|
|
|
|
|
|
by formerly_proven
1236 days ago
|
|
|
> 6. What's the future. On the hardware side we need better sensors with higher resolution and more sensitivity and improved optics (that, say, use metamaterials etc.). Such developments are on their way but don't hold your breath. Two interesting developments here are the pixels in Starvis 2 sensors, which as a first afaik use a 2.5D structure to increase full-well capacity by a lot. And another, non-production sensor by Sony where they developed a self-aligning process and pixels are actually split in two layers, with the top layer only carrying the photodiode and the bottom layer entirely dedicated to the readout transistors. That's promising for lower readout noise and also for increasing full-well capacity. |
|
|
Both these announcements are what I'd call large incremental changes (big changes within existing technologies). If those dynamic range/noise figures turn out to be roughly in line with the publicity then they're much to be welcomed and half the world and I will be glad to see them.
Moreover, such large changes cannot be ignored by other manufacturers otherwise they'd be left behind. That means they'd have to license the tech quickly, that is unless there's some gotcha like ridiculously low or unreliable production yields etc. Anyway, we'll soon see.
I still have some reservations until more info emerges. As I mentioned in the earlier post I hope the changes are mainly real hardware improvements and not just little changes coupled with a great deal of back-end processing. As I mentioned there, we can do without 'smoke-and-mirror' announcements (which, unfortunately, are all too frequent).