'Quantum Dots' for phone cameras

On 10-03-23 2:45 , Lotto wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8580372.stm

I saw that. 1 stop of gain.

Back illuminated chips (Sony and IIRC Panasonic) do better than that.

--
gmail originated posts are filtered due to spam.

On 10-03-23 12:57 , SMS wrote:
On 23/03/10 12:37 AM, Ray Fischer wrote:
wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8580372.stm

Yeah, too much marketing BS to make me happy. Note that they're only
producing _small_ sensors initially and have no sample images as yet.
I wonder if the advantages of the technology make it suitable only
for small sensors used in phones.

I heard that another company has sensors that have three layers, and use
silicon color separation. Combine this with quantum dots and put it all
inside a Sigma camera and you'd have something unbelievable!

They already have something "unbelievable" : their marketing pitch.

--
gmail originated posts are filtered due to spam.

On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 17:49:40 -0400, John A. wrote:

For example, the Sony-Ericsson K800i has a 5.1mm f/2.8 lens. I don't
have any reliable information about the sensor size, but let's say the
lens is comparable to 35mm on a 36x24mm sensor camera. F/2.8 may sound
reasonable, but the actual diameter of the lens opening is only
5.1/2.8=1.8mm, which is comparable to _F/19_ on a real 35mm lens.

Since the light has to cover so much less sensor area,

That doesn't improve its light gathering ability at all.
Then again, I didn't expect you to know anything about basic science.

Dude... troll.

I wouldn't add that second line if he wasn't.

--
Regards, Robert http://www.arumes.com

Charles wrote:
In article , Ray Fischer
wrote:

Yeah, too much marketing BS to make me happy. Note that they're only
producing _small_ sensors initially and have no sample images as yet.
I wonder if the advantages of the technology make it suitable only
for small sensors used in phones.

Hype to get investors. Seen that before...

Remember Foveon? It'd be nice if this technology produces good
results, but until I see it I'm going to remain highly skeptical.
There's enough oddness to make me distrustful.

--
Ray Fischer

NameHere wrote:
There's a good example of this that I followed, an article first published
in an early-mid '80's OMNI magazine. The Australian inventor came up with a
way to make photovoltaic shingles for houses for less than $1 per sq. foot.
I waited a year or two to see what would come of that. Then years later I
remembered that article, when the net began to reach deeply into
documentation and reference resources in the mid 90's. I decided to see if
I could find and follow the trail from that article to what happened to the
patent. The final word was that the patent was bought up in the late 80's
by a relative of the owner of one of the main oil companies in the USA. The
trail ended there.

They were actually produced for a while. The problem is that they
weren't sturdy enough and walking on them broke them.

--
Ray Fischer

Alan Browne wrote:
On 10-03-23 2:45 , Lotto wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8580372.stm

I saw that. 1 stop of gain.

Back illuminated chips (Sony and IIRC Panasonic) do better than that.

I saw an article about these with a diagram, it looked like a back
illuminated sensor, but using their mystery substance instead of silicon.

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

all google groups messages filtered due to spam