The End of FF?

[alphaomega]

What about this entry on DPReview:
Quantum dots promise more sensitive sensors

Technology developer InVisage Technologies has announced sensors it says can offer four times better performance than conventional CCD and CMOS sensors. The company's 'QuantumFilm' technology uses the unique electronic behavior of quantum dots (precisely-sized nano-scale crystals trapped in a polymer film) to replace conventional silicon photodiodes. The company says the quantum dots themselves are twice as sensitive to light as conventional photodiodes and that their placement on the sensor surface offers a further doubling of sensitivity over front-illuminated CMOS designs. The film can be positioned on conventional circuitry, allowing the chips to be produced more cheaply than CMOS or CCD designs. The first application will be in mobile phones sensors later this year

http://www.dpreview.com/news/1003/10032 ... umfilm.asp

Imagine a future version of A700 with four times the Mp crammed in using this technology. 48Mp on APS-C size and 100Mp on FF? No need for FF then. What about the MP producers? Are they feeling the cold sweat round their neck? If youo have shares in one of those, perhaps they should be sold today???

No doubt David Kilpatrick will have something to say about this technology and its use. I can imagine me going around with an updated Panasonix LX4 next year with 40Mp instead of 10 and the same beautiful pictures at ISO400 instead of 100. Every Tom Dick and Harry will be submitting to Alamy from their mobile phones and they will have 100 million images for sale before year 2020.

[alphaomega]

Sorry folks

What about the MP producers?

should have been MF (medium format).

[pakodominguez]

Imagine a future version of A700 with four times the Mp crammed in using this technology. 48Mp on APS-C size and 100Mp on FF? No need for FF then.

We (I) don't want FF because you can stock more pixels on it, but because the format itself. People who prefer working with wide and ultra wide angles will have a better result on FF than APS format.

Then, if you want a 44+ MP, you have to think on upgrade your computer too, otherwise you won't be able to handle all that information.

I think this are good news for the industry and I hope it will work really good, so more pressure over Sony, Panasonic and Canon for improvement on their technology.

Regards

[KevinBarrett]

Back when the subject of megapixel inflation arose last (I think it was around the introduction of the a350 or the a900), I calculated by pixel density of current and proposed camera-phone sensors, that FF cameras could conceivably work with up to 1.3 gigapixels. Funny that you would reference Panasonic's LX series, though, because Panasonic proved with the wildly popular LX3 that it's not about the megapixels, but the lens.

However, I think you misinterpreted the article. It mentions nothing about increased pixel density, just a 4x increase in sensitivity. That's a two stop increase. If it makes new ISO 25,600 look like old ISO 6,400, great, but if we lose ISO 100 and 200 in the process, boo.

In addition, MF isn't all about megapixels either. It's about the larger format optics, being able to use stupidly small apertures, and leaf shutters in the camera lens.

[David Kilpatrick]

It sounds complicated, but actually it's just a layer of matt black paint - or a nano version of the black crackle finish on your Alpha 900 body

Of course it is not that simple, it's transparent layer which includes crystals that can trap a photon, bump out an electron (a bit like the reverse of the phosphor coating on the inside of a fluorescent tube). There is already a design for silicon with an increased surface area caused by bumps. Both almost certainly look very black to the eye - super-black, like a material which sucks in light.

Both also promise to improve solar power panels, important in satellites and space probes, which will in turn boost domestic solar panels up to several times their present output; that will allow panels to function on dull days in Scotland... so good news for me!

David

[bakubo]

Here are a couple more articles:

http://www.technologyreview.com/communi ... 24840/?a=f

http://www.eetimes.com/news/design/rss/ ... 253&pgno=1

[Dusty]

I think you got this wrong - the tremendous cost reduction of this technology, and the ability to put it on any surface, means that FF just became better AND cheaper than ever before!

Get the new a950 for only $1000! :>

Dusty

[David Kilpatrick]

Testing active topics - thread 2 (first test worked).

[alphaomega]

Reference KevinBarrett's comment above

However, I think you misinterpreted the article. It mentions nothing about increased pixel density, just a 4x increase in sensitivity. That's a two stop increase. If it makes new ISO 25,600 look like old ISO 6,400, great, but if we lose ISO 100 and 200 in the process, boo.

I must have partially misunderstood this bit from the press release

InVisage delivers 4x higher performance, 2x higher dynamic range and professional camera features not yet found in mobile image sensors. The first QuantumFilm-enabled product, due out later this year, solves the crucial challenge of capturing stunning images using mobile handset cameras.

Still, as the application seems to be most effective on smaller sensors, I can envisage the equivalent of my LX3 delivering current ISO100 quality at ISO 400 if the yield is a two stop increase. That is quite something in itself and if transferred to 4/3 size sensors then that will probably give a considerable boost to micro 4/3. I noticed somewhere else that Canon is watching micro 4/3 and mirror less developments with interest. In fact looking at what is happening with technological developments just now I have more or less settled on staying with my A350/700 and Panasonic LX2/3 for a while watching developments. Maybe the solution for someone like me approaching 70 is to acquire micro 4/3 when it has matured a little and suitable quality lenses are available. I would be looking for portability and low weight in one system instead of the split between Sony and Pana.
An 8-20mm F4-5.6, 12-48mm F3.5-4.5 and 35-200mm F4-5.6 or thereabouts in micro 4/3 would probably do me for all my requirements. This is particularly so if the camera could yield low noise images up to ISO 6,400. I do feel we are in for exiting times in camera development.