'Quantum Dots' for phone cameras

Discussion in 'Digital SLR' started by Lotto, Mar 23, 2010.

  1. Lotto

    Lotto Guest

    1. Advertisements

  2. Lotto

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Yeah, too much marketing BS to make me happy. Note that they're only
    producing _small_ sensors initially and have no sample images as yet.
    I wonder if the advantages of the technology make it suitable only
    for small sensors used in phones.
     
    Ray Fischer, Mar 23, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Lotto

    Charles Guest

    Hype to get investors. Seen that before...
     
    Charles, Mar 23, 2010
    #3
  4. No. It's because small sensors benefit the most from better light-
    gathering technology, and because small sensors are easier to produce (at
    a lower failure rate), especially when using a new production process.

    So starting with small sensors is nothing but common sense.
    There' no hype involved.
     
    Robert Spanjaard, Mar 23, 2010
    #4
  5. Lotto

    NameHere Guest

    There's a good example of this that I followed, an article first published
    in an early-mid '80's OMNI magazine. The Australian inventor came up with a
    way to make photovoltaic shingles for houses for less than $1 per sq. foot.
    I waited a year or two to see what would come of that. Then years later I
    remembered that article, when the net began to reach deeply into
    documentation and reference resources in the mid 90's. I decided to see if
    I could find and follow the trail from that article to what happened to the
    patent. The final word was that the patent was bought up in the late 80's
    by a relative of the owner of one of the main oil companies in the USA. The
    trail ended there.
     
    NameHere, Mar 23, 2010
    #5
  6. That's (part of) what I said: small sensors benefit the most from this
    technology. Even if a high-quality sensor is used (a frame transfer
    design, for example), a sensor of that size is limited by the small
    diameter of the lens. Even an F/1.0 lens in front of a typical phone
    camera has a very small aperture to capture light.

    For example, the Sony-Ericsson K800i has a 5.1mm f/2.8 lens. I don't have
    any reliable information about the sensor size, but let's say the lens is
    comparable to 35mm on a 36x24mm sensor camera. F/2.8 may sound reasonable,
    but the actual diameter of the lens opening is only 5.1/2.8=1.8mm, which
    is comparable to _F/19_ on a real 35mm lens.
     
    Robert Spanjaard, Mar 23, 2010
    #6
  7. Lotto

    GGBrowne Guest

    Since the light has to cover so much less sensor area, you're now just
    grasping at straws to justify why you waste so much money on your camera
    gear.
     
    GGBrowne, Mar 23, 2010
    #7
  8. That doesn't improve its light gathering ability at all.
    Then again, I didn't expect you to know anything about basic science.
     
    Robert Spanjaard, Mar 23, 2010
    #8
  9. Lotto

    SMS Guest

    I heard that another company has sensors that have three layers, and use
    silicon color separation. Combine this with quantum dots and put it all
    inside a Sigma camera and you'd have something unbelievable!
     
    SMS, Mar 23, 2010
    #9
  10. Lotto

    R Davis Guest

    You mean like these psychotic troll's delusions of yours?

    <http://www.wifi-forum.com/wf/showpost.php?p=448381&postcount=101>
     
    R Davis, Mar 23, 2010
    #10
  11. Lotto

    Guest Guest

    what's funny is that foveon was pursuing tiny sensors for cellphone
    cameras, hoping that they could make money there. they certainly
    weren't making any with their slr sensors. it sure worked out well for
    them. not.
     
    Guest, Mar 23, 2010
    #11
  12. Lotto

    John A. Guest

    Dude... troll.
     
    John A., Mar 23, 2010
    #12
  13. I wouldn't add that second line if he wasn't.
     
    Robert Spanjaard, Mar 23, 2010
    #13
  14. Lotto

    John A. Guest

    John A., Mar 23, 2010
    #14
  15. Lotto

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Remember Foveon? It'd be nice if this technology produces good
    results, but until I see it I'm going to remain highly skeptical.
    There's enough oddness to make me distrustful.
     
    Ray Fischer, Mar 24, 2010
    #15
  16. Lotto

    Ray Fischer Guest

    They were actually produced for a while. The problem is that they
    weren't sturdy enough and walking on them broke them.
     
    Ray Fischer, Mar 24, 2010
    #16
  17. Lotto

    Paul Furman Guest

    I saw an article about these with a diagram, it looked like a back
    illuminated sensor, but using their mystery substance instead of silicon.

    --
    Paul Furman
    www.edgehill.net
    www.baynatives.com

    all google groups messages filtered due to spam
     
    Paul Furman, Mar 31, 2010
    #17
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.