3 ms·

Making the components smaller doesn't mean you have to make the sensor area smaller, you can just put more of them in.

by gliptic 11y ago

acqq 11y ago
> Making the components smaller doesn't mean you have to make the sensor area smaller, you can just put more of them in. It sounds, mildly put, different to all I know, so much that I fully doubt the validity of claim, as long as the subject are the camera sensors. My argument is exactly that making the transistors smaller benefits the CPUs but making the pixels smaller makes the sensors worse. The less pixels in the same area, the more sensitivity. So what do you mean can be "put more of" "in"? I've also linked to an example. The Canon's camera has one pixel of 19μm. The latest Intel CPUs use lithography of 14 nm, that's more than 1000 times smaller in one dimension. Which means that the difference in useful area gained by reducing the frame of the fixed-area pixel as the effect of the lower-nm lithography brings extremely little (for example, twice as thin frame (e.g. 28 nm to 14 nm step) brings just 0.2% more photons in the same area). Do you have any link?
- zokier 11y ago
  I think the important distinction you are missing is that smaller manufacturing process does not necessarily imply smaller photosites.
  - acqq 11y ago
    No, improved lithography certainly can reduce the area that is not collecting the photons, I argue that the changes in lithography (nanomenters) are orders of magnitude smaller than the size needed for very high sensitivity (micrometers). I gave the links, and to make this discussion useful, I'd appreciate the links that support different conclusions.
    - bitL 11y ago
      How about smaller, lower-voltage electronic parts cause lower interference, noise and banding, contributing to significant improvement of quality of reading of a sub-pixel value (or pixel layer in Foveon), improving quantum efficiency of the sensor, especially its incident photon to electron ratio? And allowing substrates with better characteristics at smaller scales?

Making the components smaller doesn't mean you have to make the sensor area smaller, you can just put more of them in.

by gliptic 11y ago

Making the components smaller doesn't mean you have to make the sensor area smaller, you can just put more of them in.

acqq 11y ago

> Making the components smaller doesn't mean you have to make the sensor area smaller, you can just put more of them in. It sounds, mildly put, different to all I know, so much that I fully doubt the validity of claim, as long as the subject are the camera sensors. My argument is exactly that making the transistors smaller benefits the CPUs but making the pixels smaller makes the sensors worse. The less pixels in the same area, the more sensitivity. So what do you mean can be "put more of" "in"? I've also linked to an example. The Canon's camera has one pixel of 19μm. The latest Intel CPUs use lithography of 14 nm, that's more than 1000 times smaller in one dimension. Which means that the difference in useful area gained by reducing the frame of the fixed-area pixel as the effect of the lower-nm lithography brings extremely little (for example, twice as thin frame (e.g. 28 nm to 14 nm step) brings just 0.2% more photons in the same area). Do you have any link?

zokier 11y ago
I think the important distinction you are missing is that smaller manufacturing process does not necessarily imply smaller photosites.
- acqq 11y ago
  No, improved lithography certainly can reduce the area that is not collecting the photons, I argue that the changes in lithography (nanomenters) are orders of magnitude smaller than the size needed for very high sensitivity (micrometers). I gave the links, and to make this discussion useful, I'd appreciate the links that support different conclusions.
  - bitL 11y ago
    How about smaller, lower-voltage electronic parts cause lower interference, noise and banding, contributing to significant improvement of quality of reading of a sub-pixel value (or pixel layer in Foveon), improving quantum efficiency of the sensor, especially its incident photon to electron ratio? And allowing substrates with better characteristics at smaller scales?