the commercial market exhibit quantum efficiencies which in the green-yellow 550 nm range peak at 50-95%. Sony was shipping interline CCDs a decade ago that had 65% QE, and those devices weren't even backside-illuminated. The limiting factor in current sensors is noise in the pre-amp and analog-to-digital conversion stages of the devices, but even that is getting darned good.

It is not likely, in my somewhat-informed opinion, that a 1000x (almost exactly 10 stops) improvement in detection efficiency is physically possible -- at least, for devices that must operate at or slightly above room temperature.

The new graphene devices have the potential to be very power-efficient and they are exceptionally infrared-sensitive which may make them very useful in certain applications.

 

[Snowbuzz]

oh, thnx for checking. Back to my regularly scheduled programming then. 🙂

 

[willie_901]

Semilog,

Your post makes sense to me. I was wondering how they were going to increase the quantum efficiency. The PetaPixel article mentioned something vague about graphene collects more electrons.

It is interesting they can be used in curved surfaces.

I guess PetaPixel is trying to become the National Inquirer of photo blogs.

 

[MaxElmar]

Graphene has some pretty amazing electrical properties! Less resistance than pure silver.

 

[robklurfield]

interesting R&D, but the crux of the issue is: can it be commercialized in an economically feasible and techically usable fashion???

a question that won't be answered for a while.

don't hold your breath, but do keep your fingers crossed....

 

[Aristophanes]

But can it see through underwear?

That's the real opportunity here. I saw something like that in the back of comic book. Worst $2.99 I ever spent.

 

[robklurfield]

on the other hand, there was that Sony video cam a few years ago that had infra-red capabilities, most unintended, that enabled folks to record video that could "see through" clothing. a big hit with voyeurs. Sony was so embarrassed that they discontinued the gear (disabling the IR capability). So, those funny "glasses" in the back of magazines from our youth did come true.

But can it see through underwear?

That's the real opportunity here. I saw something like that in the back of comic book. Worst $2.99 I ever spent.

 

[TXForester]

But can it see through underwear?

That's the real opportunity here. I saw something like that in the back of comic book. Worst $2.99 I ever spent.

You should have bought the hypnosis glasses, then they would take off their clothes.

 

[willie_901]

You should have bought the hypnosis glasses, then they would take off their clothes.

I bought those. But the only thing that happened was I took of my clothes.

It was chilly in jail!