New Sony sensor - IMX428: Page 2

New Sony sensor - IMX428

Support@ZWO

riklaunim wrote:
More pixels more problems. What about those small ones?

Not sure, our developing department will estimate.

Support@ZWO

Sorry, we encountered an error while displaying this content. If you're a user, please try again later. If you're an administrator, take a look in your Flarum log files for more information.

konihlav

Sean: thank you for your effort considering and evaluation the options. I really appreciate it! thank you! It's a pity that this won't happen now :( let's hope the price would drop in the future...

Support@ZWO

Sorry, we encountered an error while displaying this content. If you're a user, please try again later. If you're an administrator, take a look in your Flarum log files for more information.

riklaunim

Any update on the big-pixel ones?

Support@ZWO

riklaunim wrote:
Any update on the big-pixel ones?

We think it is not a good time to do it now, the price is too high, we will waiting.

riklaunim

All of them are expensive or the prices are just temporarily high due to some demand? Kind of odd. Maybe global shutter matters that much.

Support@ZWO

riklaunim wrote:
All of them are expensive or the prices are just temporarily high due to some demand? Kind of odd. Maybe global shutter matters that much.

We don't know, maybe monopoly.

xs_man

Hi Sean,

Hi Sam,

Hi all,

Any news about IMX428 ? I'm interested too ! ;)

Albéric

Support@ZWO

It's still in R&D, :)

xs_man

Sorry, we encountered an error while displaying this content. If you're a user, please try again later. If you're an administrator, take a look in your Flarum log files for more information.

Support@ZWO

Sorry, we encountered an error while displaying this content. If you're a user, please try again later. If you're an administrator, take a look in your Flarum log files for more information.

xs_man

Hi Sean,

Hi Chad,

Hi Sam,

About the IMX 428, last informations coming from FLIR/Point Grey are very

disturbing and it's not good news for us : :

The value of 2.7 e- for read noise is given at High conversion Gain, not at Low

Conversion gain !!!! I was hoping nearly 1.5 e- at High Gain, but I was completly

wrong.... :

https://www.ptgrey.com/blackfly-s-color-71-mp-usb3-vision-sony-imx428

https://www.ptgrey.com/support/downloads/11177

Read noise for IMX 428 :

6.0 e- at Low Conversion Gain

2.7 e- at High conversion Gain

QE pic for IMX 428 : 69% at 530 nm (mono)

Absolute Sensitivity Threshold for IMX 428 : 9.52 at low conversion gain

To compare, here are the values given by Flir/Point Grey for IMX 174 :

https://www.ptgrey.com/support/downloads/10304

Read noise :

6.8 e- at Low Conversion Gain

QE pic : 76% at 525 nm (mono)

Absolute Sensitivity Threshold for IMX 428 : 9.77 at low conversion gain

If I add the informations for the ZWO ASI 174 :

Read noise :

6.0 e- at Low Conversion Gain

3.5 e- at Low Conversion Gain

Sensitivity at f/8 for monochrome sensors :

https://www.1stvision.com/cameras/sensor_specs/IMX174.pdf

https://www.sony-semicon.co.jp/products_en/IS/sensor0/img/product/cmos/IMX428LLJ_Flyer.pdf

* IMX 174 : 850 mV for 5.86x5.86 microns pixels (34.3 microns 2)

* IMX 428 : 1613 mV for 4.5x4.5 microns pixels (20.3 microns 2)

How a sensor having nearly 10% less QE and a little bit less Read Noise could

be 2 times more sensitive on the paper ????

I don't understand how it could be possible ? Is it only due to a higher QE in IR ?

Albéric

« Previous Page