Well, there you have it: the BSI gauntlet has been officially thrown. Sony just announced its own backside-illuminated CMOS sensor meant to rival
OmniVision's achievement. Sony's sensor features 1.75 micron pixels totalling 5 effective megapixels capable of 60fps and offers low noise at twice the sensitivity of traditional sensors at the same pixel size. That's a signal to noise ratio of +8dB (+6dB sensitivity, -2dB noise), nerds. Nice Sony, but OmniVision's 8 megapixel sensor targeting cameraphones (Sony's is apparently targeting digital cameras and camcorders) brings the pixels down to 1.4 microns (with 0.9 micron pixels on the roadmap) albeit with an undisclosed SNR. Regardless, we look forward to seeing our friends' chemically-spiked club shots in excruciatingly slovenly detail later this year.
BSI, learn it -- it's shaping up to do for imaging what
perpendicular did for magnetic storage.
[Via
FarEastGizmos]
posted June 11th 2008 5:58AM
Indeed, it's all about the light.
Why are quality lenses expensive...the light. How much and how fast is what it's all about. I think Sony may get some really low lux on their camcorders with this, but I'd like to see what a still camera can do with it too.
Vagrant's right that it's about the light, but there's always more to the story... like that light gathering ability is proportional to the area and the sensitivity. Sony actually has a 56% advantage over OmniVision in terms of raw pixel size; of course, compared to PhaseOne's 9 micron CCD, that's 26 times less area. (Not to mention raw QE and sensitivity.)
The other key factor, at least in my mind, is the ability of the lens to make use of the pixels. A perfect lens focuses light to a spot that is limited by diffraction; for a nominal cell phone cam with NA=0.2 and green light, the spot is around 3 microns, twice the size of an OmniVision pixel. So even though the OmniVision has 8 MPx sampling ability, the imaging system has a throughput SBP of closer to 2 MPx.
That, of course, is why DARPA has the MONTAGE project...
Well I wouldn't have used those items in a picture to show off. Looks like the 1920's?!!
They call it 'back illuminated" but from what I read they just for ages had the chip backwards and now flipped it right side forward, so for me it's more that it was back illuminated and now is front illuminated.
http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/News/Press/200806/08-069E/01.jpg
Silly chipmakers.
Agreed, very confusing.
If what Sony are claiming is true, imagine what will happen when they start building sensors like this into high end still/video cameras. The Nikon D3 can shoot in candle light already. Give it one of these.... moonlight?
I reckon they'll shoot in waaaay lower light than moonlight. Probably negative light, in fact.
The D3 shoots at candle light at higher ISOs. The goal would be to able to shoot the exact same low-light shot with a lower ISO (and hence better quality image).
Also, it would be interesting to see what they could do with a smaller sensor (APS-C or smaller). Already, the APS-C Nikon D300 (which uses a Sony sensor) can take good pictures at 3200ISO and decent pictures at 6400ISO when necessary.
I wonder what else has been conventionally used backwards this entire time. Makes one think.
Wait, wait.....
I'm sorry, I think I'm missing my nerd-ination... What did I just read? All I got was something about more light. Halp?
Don't make the pixels smaller, make the pixels better. I'm tired of cameraphones that need really good light to take decent pictures.
Uhm, that's what they just did you see.
it might just be that I'm iewing this on a macbook (read: not a great screen) but it looks to me like the second image took a hit in contrast/ black levels. check out the scale's face.
these back-thinned sensors have been available for years to the scientific community (both CCD and CMOS versions). Problem was they cost much more than standard front-illuminated chips because the back-thinning is done by hand. Sony didn't invent anything. All they are doing is putting them in your Cybershot, etc.
Well if you read the linked page it seems the 'back illumination' trick caused a whole range of issues that has to be dealt with and it's that part that sony claims to have hammered down now.
I've seen that same image on a website reviewing my Canon SD750.....
I really REALLY dont think thats a sony photograph.
My bad, its not the same, although VERY similar:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/SD750/SD750hSLI0080.HTM
They always use standard colorcharts to do tests, so yeah it might well be 2 pictures of a standard chart/picture not created by sony.