News and discussions about image sensors
I have been interested in seeing this go someplace for a while. But watching the promotion video I was struck by a few things:1. In the past CMOS image sensors HAVE evolved quite a bit. From front side illumination to backside illumination with high fill factor, to now stacked image sensors, along with tremendous improvements in noise, readout rate and pixel count. Hardly "the same for the past 20 years".2. So far $100M invested. Is this a selling point?3. Jelly-effect -- I took out my iPhone minutes ago and tried to get that jelly effect and could not reproduce it. Pretending it is a common problem as a selling point seems a bit silly to me. Even rolling shutter distortion is sometimes hard to capture in ordinary life.4. The images they show taken with the QF are really dull and uninteresting. Is there a reason for this? Was it just a bad DOP on the commercial or is there a bright light vivid color problem?5. Lastly, I did not really get the compelling point of the commercial unless it is to raise more money. And the compelling argument for the technology still seems to be lacking. If it were up to me, I would be promoting low cross talk, and possibly lower manufacturing cost.Anyway, this is the problem when an interesting technology goes up against an incumbent $10B/year industry. You really need to make a compelling argument. I missed it in this commercial.
Invision is supposed to send me a statement of their CEO. Will post it tomorrow, if I receive it.
That 'jelly effect' was a demo of the oscillating/broken image stabilizer thet the iphone6plus was reported with, I think.A layer that increases QE would be great though. But if they are quantum dots or whatever spread out over a sensor, wil they be spread out smoothly enough?
This company should be a real shame in high tech field. A new idea can work or not work, but their promotion is simply a lie.
All comments are moderated to avoid spam.