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.

5 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 Bigjeff5 · · Score: 5, Informative

      There is a physics problem when your image sensor is too small - photons have size and mass, and there is a point at which you cannot collect enough light to take a good picture.

      That's why expensive cameras have larger image sensors - they aren't packing more pixels per square inch, they are actually packing fewer pixels per square inch. A high end 10 mega-pixel will have an image sensor that is 10x bigger than a pocket-sized 10 mega-pixel camera, and it will take phenomenally better pictures.

      This is the source of the GP's confusion about what the summary means - is "quantum film" more sensitive to light? Or are they simply able to pack more sensors in a smaller area? If they are actually able to collect accurate color information from fewer photons (i.e. more sensitive to light), then you can shrink the size of high end image sensors and still maintain quality. If it simply allows them to pack more pixels onto a sensor without being able to collect accurate color data with fewer photons, then quantum film is absolutely worthless. It offers no benefit to the quality of images in that case, even if they can crank a camera up to 30 megapixels it will still look like shit.

      --
      Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
    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. Quantum film by Jay+L · · Score: 5, Funny

    Is "quantum film" more sensitive to light? Or are they simply able to pack more sensors in a smaller area?

    That's the trouble with it - you can know its sensitivity or its resolution, but not both, and the act of measuring one changes the other.