Sony mass-produces back-illuminated image sensors

frederick wrote:
> Paul Furman wrote:
>> frederick wrote:
>>> Paul Furman wrote:
>>>> frederick wrote:
>>>>> ASAAR wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 00:01:21 +1200, frederick wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> They mention a 1.7um square pixel size. At 6mp, that
>>>>>>> extrapolates to a sensor about 40 x 26mm, a "1/3.6" perhaps.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Typo? A 1/3.6" sensor's dimensions are about 3mm x 4mm. Your
>>>>>> 40mm x 26mm sensor would be slightly larger than Full Frame (FX).
>>>>>>
>>>>> Yes - please call it a typo. It sounds better than dumb error ;-0.
>>>>
>>>> It is 5mp, not 6mp so 2592 x 1944 * 1.7 =
>>>> 4.4 x 3.3
>>>>
>>>> Unsure of working with microns, I checked:
>>>> http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/does.pixel.size.matter/
>>>> "small sensor, 2.3 micron pixel pitch, Canon S70 point and shoot
>>>> consumer camera is compared to that from a large sensor, 8.2 micron
>>>> pixel pitch, Canon 1D Mark II DSLR"
>>>>
>>>> So 1.7 microns is a very small pixel.
>>>>
>>> I took 1.7um square as meaning 1.7 square um.
>>
>> Ah! but still...
>> The square root of 1.7 is an even smaller 1.3 so a 3.4mm x 2.5mm sensor.
>>
> Yeah - somehow I was thinking 6mp, I wrote 6mp above, but the article
> does indeed say 5mp.
>>
>>> Reason for that is that press releases are written by people in
>>> marketing departments.
>>
>> Or targeted to commercial cell phone designers.
>>
> Even a sensor that size would be huge for a cellphone camera wouldn't it?

I think it's a bit on the small side, or maybe average.

--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam

David J Taylor wrote:
> Ray Fischer wrote:
>> David J Taylor
> []
>>> Why do you say that? Isn't the quantum efficiency improvement in
>>> going from front- to back-illumination enough to produce a
>>> substantial sensitivity gain?
>> Why would it be?
>>
>> No, I don't take their marketing BS as fact.
>
> As I understand it, the QE difference is a factor of two or three.
>
> David
>
% of photosite surface obscured by wires / transistors would be
proportionately much less for larger sensels. That's not to say there
mightn't be some benefit.
But photosite size might not be a good indicator or efficiency in any
case. Doesn't seem to correlate with dslr sensor performance.