wmc718 Posted April 11, 2010 Share Posted April 11, 2010 <p>Did anyone else notice this? This new technology is cheaper and offers four times the performance as current sensors: <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.dpreview.com/news/1003/10032201quantumfilm.asp" target="_blank">http://www.dpreview.com/news/1003/10032201quantumfilm.asp</a> If the cost savings are that much, it could end the sensor-size wars. Might as well just go full-frame and be done with it. Be interesting to see how it unfolds!<br> Your thoughts?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hector Javkin Posted April 11, 2010 Share Posted April 11, 2010 <p>These technology announcements are for those foolish enough to believe that what will work on a test bench will work when mass-produced. Unless you're a product developer, it's silly to speculate on these announcements until a product is out. It's even sillier to post about it multiple times.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rick_donnelly Posted April 11, 2010 Share Posted April 11, 2010 <p>I can recall the claims made about Foveon X3 technology when it was first announced, and we know what eventually happened.<br> "New technology" announcements often sound much more impressive than they actually prove to be over time. I'll remain skeptical for now.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert_hooper1 Posted April 11, 2010 Share Posted April 11, 2010 <p>Progress will be made. It is only a matter of time.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Laur Posted April 11, 2010 Share Posted April 11, 2010 <p>In five years, this new sensor material will be standard issue for the night vision on everyone's flying cars. You'll see. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hjoseph7 Posted April 11, 2010 Share Posted April 11, 2010 Canon and Nikon will just copy the technolgy and we wil be right back in the same boat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim_service Posted April 11, 2010 Share Posted April 11, 2010 <p>Going from 25% to 95% efficiency is just under two f stops. Not bad, but there are a lot of other hurdles to get over before being considered a superior platform for image capture. I wouldn't bet the farm just yet.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikael_karlsson Posted April 11, 2010 Share Posted April 11, 2010 <p>There's a sensor war?<br /><br />Also see previous post: http://www.photo.net/photography-news-forum/00W478</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim_Lookingbill Posted April 11, 2010 Share Posted April 11, 2010 <p>It would be interesting to see how they're going to turn "Quantum Dots" into square pixels.</p> <p>Hope it's not going to end up looking like a dithered mess of dots like on an inkjet print.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hjoseph7 Posted April 11, 2010 Share Posted April 11, 2010 "The first application will be in mobile phones sensors later this year. " OMG we are doomed ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikael_karlsson Posted April 11, 2010 Share Posted April 11, 2010 <p>We've been doomed a long time Harry! ;-)</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim_Lookingbill Posted April 12, 2010 Share Posted April 12, 2010 <p>The dpreview article indicates only prototypes exist with sample chips going into production near the end of 2010, but there's <strong>NO SAMPLE IMAGES AVAILABLE </strong>and they already have numerous patents already in place!</p> <p>How does that happen? If you have a patent don't you have to have proof that it's a new technology and not just a copy of a previous technology? How can they claim superior image quality without having samples to back it up?</p> <p>Geez! They might as well have come out claimed they invented a time machine.</p> <p>This sounds more like bait for investors.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom_mann1 Posted April 12, 2010 Share Posted April 12, 2010 <p>Tim:</p> <p>Check out:</p> <p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_to_file_and_first_to_invent<br> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reduction_to_practice</p> <p>Tom M</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aplumpton Posted April 12, 2010 Share Posted April 12, 2010 <p>Pixel wars are like the former horsepower wars of times past. Lighter more agile cars made the HP war ridiculous. The pixel density is particularly important and the real progress now in many digital cameras is being made through superior designed-for-digital lenses, at least in the larger formats (medium format, but also in smaller cameras). Many lenses offered for digital cameras use lens formulas optimised for film cameras.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim_Lookingbill Posted April 13, 2010 Share Posted April 13, 2010 <p>Thanks, Tom, for those wikipedia links. </p> <p>I guess that explains that. I still want to see image samples showing the advances in image quality from this new technology. Looks like I'm going to have to wait and see it on a mobile phone. </p> <p>Oh joy!</p> <p>Regardless, whatever I see from that device better reach out and slap me in the face before I buy into it.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now