Quote:
Originally Posted by Somnium
so the 4X sensitivity drop was just around the reduction in flux on the pixel due to the area which would be 25 microns squared as opposed to 100 for the 10 micron pixels
The point about well depth is a good one because stars are point sources then the majority of light will be concentrated on a few pixels regardless of the size and that is likely to become saturated, but larger wells will have this issue in longer exposures ...
|
I see, but the light is still hitting the sensor its just collected in the next pixel along. Read noise then comes into it where there would be a smaller signal for each pixel for the same exposure but then the counterplay is to simply expose for longer if the smaller pixels fill quicker and with less light than a larger pixel. Certainly some report that. Paul Haese advocates that strategy.
The KAF9000 is one of the larger pixelled sensors with 12 microns. Yet it is only slightly higher in QE than the 16803 but suffers badly from residual ghost images. I am not sure why but perhaps that is another factor to consider when comparing pixel size. Is there a relationship between pixel size and RBI (ghost images)?
Greg.