Quantum13 also offers the world’s first electronic global shutter for smartphones, instead of the rolling shutter method that CMOS sensors use to scan from the top of the image to the bottom. With this electronic global shutter, Quantum13-enabled smartphones can capture crisp still photos of fast-moving subjects at full frame shutter speeds normally reserved for DSLRs, and deliver smooth 2K and 4K video without any rolling shutter distortion.
“The launch of Quantum13 marks a new era for the smartphone camera industry,” said Jess Lee, CEO of InVisage. “For the first time, smartphones will capture images on an entirely new medium. Not silicon. Not film. QuantumFilm. We are thrilled to showcase the capabilities of Quantum13 to the richest and most vibrant ecosystem for smartphones. And we are delighted to share that several smartphone vendors have already adopted Quantum13 for upcoming release.”
Quantum13 is a 13MP, 1.1um pixel sensor that fits in an 8.5mm by 8.5mm module. With light absorption eight times faster than silicon, QuantumFilm creates an ultra-thin light capture medium that accommodates much higher incident angles of light, resulting in an unprecedented 4mm camera module height.
“InVisage is targeting the mainstream 13-megapixel smartphone camera market,” added Tetsuo Omori, senior analyst at TSR. “According to our research, the worldwide volume of the 13-megapixel camera sensor market is projected to increase from 408 million units in 2015 to 995 million units in 2020.”
Today in Beijing, InVisage is showcasing Quantum13-enabled smartphones running on both Qualcomm and Mediatek platforms. The sensor is sampling now and initial shipments to leading smartphone vendors are expected this quarter.
Update: Yesky.com publishes few pictures, apparently from Invisage presentation in Beijing today:
Update #2: Few more images from today's event from various websites in China:
 |
| Link to the original (marked as containing malware by Google) |
 |
| Link to the original |
 |
| Link to the original |
Next iPhone?? ?
ReplyDeleteNo! InVisage could not supply Apple's volumes. Also I hear they still have a lot of issues with their sensor.
DeleteA long time in coming. Hope they get some traction. The key will be low light performance. If not better than Sony or Samsung, it will be a limited market at best. If better, it can change sensor technology across the board. Exciting times!
ReplyDeleteIf its sensor's QE has about 20%+ improvement, isn't low light improvement a given?
DeleteNot hardly. Depends on read noise, PRNU, dark current and other factors. QE helps for sure, but +20%, if real, can be easily negated by other factors. A 20% boost turns 100e- into 120e-, and noise from 10e- to 11e-, so SNR goes from 10 to 11. Would not take much to negate that advantage.
Deletethe material itself provide 100 times efficiency, but the process will create a high resistant layer, the peel off of this layer can create a lot of defects. low light performance are dealing with those things. That is also the reason products like black silicon still not perform good enough to replace traditional CMOS image sensor for consumer market. As the light to light quantum film do not need to endure those electronic defects, the quantum film for TV is more easier to beat the OLED performance.
DeleteThey must balance the thickness and defects. I do not think they can get low light performance as some industrial sensor.
I will wait in line for a smartphone with this sensor. Did you see the short film? I don't care about low light performance; I want a non-linear sensor that does "4K video without any rolling shutter distortion" that fits in my pocket. The market for "the film look" is definitely not limited.
DeleteWhy does that sound so much like a fake post planted by the company?
DeleteNot a fake post. I guess I'm just a sucker for marketing.
DeleteWell if some vendors have already adopted it for release that does bode well. I would imagine nobody would be too keen to put something substandard in their phones unless it was really cheap and I imagine this isn't that cheap yet.
DeleteI'm actually worried that this will succeed and then a few years down the line people will be talking about sensor degradation with age as quantum dots have a habit of doing. Then we'll have colour shifting issues and reduced sensitivity (which the manufactures will love as it'll mean time for a new device). I'm far more hopeful that quanta image sensor becomes the next thing as it'll have most of the advantages and still be reliable silicon.
DeleteWell, CMOS image sensors are not dinosaurs and QIS will be most successful in niche markets first. It does offer advantages for general applications, but it will take a while to get there and meanwhile CIS will have advanced too..or morphed to QIS/DIS.
DeleteI can see the background is at China, but the PPT is all english. This makes feel this is another show they do for more investment. As China now is like 80-90s Japan, people have a lot of money, they will invest anything sounds good.
DeleteNumbers ! We do need numbers !
ReplyDeleteNumbers??? Numbers???!!! PPPFFFFTTT!!!
DeleteWhat are numbers compared to slides and handwaving!!! Dinosaur!!!
"Why let facts get in the way of a good story!"
i want buy!
ReplyDeletei want buy
ReplyDeleteMagnificent!
ReplyDeleteLow light performance will be improved by learning curve.
> The market for "the film look" is definitely not limited
ReplyDeleteRight, like the market for fake jewelry :)
Depends on meaning, if you mean IQ , then market is there, many compromises in CMoS sensors. Looking forward to improved IQ and reduced compromises.
DeletePlease list some of the compromises, compared to film. Than I will know what you mean saying " IQ" :)
Deleteevery director and DP I ever spoke to who transferred to digital (due to financial pressures mostly) felt like they're loosing a lot in the visual aspects of the movies... the first digital cinema cameras did not have a comparable dynamic range, noise didn't look pleasing, colors did not have the artistic quality as many of the popular film stocks, weird off colors when using lights with color gels, rolling shutter and color correction never led to the satisfaction as they had with analog film. Till this day I personally have never found anything that would satisfy my artistic vision more than analog stock. Only two digital cameras ever got close.. Sony F35 and Arri Alexa. The production we're working on right now is analog. Do I have to say more? We don't really understand why it's only Arri now that does something for us... why other companies are completely unable to deliver a product that would rival it? They only want to rival it pixel count but not in the proper dynamic range and color magic.
DeleteSimply there is very little artistic magic in digital sensors .. everything needs to be added through heavy color correction and annoyingly difficult lighting techniques.
There is a very big but sort of hidden demand not only in hollywood but with every documentarist or even normal youtube content producers for a digital camera that can match the analog magic and not only that.. a proper simulation of different film stocks or even something that can totally outdo them.
How about the production cost?
ReplyDeleteIt seems me that QuantumFilm has a potential advantage in the production cost compared with the stacked sensor in production, because it only adds formation of QDot layer after BEOL.
I am not familiar with the production process and would like to know the expert's view.
Cost is lower. They uses mature process FSI done by tsmc.
DeleteMany thanks!
DeleteIn picture 2 of 5, how are we supposed to read it? top is conventional and bottom is theirs?
ReplyDeleteExactly. Their sensor supposedly is able to capture the dark bits without blowing out the highlights. Of course this is actually only software here as theirs is set with a lower exposure as the dark bits are much darker. If they were doing a true range expansion it would look pretty flat on an 8 bit display.
DeleteI've tried to figure out how the QD layer be connected to sensing node in their pixel. In their patents, they showed several configurations with 3T and 4T pixel structures. In 3T, it's easy to understand, it should be very similar to a-Si photodiode pixel. But they gave also a 4T pixel by connecting QD to the embedded cathode of a PPD. How this can be done ? Any one can give ideas please ?
ReplyDeleteThanks !!
-yang ni
Smoke and mirrors without publishing any number.I suspect their dark current and low light performance are not in par with best BSI sensors.
ReplyDeleteInVisage had a chance 5 years ago. However at least at that time I heard the lifetime of q-dot film was low.
ReplyDeleteNowadays they have to beat back-thinned sensors, which pretty much control the market. Q-dot might have 8x better sensitivity than FSI w/o microlenses, but their advantage over BSI/BT is questionable. QE of BSI already approaches 80-90% with 100% fill factor. May be 5-10% better? If they have solved the issue of poor lifetime, those 5-10% may still give them a shot. But not a breakthrough of any kind in terms of performance per se.
Are they alive?
ReplyDeleteNo reply on my email thru their website and the phone is on voicemail.
Please testing the dynamics: Nikon D800 vs Invisage! (ISO 2500 low light)
ReplyDeleteNow, one of the most important metric of an image sensor (the one that push the change from CCD to CMOS for image sensors):
ReplyDeletePower Consumption!
This metric is even more crucial for cell phones!
But the press release as well as all of the comments seem to have avoided any mention of this issue!
Now to the most important metric that neither the press release nor any comment have mentioned:
ReplyDeletePower Consumption!~
To Unknown, known film stocks? Really? You're living in the dark ages. I suggest you change your colorist/color grading/camera/production pipeline. What you're saying was true about 5 years ago, no longer. Especially with Dolby Vision. Film stocks are based on RGB and simply apply varying saturation, color temperature and film grain. What a narrow perspective when you can have just about anything you want with digital? Why go backwards to a paradigm that has long been put to bed. Analog production in an all digital delivery / viewing paradigm? Yeh, that makes sense. Your on the wrong blog. No one buys your assumptions on this blog. We know better.
ReplyDelete