Backlit sensors
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: Paul Furman on 7 Mar 2010 18:25 Alfred Molon wrote: > In article<hn013e$1f7$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, david- > taylor(a)blueyonder.co.uk.invalid says... > >> Yes. more light, but other problems caused by back-illumination, so >> there's a trade-off point where the problems caused by back-lighting are >> less than than the gains, and when that's reached, backlit sensors become >> a better choice. > > What other problems are you referring to? It was in the link and quote. http://www.dpreview.com/news/0908/09080601sonycmos.asp "...back-illuminated structures commonly causes problems such as noise, dark current, defective pixels and color mixture that lead to image degradation and also cause a decrease in the signal-to-noise ratio." CCD used to be considered better than CMOS but technology advances, CMOS has more room for circuitry so advanced things can be done to improve performance, probably similar to the back illumination issue. I believe the very high end scientific sensors are still CCD though. Meh, I should shut up, I only have the vaguest idea <g> but have seen these issues discussed...
From: Alfred Molon on 8 Mar 2010 01:42 In article <hn12c5$t1f$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, david- taylor(a)blueyonder.co.uk.invalid says... > > The ones you originally referred to in: > > http://www.dpreview.com/news/0908/09080601sonycmos.asp I didn't refer to any problems, but it looks that you don't know what you are talking about. -- Alfred Molon ------------------------------ Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/ http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
From: David J Taylor on 8 Mar 2010 02:51 "Pete D" <no(a)email.com> wrote in message news:6MednX8ri9eFtgnWnZ2dnUVZ_hWdnZ2d(a)westnet.com.au... [] > Surprisingling though some the best low noise cameras at the moment are > still CCD. > > I think we saw something similar as CCD has been >> gradually replaced by CMOS. >> >> Cheers, >> David Well, not that surprising as the point where CMOS become better will depend on so many factors that the point in time will be different for various processes, and from what factors the designers consider important. Cheers, David
From: David J Taylor on 8 Mar 2010 02:55 "Alfred Molon" <alfred_molon(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:MPG.25febabe9b2097d798c254(a)news.supernews.com... > In article <hn12c5$t1f$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, david- > taylor(a)blueyonder.co.uk.invalid says... >> >> The ones you originally referred to in: >> >> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0908/09080601sonycmos.asp > > I didn't refer to any problems, but it looks that you don't know what > you are talking about. > -- > > Alfred Molon You posted: _________________________________________________ In article <hmucu8$eke$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, paul-@- edgehill.net says... > http://www.dpreview.com/news/0908/09080601sonycmos.asp > "However, compared to conventional front-illuminated structures, > back-illuminated structures commonly causes problems such as noise, dark > current, defective pixels and color mixture that lead to image > degradation and also cause a decrease in the signal-to-noise ratio." Strange. The ability to capture more light should lead to less noise, not more. _________________________________________________ Your "strange" suggested to me that you had not appreciated the problems to which DP Review referred. Why the personal insult? David
From: Bruce on 8 Mar 2010 06:31
On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 07:55:03 -0000, "David J Taylor" <david-taylor(a)blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote: >"Alfred Molon" <alfred_molon(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message >news:MPG.25febabe9b2097d798c254(a)news.supernews.com... >> In article <hn12c5$t1f$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, david- >> taylor(a)blueyonder.co.uk.invalid says... >>> >>> The ones you originally referred to in: >>> >>> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0908/09080601sonycmos.asp >> >> I didn't refer to any problems, but it looks that you don't know what >> you are talking about. >> -- >> >> Alfred Molon > > >You posted: > >_________________________________________________ >In article <hmucu8$eke$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, paul-@- >edgehill.net says... >> 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." > >Strange. The ability to capture more light should lead to less noise, >not more. >_________________________________________________ > > >Your "strange" suggested to me that you had not appreciated the problems >to which DP Review referred. > >Why the personal insult? You seem very over-sensitive to having your ideas criticised. Do you take every little disagreement personally? If so, why? This is Usenet. Get used to it. And stop throwing your toys out of the pram every time someone disagrees with you. It is your ideas that they are disagreeing with. |