Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Quantum Film Might Replace CMOS Sensors

Posted by timothy on from the never-look-inside-the-camera dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Quantum film could replace conventional CMOS image sensors in digital cameras and are four times more sensitive than photographic film. The film, which uses embedded quantum dots instead of silver grains like photographic film, can image scenes at higher pixel resolutions. While the technology has potential for use in mobile phones, conventional digital cameras would also gain much higher resolution sensors by using quantum film material." The original (note: obnoxious interstitial ad) article at EE Times adds slightly more detail.

6 of 192 comments (clear)

  1. Sensitivity is not Resolution by lastomega7 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There seems to be a sensationalist mix-up with the two terms... is this technology going to bring about more sensitive pixels (i.e. higher ISO capabilities) or just more pixels on the sensor? or both?

    1. Re:Sensitivity is not Resolution by MozeeToby · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Also, resolution doesn't equal picture quality. I'd rather have a good lens system than a 20 Megapixel sensor.

    2. Re:Sensitivity is not Resolution by farnsworth · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What you say is certainly true. But let's say that you have an entry-level slr with a junky $50 lens, and then you suddenly have $500 to spend on your setup. Do you buy a fancier camera or a fancier lens?

      Of course, if money is no object, more of everything will certainly improve things. But practically speaking, the vast majority of folks in the real world would be better off paying more attention to their glass rather than to their silicon.

      A nice lens on a relatively limited camera will take amazing photos. A crappy lens on the best camera will not.

      --

      There aint no pancake so thin it doesn't have two sides.

    3. Re:Sensitivity is not Resolution by peragrin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      personally I would rather have a good lens system and a 20 megapixel sensor.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
  2. Night vision goggles by Meshach · · Score: 3, Insightful
    FTFA:

    For the future, the company also plans to target other specialized applications, such as pitch-black night vision goggles, cheaper solar cells and even spray-on displays.

    Right now night vision goggles give a very grainy tinged image. Clarifying that could have millions of applications.

    --
    "Maybe this world is another planet's hell"
    Aldous Huxley
  3. Doesn't mean much as long as the optics still suck by Dr.+Spork · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I don't know too much about the physics of photography, but it seems to me that the real problem in the picture quality of tiny cameras is that the lenses are terrible. Improving the sensors just means that we'll get very accurate digital representations of blurry images, produced by tiny, dirty lenses with minuscule, fixed focal lengths. Even as things stand now, a older camera with good optics and a 5MP sensor produces much better images than a new camera with cheap optics and a 12MP sensor. It seems to me that sensor isn't the bottleneck anymore.