Previous news story    Next news story

Fujifilm patents hybrid organic/CMOS sensor

By Richard Butler on Dec 21, 2011 at 19:16 GMT

Fujifilm has been granted a patent for an innovative organic-hybrid sensor technology. However, while interesting, it may not offer a compelling advantage over existing designs, according to sensor technologist Professor Eric Fossum. The company has recently been granted a patent for its work on a sensor that uses an organic (carbon-chemistry-based) material on top of silicon circuitry. Speculation about Fujifilm's forthcoming mirrorless camera has latched onto a technical paper the company published in late 2009, but both Fossum and the company say the work shows more promise for small-scale sensors.

How the technology differs

The Fujifilm sensor differs from exisiting CMOS and CCD designs in that it uses a photoelectric organic coating to convert light into electrons, rather than silicon photodiodes. The electrons produced by the organic layer are then 'read' by CMOS circuitry built underneath. Fujifilm's internal paper on the technology claims several advantages to the design. The first is that the organic layer can be coated across the entire sensor, making much more of the surface light-sensitive. This means there's no need for microlenses to redirect light onto specific light-sensitive regions. There's also no need to divide the photosensitive layer into individual photosites. Both these features could make the sensor less expensive to manufacture, Fujifilm's team says. The organic material's sensitivity to only visible light also avoids the need for a IR-filter in front of the sensor (silicon sensors are sensitive to IR light).

Thinking small

The main stated aim, though, is to be able to make sensors that perform well, despite the demand for ever-higher pixel counts and the consequent smaller pixels. As the authors of the Fujifilm paper explain: 'Despite the tireless efforts to improve technologies to achieve smaller pixel size, the light capture efficiency and sensitivity of CCD and CMOS image sensors have been decreasing.'

Rather than using the light-sensitivity of silicon p-n junctions, the Fujifilm sensor uses a coating of a light-sensitive carbon-based chemical (shown as the darker purple) to convert light into electrons. (image from Fujifilm)

Sensor technologist (and inventor of the active-pixel CMOS sensor that underpins most modern cameras), Fossum is impressed by the work, but not fully convinced by the company's list of benefits. 'As a fellow image sensor technologist, I would like to congratulate Fujifilm on the fine R&D progress they have made and I find their work interesting. If the report is a good assessment of the state-of-the-art at Fujifilm in 2009, then I would say it is possible the technology could be ready for prime time in just a few years from now, or sooner if they have had good luck.

Aside from issues like reducing noise (from the reported 38 electrons rms to below 5 e- rms), they also need to deal with the issues of large scale manufacturability of the material layer. Of course they are well-poised to do this since most RGB filters on image sensors probably employ Fuijifilm product. The RGB filter layer material is passive however, and not an electronically-active material, so there additional manufacturability concerns.'

A great leap forward?

'As far as a prognosis for this R&D to find its way to commercially-competitive products, one has to look at what the compelling advantage of the product is, once the issues above are resolved, compared to where the rest of the industry will be at the time of product roll-out,' he says. 'Their technology might allow smaller pixels with functionality like global shutter but this is already being demonstrated in monolithic silicon devices in small pixel formats. I do not believe manufacturing cost will be a compelling advantage for this technology but it could be important. I don’t believe that there will be a compelling advantage in the usual metrics for image sensors, such as sensitivity, read noise, full well, dynamic range etc. but it is difficult to predict these things'

The sensor is only sensitive to light in the visible range (around 380 -740nm), removing the need for Infrared filters. (image from Fujifilm)

'The one compelling advantage for Fujifilm itself is that is it is a homegrown technology and fully captive. On the other hand, that means unlike the quasi-cooperative nature of the CMOS image sensor industry at large (not intentional cooperation of course) where advancements by one company spur on other companies, Fuijifilm would be an island unto itself and this will lead to slow technology advancement compared to the rest of the industry.'

'I really like the idea of highly absorptive photodetector layers. I think such a layer, be it the Invisage Quantum Film, the Fujifilm organic photodetector layer, or some other to-be-invented material, will be helpful in realizing my own vision for a Quanta Image Sensor where every photoelectron is counted. But, I am not so optimistic about the compelling commercial advantages of the Fujifilm approach. Nevertheless, it is always exciting to me to see new technology being invented and developed.'

Comments

Total comments: 82
max metz
By max metz (Jan 1, 2012)

After buying the fuji x10 as a precursor to the fuji interchangeable lens offering, the x10 is a revelation easily rivaling upper aspc kit. Let the detractors sing, when the new Fuji system settles I'll certainly be saying goodbye to Nikon, replacing my entire Nikon gear with Fuji. The claim is that the new Fuji system will rival full frame, I have seen nothing to make me doubt that. Roll on 2012! :-)

0 upvotes
edu T
By edu T (Dec 24, 2011)

--edit: this is a response to Roland Karlsson (Dec 23, 2011 at 20:27:07 GMT)
"Now, if it could be layered for color detection! Then we would get rid of the Bayer CFA filter also. But .. thats another story I assume."
Yup, and very sound to begin with. To the point that some folks invested heavily on the concept and it's currently implemented in some cameras -- I'd suggest you search this site for (Sigma's) Foveon sensor.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Usee
By Usee (Dec 24, 2011)

Roland is not only these days the most active poster in the Sigma (Foveon) forum...

...no need to give him a hint to search after Foveon, because he has already written software for the corresponding Raw format.

It's like giving Eric Fossum a hint to CMOS sensors... ;-)

-

P.S.:

If You want to reply to a message,
You can move Your cursor over this message and then a REPLY button appears...

...no need to write a additional comment. ;-)

0 upvotes
edu T
By edu T (Dec 24, 2011)

Usee,
Thanks for the tip. I took Roland's words at face value ("now, if it could be layered for color detection"), and it didn't ocurred to me to first check his background -- as if he were a job applicant or something...

0 upvotes
Usee
By Usee (Dec 24, 2011)

...and I thought, that everyone, who is interested in layered sensors would know Roland, because he is famous in Sigma SLR Talk forum since nearly 10 years!

...since there are layered sensors in DSLR available for public. ;)

-

Anyway: Merry Christmas, or whatever You wish to celebrate!

0 upvotes
edu T
By edu T (Dec 24, 2011)

Maybe being aware of the existence of an unique sensor is different from being interested in it to the point of getting familiarized with the associated Hall of Fame...
Merry Christmas to you too, as well as to everyone else here!

0 upvotes
Roland Karlsson
By Roland Karlsson (Dec 23, 2011)

Its a pity if this becomes THE main stream technology. Then we can forget amateur IR photography.

As far as I remember from some days ago when looking at this is that it has quite high noise and not so good DR. At least this experimental sensor had.

The most nice thing is that you dont need micro lenses and IR filter. The more naked you can make the sensor, the better.

Now, if it could be layered for color detection! Then we would get rid of the Bayer CFA filter also. But .. thats another story I assume.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Usee
By Usee (Dec 23, 2011)

Fuji modified several main stream cameras especially for IR photography...

...I think, before every main stream camera becomes unsuited for IR photography, Fuji will have placed a sensor with layered color detection on the market...

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/20050205958.pdf

...and for such a device, the versatile use of additional filters for customizing the color response - including IR - seems very likely...

...so, I see neither a problem for IR photographers arise,
nor a problem, to get a layered sensor from Sigma now, or in future from Fuji, or someone else...

...and especially Fuji did take care in regard of high DR and noise, at the sensor sizes in the cameras they did offer!

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
KitHB
By KitHB (Dec 22, 2011)

This does raise another interesting possibility. There's lots of work happening now on flexible materials for electronic components.

What if the CMOS substrate in the picture above happens to be a flexible film?
Doing away with the microlenses means you don't absolutely need it stuck to a rigid base.

Which optical corrections become possible by curving the sensor plane or even distorting parts of the sensor in response to the lens settings? Make tilt-shift lenses obsolete and have front to back sharpness every time? correct curvature in mega-zooms? embed cameras into wearable surfaces?
.mil would love those capabilities.

0 upvotes
Eric Fossum
By Eric Fossum (Dec 23, 2011)

It is not likely the single crystal silicon substrate will be a flexible film. It is possible the Fujifilm approach makes such implementation easier but first Fujifilm has to make the basic structure work well before moving on to flexible substrates.

0 upvotes
nakeddork
By nakeddork (Dec 23, 2011)

The film is just a layer. It doesn't necessarily mean the other layers are flexible too.

0 upvotes
Roland Karlsson
By Roland Karlsson (Dec 23, 2011)

Flexible things are often only possible to bend in one direction. If you try some 2D flexing you start to get problems. Then you need a substrate that also can expand - like rubber.

This is used in the Holga camera where you bend the film in order to compensate for a VERY BAD lens. So ... its not useless, but of limited use in better cameras.

0 upvotes
Ashley Pomeroy
By Ashley Pomeroy (Dec 22, 2011)

I would be worried about having to feed and water this sensor - and what happens if it gets sick? I'd feel incredibly guilty if the poor thing died.

But then again, suppose Fuji's engineers accidentally drop fertiliser on it, and it grows out of control? The whole world will be covered in bubbling, seething sensor material that wants to live. Thus turning the planet Earth into a gigantic eye.

Which would be an interesting Twilight Zone plot; what would this eye see? The face of God? Or other eyes, up in the heavens, peering down on it?

5 upvotes
manchumuq
By manchumuq (Dec 23, 2011)

I'm rolling my eyes... but have to admit that you are creative.

0 upvotes
beomagi
By beomagi (Dec 25, 2011)

What would the face of the sensor's god look like? Would it be made in it's own imaging?

1 upvote
Cy Cheze
By Cy Cheze (Jan 3, 2012)

Think of all the trouble Someone started 4 billion years ago by playing around with carbon molocules. The universe would be so much more orderly if confined to hydrogen and helium.

0 upvotes
ziggy53
By ziggy53 (Dec 22, 2011)

If I understand this new technology, a lens array is not required and the color filter array positioning may be somewhat non-critical making possible the deferring of photosite color sensitivity until after a "calibration" step?

What this might mean, for example, is replaceable color filters, over the imager, with patterns ranging from a tradition R-G-B-G pattern to other distributions more suited for scientific or specific applications; perhaps a "stochastic" color filter array to alleviate color aliasing effects (when photographing subjects with regular color patterns) and to provide a better color film simulation.

While the technology is apparently intended for small sensors, imagine a super-dense large-ish (APS-C sized) sensor. It would not need an AA filter (because of the high photosite density) and intrinsically the sensor doesn't need a lens array. Make the color filter array interchangeable, or even optional, and all sorts of things become possible.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
Eric Fossum
By Eric Fossum (Dec 23, 2011)

There is nothing in the Fujifilm paper I read to suggest that replaceable color filters are enabled by their technology.

0 upvotes
ziggy53
By ziggy53 (Dec 23, 2011)

The specific new technology is the possibility for extremely small photosites, allowing massive pixel counts in an APS-C form factor.

Aren't the color filter arrays normally under the micro-lens array in conventional CMOS imager fabrication?

Without the need for an IR cut filter and with no need for the micro-lens array, that leaves the color filter array as the potential top layer. While the photosites themselves are still in a fixed X/Y array, I don't see any need for the filters to "necessarily" need to be in any fixed pattern. With a replaceable color filter the photosite filter color could be determined empirically, using subsequent R, G and B light sources and mapping the results to memory for later demosaicing.

While the process would not be efficient or fast, it might be marketable for specific applications.

Indeed, you could remove the filter array entirely and use separate R, G and B global filtration (or any other visible light filtration) exposures for specific tasks.

0 upvotes
Eric Fossum
By Eric Fossum (Dec 23, 2011)

Sorry Ziggy but you are kind of tripping here. Among many problems with your suggestion, what happens if a small particle of dust gets onto the sensor surface between the hypothetical removable CFA layer and the sensor? What if the CFA RGB is misaligned by half a pixel? What about rotation alignment? I could go on with other problems but someone will accuse me again of being related to Debbie Downer again.

Why don't you suggest a camera with removable sensors, each with a different CFA pattern (or none)? Removable sensors have enough problems to keep you busy for a long while.

0 upvotes
ziggy53
By ziggy53 (Dec 23, 2011)

I am suggesting a more specialized photographic tool which does not currently exist.

In a conventional CCD or CMOS technology, Bayer array imager, all of what you say is true. I am suggesting something far beyond that. Processing could be deferred until later and performed in a very fast external computer in this scenario.

The filter misalignment would not seem to be as critical because the organic layer does not seem as discrete for the photosites as would be a conventional sensor. Photosite location is more organized by the Pixel Electrode and Via Plug architecture, so color filter mis-alignment may not be as critical. This would be especially true using the custom processing for demosaicing that would be required.

During the color calibration determination only photosite values would be collected and variances would be adjusted in the demosaicing stage of image processing, using something lots more sophisticated than Bayer estimation.

0 upvotes
dsmcl77
By dsmcl77 (Dec 22, 2011)

And if we just wait for the "popsicle" sensor to be in our favourite shop shelfs and see for ourself?
If it's good...good, if it is bad, then we wait for the next miracle to come out, meanwhile, I go out and shoot with my old CNOS sensored cam.

0 upvotes
nakeddork
By nakeddork (Dec 22, 2011)

Seriously, do the really have to say, "panchromatic organic photoelectric conversion layer" 100 times? Can't the just abbreviate it to POPCL?

...or call it popsicle? I like that better.

Haha...can't wait for 30mp compacts. Although, how are they gonna get around things like diffraction? Makes no sense to have a small sensor when you need a big 5 element lenses...

2 upvotes
TOF guy
By TOF guy (Dec 22, 2011)

I'll ask Dr. Fossum since he is the in-house expert Is the idea really new? A similar scheme is found in some detectors for scientific applications (example, X-ray detectors http://www.dectris.com/sites/technology.html). Where Fuji inovates is that they discovered a material converting photons to charges which is sensitive to much lower energy photons than X-ray. If correct the key difference (not explained by dpreview above) is that there is no well in these sensors. The photons are counted as they come. What limits DR is how fast the charges are counted. Useless to say DR can be way above well-based (CCD/CMOS) sensors. There is no blooming either. For X-ray, noise and sensitivity exceeds back-illuminated CCD in spite of (currently) somewhat poor surface coverage. Also it should be easy to design the sensor to provide true syncing with a flash at least to 1/500 sec (the flash becomes the limiting factor!).

0 upvotes
Eric Fossum
By Eric Fossum (Dec 22, 2011)

I am not an in-house guy. I am just a visitor like you. The paper that Butler sent to me (not the patent) did not mention photon counting so I am not sure where you see the similarity. Fujifilm and NHK have both been pursuing organic films for photodetection. (Together, for a while). I don't recall seeing them (or anyone else) combining CFAs and a panchromatic-response thin film. So, seems relatively new to me.
Photon counting is a whole different concept, not conceptually new, and not really related to this news story either as far as I know.

0 upvotes
TOF guy
By TOF guy (Dec 23, 2011)

You're right. Re-reading the description more carefully: it does not say anything about counting the charges as they come. But this would be a much better approach, and Fuji may already have the key ingredient in place (the organic layer).

0 upvotes
Eric Fossum
By Eric Fossum (Dec 22, 2011)

I'd like to think I am still on the innovator side of the curve and most of my technical friends know I am somewhat bored with the CMOS image sensor technology. I am actively on the look out for the "next thing". Still, just because something is new and interesting does not mean it does not deserve a critical eye. I tried to point out what may be shortcomings of the technology relative to the 2009 Fujifilm paper, which is all I know about the specific Fujifilm device. I will check in later to see if someone has something technical to offer besides just general pot shots. I did find the Debbie Downer comment funny. She is just a distant relative, I believe.

4 upvotes
random78
By random78 (Dec 22, 2011)

I dont think there is anything wrong with your comments and since you are an expert in the area so obviously your opinion has weight. However your remarks in the article provide a fairly high-level commentary and don't delve much into an assessment of technical merits or de-merits of the technology - so readers should not look at these as a conclusive verdict about the technology.

0 upvotes
Eric Fossum
By Eric Fossum (Dec 23, 2011)

I think the random read noise number comment was very specific. You probably would not want to buy a digital camera today with such high read noise. The pixel size is also non-competitive with state of the art "small pixel" sensors. Other figures of merit that were given in the Fujifilm paper were fine (e.g. dynamic range) but not outstanding so I did not comment on them. Butler just asked for some comments from me on a paper he sent me. Let's not make this out to be some sort of detailed analysis position paper.

1 upvote
phototransformations
By phototransformations (Dec 22, 2011)

This is an interesting example of a paradigm-shifter vs paradigm maintainer clash. According the "The Structure of Scientific Revolution," innovators who depart significantly from current theory or technology are met with resistance by those who have a stake in maintaining the status quo. Eventually they succeed, and then become the next generation of maintainers who resist the next generation of innovators. It seems that Fossum may be shifting from the innovator he was to a paradigm-maintainer.

3 upvotes
Ranger 9
By Ranger 9 (Dec 22, 2011)

To quote a vernacular criticism of "The Structure of Scientific Revolution": "Yeah, they all laughed at Gallileo, but they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."

Clearly the "will to believe" that Fuji has achieved a dream-come-true breakthrough is so strong on this forum that people are willing to insult and disparage someone who knows far more about the subject than they do, simply because he doesn't share their preferred opinions. This isn't likely to yield much insight.

3 upvotes
CriticalI
By CriticalI (Dec 22, 2011)

@ Ranger 9.

Quite right. Only on the internet can a bunch of laymen disparage an expert on the grounds that he doesn't share their enthusiasm for something they don't even understand the physics of.

Even on a purely statistical basis, Dr Fossum is very likely to be right. For every patent or paper lodged in any technology field the number of successful commercial applications is usually a very small proportion.

You can make something work in a lab, but that does not mean it will work in a consumer product or that solving one technical issue will not simply create a whole bunch of worse ones or that someone in the meantime won't beat you to market with something better.

Nor did Dr Fossum actually say this would be a failure.

2 upvotes
random78
By random78 (Dec 22, 2011)

Based on the quote from Fuji authors it seems that the major gain is increased light-capturing efficiency specially at smaller pixel sizes. Unfortunately fossum did not really address this properly. Of course he could be right and this technology might not be "disruptive". But overall his comments are very general and from his comments it does not seem that he has a detailed idea about the extent of gains possible through this technology. These are like the comments from an industry analyst rather than from an engineer intimately familiar with the technology in question.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
Eric Fossum
By Eric Fossum (Dec 23, 2011)

Actually, I pointed out the distinct advantage of the higher absorption coefficient for the Fujifilm organic material. Sorry you missed that. But, without noise reduction such an advantage is moot. Also, Fujifilm has not demonstrated this material in a competitive (e.g. 1.4 um) pixel size yet.

1 upvote
Adrian Harris
By Adrian Harris (Dec 22, 2011)

Again with all due respects to Mr Fossum - after all he is a far wiser man than I with regard to this subject.. But reading through the article above I was reminded of when Frank Whittle's first jet engine was shown to the top engine engineer/designer in Rolls Royce for evalution in the early mid 1930's and he said he didn't think a lot of it. But the thing was, his knowledge and expertise was as one of the worlds top piston engine designers. Which meant if Rolls had gone ahead with the jet engine, he would probably no longer be king. - so the UK had to wait another 10 or 11 years for the jet emgine to arrive.

Lets hope the Fuji sensor progress is far quicker than that.

3 upvotes
whtchocla7e
By whtchocla7e (Dec 21, 2011)

With all due respect to Dr. Fossum, I tend to ignore his insightful remarks about any new technologies that he is not personally involved with.

All eyes on Fuji and I hope they change the game.

3 upvotes
snackwells
By snackwells (Dec 21, 2011)

My thoughts exactly.

He's probably a bright fellow, but I found his commentary to be dry and uninsightful, laced with obvious bias.

3 upvotes
Ranger 9
By Ranger 9 (Dec 21, 2011)

Like the two previous commenters, I prefer to ignore the remarks of industry-leading experts whose conclusions differ from my preferred beliefs. Rah, Fuji! Rah, rah, rah!!

Comment edited 50 seconds after posting
3 upvotes
Josh152
By Josh152 (Dec 22, 2011)

He is not an expert on the Fujifilm organic coating. He goes on and on about he "doesn't believe" ( indicating it is just his personal opinion on a technology he didn't help create and has no first hand knowledge of) there will be any compelling advantages to Fujiflim's new organic sensor tech.

Then he pretty much admits himself that he can't really predict what advantages such new technologies may have over existing designs. After that he goes on to promote his "Quanta Image Sensor."

His bias in this article is obvious. You'd have be blind not to see it.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
drakkar
By drakkar (Dec 21, 2011)

Bravo Fuji! Its almost better DR and Light sensitivity in the extreme chart.
Fuji maked a one step beyond, again!

1 upvote
nakeddork
By nakeddork (Dec 22, 2011)

The article says that the organic layer (which has a quantum efficiency is 65%) takes in enough light to convert it to electronic signals.

Keep in mind that this is different than low light performance.

These sensors, at this time, produce sufficient noise, according to the article.

However, the DR is reported to be better.

0 upvotes
TheEye
By TheEye (Dec 21, 2011)

Fossum must be related to Debbie Downer.

1 upvote
SHood
By SHood (Dec 21, 2011)

The most recent patent posted just 6 days ago seems to conflict with some of the conclusions of this article. It looks like this organic sensor works better with larger pixels.

http://translate.google.ca/translate?hl=en&sl=ja&u=http://egami.blog.so-net.ne.jp/2011-12-21&ei=pjnyTufDH6jW0QG_6tXNAg&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=4&sqi=2&ved=0CEAQ7gEwAw&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dfujifilm%2B2011-253861%26hl%3Den%26biw%3D1680%26bih%3D848%26prmd%3Dimvns

Pixel size
■Preferably 3 ~ 8um
■Less than 2um is likely to decrease the interference resolution

0 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (Dec 21, 2011)

That's a rather different application of the technology. Interesting, though.

0 upvotes
nakeddork
By nakeddork (Dec 22, 2011)

It sounds like the reason fuji is researching the organic sensor is to get around micro fabrication and the need for micro lenses mainly to keep production costs down.

This sounds like it's mainly a benefit for the manufacturer...hopefully the savings trickle down to the consumer.

Although, I don't really know how practical high rez compact cameras are. There are still going to be issues with dof and possible diffraction because of the small sensor size. Frankly, lenses are still an imperative part of the camera and there still are hard physics at work.

Also, fuji is reporting that the sensor doesn't have an edge on noise, which I think compacts should improve on before resolution.

Although, I am interest about what this organic layer is made out of, and it is a cool concept. Fuji is creative with their sensors.

I don't care much about compacts though, I'd much rather see innovations in photosensitive silicon manufacturing that would drive the cost of large sensor cameras down.

0 upvotes
edu T
By edu T (Dec 21, 2011)

"The organic material's sensitivity to only visible light also avoids the need for a UV-filter in front of the sensor (silicon sensors are sensitive to UV light)."

Given the wavelength x output curve shown, didn't you mean "IR-filter" and "IR light" instead?

0 upvotes
misterpepper
By misterpepper (Dec 21, 2011)

It kind of depends on what the rest of the left side of the graph looks like. The graph only shows the visible portion of the light spectrum. It does look like the technology at present might have a pretty big problem with reds, though. I think you're right about IR, but typically there isn't an IR filter.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
edu T
By edu T (Dec 21, 2011)

Yep misterpepper but silicon sensors usually are INsensitive to UV (unlike film) and come with IR filters in front. Well, anyway the IR band is at the right side (>740 nm) of the axis.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 8 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
misterpepper
By misterpepper (Dec 21, 2011)

Right, and this one looks like it is INsensitive to IR (and much of the red spectrum) as well. If it is insensitive to IR it shouldn't need an IR filter. Regarding UV, it is off the graph to the left and although it looks like the graph is falling off sharply as you go deeper into UV territory, you can't really tell without seeing the full graph. If it is also INsensitive to UV, then it might not need a UV filter either, making the comments from the article true as well.

0 upvotes
TOF guy
By TOF guy (Dec 22, 2011)

Contrary to what a poster (edu T) above has stated , silicon sensors are very sensitive to UV (better be these are the photons with higher energy!). Typically Bayer filters eliminate quite a bit of them, but still the blue channel is often very sensitive to near visible UV (350 to 400 nm) as shown on the graph in the link below for a Canon 40D which has had all filters removed:
http://www.maxmax.com/

0 upvotes
edu T
By edu T (Dec 22, 2011)

TOF guy:
Not to dispute who is wronger but, oddly enough, the same source you quoted shows the "typical silicon sensitivity" curve gently rolling off towards UV and zeroing a bit wee below 400 nm -- besides, as expectd, having a HUGE peak @ 1,050 nm or into near-IR. The graphics is at the bottom of this page, http://www.maxmax.com/camera_technical.htm .

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 15 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
TOF guy
By TOF guy (Dec 22, 2011)

To eduT: the graphics you point out does not show what happens at near visible UV: it is cut at 400nm. On the graph The signal is about a fifth of the peak at 400 nm. Still it should be higher. CCD or CMOS sensors are sensitive to all sorts of higher energy light. It's hard to explain the curve not knowing the source for the graph of the unfiltered sensor. Most glass cut off some light starting near UV, and increasing with photon energy. Was a piece of glass present in front of the sensor?

0 upvotes
edu T
By edu T (Dec 23, 2011)

Go figure. Or ask them. That was a source referred to by yourself, hence yours truly believing it was reliable.

0 upvotes
Ryan21
By Ryan21 (Dec 21, 2011)

I don't think Fossum knows exactly what Fujifilm has up it's sleeves. Seems like the guy is quite biased. I hope he is wrong on multiple counts.

3 upvotes
BobORama
By BobORama (Dec 22, 2011)

Its called "Not Invented Here" syndrome.

2 upvotes
buckshot
By buckshot (Dec 22, 2011)

LOL NIH syndrome causes a slight green cast to the skin.

1 upvote
jc52e53
By jc52e53 (Dec 21, 2011)

Always great to hear Fuji is coming up with something new in the sensor industry.I miss their pro cameras and I hope this will help them launch back into it. They were one of the first and hopefully will be back there again. Sony also has some new sensor coming out using another technology. The question for Nikon is, which one of these will they buy for their cameras in the future?Hopefully Fuji will use Nikon mounts again as they have not produced Fujinon lenses in a while.

1 upvote
jaykumarr
By jaykumarr (Dec 21, 2011)

great job Fujifilm. who knows, this may be very handy in future.

1 upvote
Deleted pending purge
By Deleted pending purge (Dec 21, 2011)

This is one serious company. They're the ones that doubled the film sensitivity without enlarging the grain (they grew the crystal in such a way that it eliminated internal reflection within the sensitive layer, making the material register almost 100% sharper).
This new coated sensor might sell well before predicted. The rest of the industry is likely to "play Fossum", selling ever more software tricks in newly-cased old hardware, just like detergent manufacturers used to sell the same old soap dust in the newly designed names and packages.
I'm eager to see the Origami Optics do away with expensive glass lenses... ;)

2 upvotes
PC Wheeler
By PC Wheeler (Dec 21, 2011)

Organic? Do they plan to sell it in health food stores?

Seriously, Fujifilm does have a history of sensor innovation. It will be interesting to see where this one leads.

1 upvote
Spotpuff
By Spotpuff (Dec 21, 2011)

Organic in chemistry means carbon-containing.

4 upvotes
increments
By increments (Dec 21, 2011)

Exactly, every time I hear the phrase organic food it bugs me. What food is inorganic?

9 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Dec 21, 2011)

increments:

Means organically grown and or raised. Got it now.

0 upvotes
increments
By increments (Dec 21, 2011)

I'll ask it in a different way.

What food is not carbon based?

got it now?

2 upvotes
WyldRage
By WyldRage (Dec 21, 2011)

Salt. But that depends on the definition of food.

2 upvotes
increments
By increments (Dec 21, 2011)

Good one!

But I wouldn't fancy trying to just eat salt by itself.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Dec 22, 2011)

WyldRage:

Right it depends on the definition of food, and by increments' "thinking" (those are ironic quotation marks), everything except plutonium would be natural. Wouldn't matter one bit if the animal feed were chock full of the products of the chemical plants in Elizabeth, New Jersey (a site of big east coast USA oil refineries.)

Yes, I know the "debate" was about organic not natural.

Comment edited 36 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
ssww
By ssww (Dec 22, 2011)

When people say "organic" I think of food and I think of deterioration over time. :-)

0 upvotes
TOF guy
By TOF guy (Dec 22, 2011)

There are lots of organic materials in your camera. Start with all plastics. But they're also present in more subtle parts of the camera. For instance the dyes used in the Bayer filter are organic compounds. Try eating your camera and I'm sure you'll come to the conclusion that organic does not mean edible :-).

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Dec 22, 2011)

increments:

Try grey seasalt and...

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Dec 22, 2011)

ssww:

Read Chinese medicine and you'll readily find a connection.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Dec 22, 2011)

TOF guy:

That's a really boring excuse for a point. Go right ahead and make the foam rubber, that is a car's seat padding, an integral part of your diet. Get back to us in a month or two with a report.

Soybased foam included, ironically.

And no those "organic" parts of a camera are most certainly highly processed industrial materials--like petrol.

Really, start eating your camera, if you want your point to be considered as serious.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Rule 34
By Rule 34 (Dec 22, 2011)

wut

0 upvotes
AlanG
By AlanG (Dec 22, 2011)

Organic food - FDA

http://www.nal.usda.gov/afsic/pubs/ofp/ofp.shtml

0 upvotes
increments
By increments (Dec 22, 2011)

@ HowaboutRAW

I see you just want to ignore the point. Organic is a term with a specific meaning that has been applied since long before we were born.

The term organic food is a modern invention, is clumsy and lacks meaning. I have no problem with the concept of organic food, I just wish they'd given it a more appropriate name.

As I mentioned to WyldRage, salt is eaten but I think you'd struggle to survive on a diet of it! (nice try)

I have no idea why you started going on about what things were natural. We were talking about the meaning of the word organic. By the scientific world's thinking, Plutonium IS natural. It isn't organic.

0 upvotes
409novaman
By 409novaman (Dec 22, 2011)

Too bad fujifilm doesn't have a workable shutter blade patent that they could apply to the X-100.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Dec 22, 2011)

increments:

Go back and read my point about "organically raised".

Try grey seasalt. You could learn a thing or two.

In fact, my 1980 edition of the American Heritage dictionary lists all sorts of definitions of organic that very much match those of the organic food movement. There is a separate definition of organic chemistry.

That's 1980.

0 upvotes
increments
By increments (Dec 22, 2011)

Organically raised is just as meaningless in terms of the word organic.

1980 is recent in terms of almost everything. Certainly in terms of language and usage. The word organic comes from ancient Greek, meaning from life. In English usage it has had a pretty consistent meaning until very recently. Yes 20th century is recent.

Sea salt (grey or not) will not give you the energy you need. Seriously, try eating a plate and see what happens. Whatever minerals it contains, it doesn't give you energy.

I notice you seem determined on missing my point so why don't you just agree to differ. When I made my first post I wasn't trying to get everyone to agree with me. It was a personal opinion. I have mine (based on thousands of years of linguistic and hundreds of years of scientific reasoning), you have yours (based on a few decades of pseudo-science terminology and some arbitrary guidelines).

Sometimes I think Stephen Colbert is right about living in a world of truthiness!

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Dec 22, 2011)

increments:

You've made my point about organic for me, it has many definitions and is not limited to yours. And most certainly can include the definition used by organic farmers and their ilk (see that 1980 dictionary).

As for sea salt stick with the grey, but not a plate full.

0 upvotes
increments
By increments (Dec 22, 2011)

Jeez, you don't get it, do you?

The proliferation of definitions of words dilutes their meanings. THAT'S what I dislike. I know that Organic food/farming is in usage, I just object to it.

Any inanity, given enough use, will become accepted in language. I'm still entitled not to like it, you're entitled to think it makes sense.

I've explained ad nauseam why it's a silly term though.

In this case case it's also misleading as both organic (true sense) and organic farming, both pertain to chemistry which makes the dual usage a poor choice.

As for the sea salt, I'm glad you accept my point, it isn't food i.e. it will not sustain you. Actually, too much salt, as we all know, gives you massive renal failure be it grey, white, or blue!

Bearing in mind you implied Plutonium wasn't natural, I'll take your interpretations of science with a pinch of salt!

0 upvotes
TOF guy
By TOF guy (Dec 22, 2011)

To HowaboutRAW: the announcement states "innovative organic-hybrid sensor technology". Yes organic is used in various contexts, but in the context at hand it is about a product from carbon chemistry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_compound), and has nothing to do with food as I explained. And there is nothing to be afraid about having an organic material in a camera: they are present in all cameras as I've explained. Plastics are organic compounds (no need to double quote "organics"): they're derived from carbon chemistry. It's that simple. So no I don't need to try and eat a camera or some rubber foam because, unlike you, I understand Fuji's announcement just fine.

0 upvotes
Charles Ramsey
By Charles Ramsey (Dec 29, 2011)

Fuji has made an organic silicon hybrid sensor. Once they come out with an only organic sensor then there is no limit to the size of these. the first ones will be crude but you can expect an 8 by 10 inch digital back with a resolution of a computer monitor to cost about the same as that monitor. I have advised the cousin to hang on to her large format cameras.

0 upvotes
Total comments: 82