There are 2 Si-Si02 interfaces in BSI pixel, so the DC should be naturally higher. If they can improve the photon collection with FSI structure, the final S/N is not necessarily worse. All is engineering tradeoff here.
I guess they're counting on the viewer to not appreciate that their separation wall would provide the exact same benefit if applied to a BSI sensor instead of a FSI. Or that doing so would have the benefits of BSI plus the benefits of the light pipe, thereby being even more sensitive than their SmartFSI.
I guess they are counting on the viewer to realize that putting a separation wall on the back surface is a vastly more difficult process problem than embedding it in the front surface oxide layers.
Are there any comparison between SmartFSI and BSI with the same pixel size?? In which mobile phone, can we see this SmartFSI sensor please??
ReplyDeleteThis reminds me about Aptina fsi A-Pix which they were marketing because they could not develop BSI while everyone else was ahead of them.
ReplyDeleteThere are 2 Si-Si02 interfaces in BSI pixel, so the DC should be naturally higher. If they can improve the photon collection with FSI structure, the final S/N is not necessarily worse. All is engineering tradeoff here.
ReplyDeleteI know this is a marketing video but I am really impresss by its poor technical level. SmartFSI is better, that's all folks!
ReplyDeleteI guess they're counting on the viewer to not appreciate that their separation wall would provide the exact same benefit if applied to a BSI sensor instead of a FSI. Or that doing so would have the benefits of BSI plus the benefits of the light pipe, thereby being even more sensitive than their SmartFSI.
ReplyDeleteI guess they are counting on the viewer to realize that putting a separation wall on the back surface is a vastly more difficult process problem than embedding it in the front surface oxide layers.
ReplyDelete