#1  
Old 05-03-2013, 11:30 AM
toc's Avatar
toc (Tim)
Registered User

toc is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Mill park, Victoria
Posts: 658
New high sensitivity full-frame CMOS sensor

Saw this on the interwebs:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2013/03...sor-for-videos

Could be interesting...
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 05-03-2013, 11:33 AM
toc's Avatar
toc (Tim)
Registered User

toc is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Mill park, Victoria
Posts: 658
Oops, double post. My bad.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 05-03-2013, 02:30 PM
trek1701's Avatar
trek1701 (Mark)
Registered User

trek1701 is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 199
Yeah here's another link about it


http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2013/03/ca...s-in-the-dark/


Mark
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 05-03-2013, 06:24 PM
naskies's Avatar
naskies (Dave)
Registered User

naskies is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 1,865
Straight from the horse's mouth:

http://www.canon.com/news/2013/mar04e.html

It's apparently a 36 mm full-frame sensor that uses 19 um pixels - which I think works out to be approximately 1080p video resolution.

There's a sample video - it's quite impressive, especially the Geminid meteor scene.

Apparently it's just a prototype at this stage, with no immediate plans for production.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 05-03-2013, 06:50 PM
RobF's Avatar
RobF (Rob)
Mostly harmless...

RobF is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 5,513
Imagine the potential resolution gains if deep sky frames could be captured in fractions of a 2nd, as we currently can for planetary objects. Will it be physically possible with sensors in 20 years?
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 05-03-2013, 06:57 PM
RickS's Avatar
RickS (Rick)
PI cult recruiter

RickS is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 10,584
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobF View Post
Imagine the potential resolution gains if deep sky frames could be captured in fractions of a 2nd, as we currently can for planetary objects. Will it be physically possible with sensors in 20 years?
Shot noise is a fundamental physical limitation unless we think of a clever way to make significantly bigger apertures practical, Rob. You can't make a sensor with better than 100% QE.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 05-03-2013, 08:04 PM
RobF's Avatar
RobF (Rob)
Mostly harmless...

RobF is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 5,513
Sigh. Damned physical laws
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 05-03-2013, 08:15 PM
rally
Registered User

rally is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 896
Rick,

You can make a sensor with more than 100% Qe
Its called a PhotoMultiplier.

They just havent done it commercially in large Silicon semiconductor arrays yet with a large Dynamic range.
The High Gain Avalanche Photodiodes only have single or small array of detectors.

SiOnyx's Black Silicon has looked extremely promising for years but seems to be taking an aeon to get to market but In-Q-Tel's investment in the co. last year would indicate that the prospects are still looking good
However given that In-Q-Tel is a US not for profit military investment vehicle - we'll probably not be seeing the technology in our amateur hands for a long while !

They used to have a detailed Technology section on their website but I don't see anything about how it works, how it performs etc is gone completely.
I suspect that since superior dark imaging/night vision is a huge strategic advantage - so it always seems to get snaffled up by the military - depriving us poor amateurs !!!

Rally

Quote:
Originally Posted by RickS View Post
Shot noise is a fundamental physical limitation unless we think of a clever way to make significantly bigger apertures practical, Rob. You can't make a sensor with better than 100% QE.

Last edited by rally; 08-03-2013 at 09:56 PM. Reason: typo - missed the word "don't"
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 05-03-2013, 09:25 PM
RickS's Avatar
RickS (Rick)
PI cult recruiter

RickS is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 10,584
Quote:
Originally Posted by rally View Post
Rick,

You can make a sensor with more than 100% Qe
Its called a PhotoMultiplier.

They just havent done it commercially in large Silicon semiconductor arrays yet with a large Dynamic range.
The High Gain Avalanche Photodiodes only have single or small array of detectors.

SiOnyx's Black Silicon has looked extremely promising for years but seems to be taking an aeon to get to market but In-Q-Tel's investment in the co. last year would indicate that the prospects are still looking good
However given that In-Q-Tel is a US not for profit military investment vehicle - we'll probably not be seeing the technology in our amateur hands for a long while !

They used to have a detailed Technology section on their website but I see anything about how it works, how it performs etc is gone completely.
I suspect that since superior dark imaging/night vision is a huge strategic advantage - so it always seems to get snaffled up by the military - depriving us poor amateurs !!!

Rally
Rally,

My knowledge of photomultipliers is pretty rusty (last time I remember reading about them they still used vacuum tubes!) but I don't see how they would get around the fundamental problem of shot noise. The limitation is that you only receive a small number of photons from a dim object. A photomultiplier can't create any information that isn't available in that original signal. It can only apply gain to that signal. You might as well take the digital output of your 100% QE sensor and just multiply it by 5

I would think that a QE greater than 100% implies the ability to detect photons that don't exist. That would certainly be a clever trick.

Cheers,
Rick.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 07-03-2013, 11:07 AM
LightningNZ's Avatar
LightningNZ (Cam)
Registered User

LightningNZ is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Canberra
Posts: 952
You are indeed right, both image intensifiers and EMCCDs have 20%-80% QE depending upon materials, build and wavelength.

There is an important point with regard to what the amplification does - it's analog. You can't meaningfully increase a digital signal - it is what it is - but if you're amplifying the analog signal you can potentially increase signal _before_ the digitisation takes place, and since this is a major source of noise you can potentially gain signal.

Of course image intensifiers are also useful even if they are noisy because they present a bright image when you need it to kill your enemies in the dark. The noise in this case is not terribly relevant.

Cheers,
Cam

Quote:
Originally Posted by RickS View Post
Rally,

My knowledge of photomultipliers is pretty rusty (last time I remember reading about them they still used vacuum tubes!) but I don't see how they would get around the fundamental problem of shot noise. The limitation is that you only receive a small number of photons from a dim object. A photomultiplier can't create any information that isn't available in that original signal. It can only apply gain to that signal. You might as well take the digital output of your 100% QE sensor and just multiply it by 5

I would think that a QE greater than 100% implies the ability to detect photons that don't exist. That would certainly be a clever trick.

Cheers,
Rick.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 08-03-2013, 08:48 PM
Poita (Peter)
Registered User

Poita is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: NSW Country
Posts: 3,585
http://nofilmschool.com/2013/03/cano...nsor-see-dark/

It is pretty interesting. The night sky shots and full moon shots are impressive.

It is on display in Tokyo right now.
www.shopbiz.jp/en/ss/
and a truly enormous sensor:
http://www.canon.com/technology/approach/special/cmos.html

Last edited by Poita; 08-03-2013 at 09:00 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 08-03-2013, 11:01 PM
PRejto's Avatar
PRejto (Peter)
Registered User

PRejto is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 1,290
Thanks for posting the links! The video is amazing; especially the side of the house shot in moonlight!

Peter
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 10-03-2013, 04:30 PM
gregbradley's Avatar
gregbradley
Registered User

gregbradley is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 15,468
That would be fabulous if it was under $2000. It would be a big threat to the traditional CCD stronghold in dedicated astro cameras. This is what I was saying in another thread. There is a lot of research and development going on with CMOS sensors and it would appear next to none with CCDs.

Greg.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +10. The time is now 04:47 PM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.8.7 | Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertisement
Bintel
Advertisement
Celestron Australia
Advertisement
Meade Australia
Advertisement
NexDome Observatories
Advertisement
SkyWatcher Australia
Advertisement
Lunatico Astronomical
Advertisement
OzScopes Authorised Dealer
Advertisement
Astronomy and Electronics Centre
Advertisement