Well, ok then!
That's the kind of major breakthrough that I was talking about! If this
allows the relatively easy manufacture of imaging arrays of high resolution,
then some of my comments become moot.
I did see a reference to the Kodak digital imaging website where an array on
the order of 16mpixels with 9.9 um pixels in EDN magazine (14 September,
2000):
<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>
"At the extremely high end, the KAF-16801CE CCD features 16.6 million pixels
in a 4080´4080-pixel array. By using relatively large, 9´9-µm pixels, the
device delivers greater light-capturing ability, dynamic range, and SNR than
possible with the commonly used smaller pixels. As a result of the pixel
size, the dual inline package, which has just 34 pins, measures about 38 mm2
-an eye-catching piece of silicon! The array also includes proprietary
on-chip RGB-color filtering to improve color-space performance and
sensitivity. The KAF-16801 sells for $3000 to $4000 (1000)."
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Thus, we are getting there and sooner than I dared hope!
Now, when it gets to be affordable, I'll buy one!
Guy Clark
-----Original Message-----
From: derek_c@cix.co.uk [mailto:derek_c@cix.co.uk]
Sent: Friday, February 02, 2001 12:42 PM
To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
Subject: RE: Future of Photography (was RE: filmscanners: real value?)
Until CMOS sensors became high-quality, the image sensor market was held
back by the specialist nature of the CCD manufacturing process. You can't
produce a CCD in a CMOS fab line and vice versa, and CCD fabs lag well
behind the CMOS equivalents.
Now, the sky's the limit. Image sensors like the Canon one can be rolled
off the same production lines as all the other high-volume semiconductors,
and the intrinsic cost should plummet.
In article
<75655197BF9ED311871900508B91A4AC012AD39E@usbgrexch17.us.abatos.com>,
guy.clark@sbt.siemens.com (Clark Guy) wrote:
> HI, Bob!
>
> Of course, you are quite correct about the market strategy aspect of
> this
> matter. The technology exists to have significantly higher resolution
> sensors than we have available to us today. There just isn't a big
> enough
> market for them, so the prices stay high, so there is no market for
> them..... etc.
>
> I believe that the storage and processing speed issues are more easily
> addressed than the limitations of the sensor technology, and again, if
> there
> were perceived to be a big enough market, the major manufacturers would
> be
> providing high speed processing and high capacity storage along with the
> high resolution sensors that demand it!
>
> I just am not convinced that we will see usable/affordable 30Mpixel
> cameras
> in the coming decade.
>
> Call me a pessimist, but prove me wrong! Please!!
>
> Guy Clark
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Murphy, Bob H [mailto:bob.h.murphy@lmco.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2001 5:28 PM
> To: 'filmscanners@halftone.co.uk'
> Subject: RE: Future of Photography (was RE: filmscanners: real value?)
>
>
> I don't think the image sensor is the problem.
>
> I'm talking about a die that is the same size as the current one used
> in the
> Canon D30, namely 22.7mm horizontal only made with pixels the size
> currently
> used in the Olympus 3030, Nikon 990, etc. or about 3.0x smaller in each
> direction. This makes for an array of "conventional" pixels in a
> "conventionally" sized die totaling 30 million. Why couldn't this be
> done
> today? I suspect the answer is market strategy - not technology.
> Furthermore
> today's camera electronics could handle an image of this size provided
> customers were willing to wait 9 times longer for the data to be
> written to
> an on-camera 1GB microdrive or 10 seconds perhaps for a high quality
> jpg.
>
> I know the small pixels in the <$1000 3Mpixel digicams are nosier than
> the
> D30's and are awful when shot an iso greater than 100 but I believe the
> market has proven that they're clean enough for a good, well exposed
> image.
> And 30 million of them would make one awesome image. Finally, you could
> always resample it down to 3.3 Mega pixels and get (I predict) a much
> better
> shot than the current D30 can produce.
>
> Why can't this be doe today?
>
> --Bob
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Clark Guy [SMTP:guy.clark@sbt.siemens.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2001 4:23 PM
> > To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
> > Subject: RE: Future of Photography (was RE: filmscanners: real
> > value?)
> >
> > HI, Bob!
> >
> > That's one of the points I feel most secure about.
> >
> > There is that lower limit to how small the CCD elements (photon
> > buckets)
> > can
> > be. Too small and they get noisy, smaller than that and they are too
> > small
> > to respond to visible light!
> >
> > Then there is the upper limit dictated by how well we can make
> > semiconductor
> > devices without flaws. The larger they are, the more likely to
> > include a
> > flaw. Thus, the larger they are, the more expensive (exponentially
> > with
> > die
> > area, I've been told) they are! (This partially explains the horrific
> > cost
> > of medium format digital backs, and the "astronomical" cost of
> > astronomical
> > "large" CCD arrays (up to $25000 as advertised in Sky and Telescope
> > magazine!!!))
> >
> > So, you see, there is an upper boundary to size and a lower boundary
> > to
> > size, and we are pushing at both of them!
> >
> > I, therefore, am somewhat skeptical about seeing any 30Mpixel devices
> > anytime soon. Possibly if there is a major breakthrough in
> > manufacturing
> > of
> > imaging arrays allowing for larger cheaper arrays, but physics
> > dictates
> > that
> > lower limit to element size. Just because there has been an
> > explosion of
> > newer and better digital cameras over the last five years doesn't mean
> > that
> > that rate of improvement can continue!
> >
> > There also needs to be a market for these 30Mpixel devices to make
> > them
> > and
> > make them affordable! Joe Pointenshoot won't be pushing for that
> > kind of
> > quality unless it is cheap (by cheap I mean costs less than a
> > 1.5Mpixel
> > camera does now), which kind of defeats the market drive.
> >
> > Really, I hope you are right!!! I just am a little too close to the
> > engineering side of this to be this optomistic!
> >
> > Guy Clark
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Murphy, Bob H [mailto:bob.h.murphy@lmco.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2001 11:24 AM
> > To: 'filmscanners@halftone.co.uk'
> > Subject: RE: Future of Photography (was RE: filmscanners: real value?)
> >
> >
> > I'm not too sure about the pixel and array size statement. The CCD's
> > in
> > current 3.3Mpixel CCD cameras like the Olympus 3030 have a diagonal
> > dimension about a third that of the Canon D30 SLR digicam's sensor. As
> > signal processing and memory get faster and lower power (which
> > happens at
> > a
> > steady factor of 2 about every 18-24months) it will be reasonable to
> > have
> > a
> > 30megapixel device in a camera like the D30 with pixels the same size
> > as
> > the
> > current Olympus 3030. Given Moore's Law (see:
> > ) this could
> > happen
> > within the next 6 to 10 years.
> >
> > --Bob
>
>
