"Rick Johnson" wrote in message
. com...
22%! I thought my 11K was inefficient. No wonder the filtered color
camera needed so much time. Tiny pixels don't have a big capture area
then with a low efficiency things are slow. Sounds like there's a lot
blocking each pixel. Still it takes a nice image given enough time.

the critical things that affect the QE on this one is the existence of a
light shield between pixels that is a hold over from the one shot color (a
method to avoid color crosstalk) and the fact that there are no microlenses.
The one shot color sensor was the original design and was done for
Hasselblad. Because of a very fast focal ratio and steep light cone,
microlenses were ruled out. They have poor admittance angle on a CCD.

when it came to making a monochrome version, they just didn't put the
pigment in the filter array and left everything else the same as I
understand it

so there is a metal light shield between the pixels and there is a polymer
over the pixels that is undyed filter array material, both hurting QE and
wth no microlenses to help divert the light from hitting the light shield
and focus it into the pixel

I took a screen shot from a technical paper written by the design team at
Kodak that explains most of what I said above.

The light shield reduces the fill factor to 53% so that is the big part of
the low QE. I'd estimate that microlenses could bring back as much as half
of what is lost to maybe get you to 30-35% or so




I figured the newborn was 4 legged. Wild turkeys can be a major pain
here. I've wiped out several windshilds thanks to those guys. They
flush from the roadside ditch and fly right into you. Lost to

We have a lot of turkeys but I've not heard of them running into cars. We
just enjoy watching them. It is novel to us city slickers!

Attached Thumbnails