Tuesday, July 03, 2012

Invisage's Short Videos

Invisage published two short videos on Youtube. The first one is titled "InVisage's QuantumFilm enables more compact lenses because of our top surface architecture." The company explains: "Traditional CMOS sensors are not top surface detectors so accommodating shorter lenses create crosstalk and thus, noise. QuantumFilm image sensors enable more compact lenses because our top surface architecture can accept light ray angles that are much steeper. This means shorter lenses can be used without any degradation in performance:"



The second video demos "InVisage's InstantShutter: A true global electronic that obviates the need for mechanical shutters." The video description says: "The problem is CMOS image sensors can only expose & read lines of pixels at any one point, instead of a full frame. This leads to what is now known as the rolling shutter effect or "jello" effect. InVisage's InstantShutter truly is a breakthrough because of its ability to snap an entire frame, each and every pixel, at the exact same time instant:"

17 comments:

  1. I like InVisage pixel.(^^)
    If I were InVisage CEO, I will find a niche market, then challenge a high volume zone.
    The reason is that ramp-up the first product is very tough.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. on the picture only ... where can you find a such pixel? :)

      Delete
  2. This company is all talk. Where are the products?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Are ANY products shipping with Invisage sensors? It's hard for a phone company to commit a design to a completely tested supplier. Ramping from test chips to millions with no technical problems or delays is very risky.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes. I agree. (^^)
      I think some of InVisage pixel characteristic already outperforms any converntional CIS. Therefore, they focuss on finding an application to maximize that function.
      Problem is not technical, but marketing. More specifically, they lack of user experience in image sensor.

      Delete
    2. What do you mean "outperform"?

      Delete
  4. There is a rumor that InVisage is discussing with WaltDisney for acqusition.

    ReplyDelete
  5. What is the purpose of the microlenses for their sensor? Is the light absorber that thick? Or is there some fill factor issue?

    ReplyDelete
  6. if this technology is so great why is it not in volume production all over the place and hasn't displaced conventional photodiodes?

    this has a "Foveon smell" to me... a solution in search of a problem to solve

    ReplyDelete
  7. Foveon is totally different story! We can argue the economical advantages of stacked photodiode pixel, but sicentifically speaking it's a big invention with nice products available on the market.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What is the invention with Foveon? Getting different colors from diodes at different depths was well described in the literature prior to the X3. Merrill's contribution was to take the (3T) active pixel concept (previously transferred from JPL to National Semi) and extend it to the layered photodiode. I think the innovation was in getting good color quality from highly overlapped raw color signals, not in the layered device. In the marketplace, it is a niche product with some rabid fans, but generally has fared poorly in terms of market share due to its several shortcomings.

      Delete
    2. Actually, Foveon has a lot of patents relevant to stacked photodiode. This means Foveon has credits.

      Delete
    3. Albert TheuwissenJuly 12, 2012 at 8:37 AM

      The stacked diode structure was already "fabricated" and evaluated in the '80s by a PhD student of the Delft University of Technology (dr. Wolffenbuttel), and I am pretty sure that others worked on it as well. I do agree with Eric about Merrill's contribution, and without any discussion, this was a very nice piece of work. But the discovery that you can use silicon to separate the colours was not Foveon's idea.

      Delete
  8. I respect Dr. Merrill as well as Dr. Fossum.
    In the context Merrill has not invented X3,
    I have to say Fossum has not invented CMOS image sensor.
    In both cases, the concept can been seen before them.
    But I respect their inspiration to select it and vitality for realization.
    US has granted Foveon's X3 patent as well as Fossum's CIS patent.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Please note I did not say he did not make some good inventions. I was talking about the stacked photodiode which was the subject of the initiating comment that I replied to, and Albert also commented on. I think many people think the stacked photodiode was the Foveon innovation. I think it was more in productizing it, which required additional inventions and probably some trade secrets in the ISP part.

      Delete
  9. I really don't understand their technology. Their website has very scant technical information and lots of marketing information. From what I can understand, they have a quantum film that absorbs all RGB light in 1.5 um. Somehow they will extract electrons generated in this film into Si for sensing. I don't understand the "somehow" part. The challenge with this approach is that it is difficult to extract electrons from quantum films into Si with 100% efficiency. QD's are not great conductors. Their defect density is much higher than in Si. Thirdly, the interface has a lot of defects. Much of the generated e-h pairs will recombine before they get to the Si. I see that they have color filters as well so I don't understand how they can claim a camera that uses quantum dot film will be more sensitive.

    Also I don't understand their marketing claims either.

    They say that their key benefit is 100% fill factor instead of 60% for traditional CMOS imager. That depends on what you mean by a "traditional CMOS imager". Looking at their drawings they are comparing this to the front-illuminated imager. The back-side illuminated imager, which is increasing market share, has 100% fill factor.

    They only claim that stands is the shallow absorption depth of light which may be beneficial for reducing pixel cross talk.

    I agree with the majority opinion here that I would like to see results from an actual product.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. One can learn more from Invisage's patent applications here.

      Delete

All comments are moderated to avoid spam.