Perovskite-based image sensors promise higher sensitivity and resolution than silicon
Technology
15
Beiträge
10
Kommentatoren
0
Aufrufe
-
They use stacked transparent color sensors, like Foveon camera sensors used to.
In numerous experiments, the researchers put the two prototypes, which differ in their readout technology, through their paces. Their results prove the advantages of perovskite: the sensors are more sensitive to light, more precise in color reproduction and can offer a significantly higher resolution than conventional silicon technology.
The fact that each pixel captures all the light also eliminates some of the artifacts of digital photography, such as demosaicing and the moiré effect.
-
They use stacked transparent color sensors, like Foveon camera sensors used to.
In numerous experiments, the researchers put the two prototypes, which differ in their readout technology, through their paces. Their results prove the advantages of perovskite: the sensors are more sensitive to light, more precise in color reproduction and can offer a significantly higher resolution than conventional silicon technology.
The fact that each pixel captures all the light also eliminates some of the artifacts of digital photography, such as demosaicing and the moiré effect.
I used to work on hybrid perovskite for solar cells, during my PhD, a few years ago. The problem with theses materials was their short lifetime (some thousands of hours of sun exposition) and chemical instability, which made them unsuitable for "real life" uses, back then (but suitable to get high impact-factor papers...). Is that still a problem?
-
I used to work on hybrid perovskite for solar cells, during my PhD, a few years ago. The problem with theses materials was their short lifetime (some thousands of hours of sun exposition) and chemical instability, which made them unsuitable for "real life" uses, back then (but suitable to get high impact-factor papers...). Is that still a problem?
Does it matter if there's a ultraviolet and IR filter on it? Is it functionally equivalent to darkness?
-
I used to work on hybrid perovskite for solar cells, during my PhD, a few years ago. The problem with theses materials was their short lifetime (some thousands of hours of sun exposition) and chemical instability, which made them unsuitable for "real life" uses, back then (but suitable to get high impact-factor papers...). Is that still a problem?
Isn't thousands of hours enough for many cameras?
-
I used to work on hybrid perovskite for solar cells, during my PhD, a few years ago. The problem with theses materials was their short lifetime (some thousands of hours of sun exposition) and chemical instability, which made them unsuitable for "real life" uses, back then (but suitable to get high impact-factor papers...). Is that still a problem?
Silicon CCDs have lifetime exposure limits also. Perovskites are delicate and 1000 hours is way less than the millions silicon offer, but its also overkill in a still camera. Lenses wear out faster than silicon tech does.
-
I used to work on hybrid perovskite for solar cells, during my PhD, a few years ago. The problem with theses materials was their short lifetime (some thousands of hours of sun exposition) and chemical instability, which made them unsuitable for "real life" uses, back then (but suitable to get high impact-factor papers...). Is that still a problem?
I had just watched a video about they need lead as well? Is that true?
-
I had just watched a video about they need lead as well? Is that true?
-
Does it matter if there's a ultraviolet and IR filter on it? Is it functionally equivalent to darkness?
No idea. IIRC the problem comes from chemical instability i.e., even when properly encapsulated, the methylammonium just evaporates/decompose and you're left with a nice lead iodide layer. Can't say if it's better now. It's been quite a feew years ago.
-
Silicon CCDs have lifetime exposure limits also. Perovskites are delicate and 1000 hours is way less than the millions silicon offer, but its also overkill in a still camera. Lenses wear out faster than silicon tech does.
Yeah, but I'm talking about chemical instability which happens nonetheless, independently on the light you shine on it.
-
Isn't thousands of hours enough for many cameras?
No idea.
-
I had just watched a video about they need lead as well? Is that true?
For many kinds of them, yes, but not literally all
-
I used to work on hybrid perovskite for solar cells, during my PhD, a few years ago. The problem with theses materials was their short lifetime (some thousands of hours of sun exposition) and chemical instability, which made them unsuitable for "real life" uses, back then (but suitable to get high impact-factor papers...). Is that still a problem?
There have been some improvements but their poor stability is still the biggest problem yeah
-
I used to work on hybrid perovskite for solar cells, during my PhD, a few years ago. The problem with theses materials was their short lifetime (some thousands of hours of sun exposition) and chemical instability, which made them unsuitable for "real life" uses, back then (but suitable to get high impact-factor papers...). Is that still a problem?
I often see developement in that area. Mostly from this channel. Maybe that impacts it's other uses. https://youtu.be/Lglick8bCPc
-
If it's a moving mirror camera* and it's used to take stills it's probably fine, as the sensor is only exposed for a fraction of a second per image.
If you want to film with it or put it in a phone, where it's exposed all the time, it would certainly not be enough.* I have no clue what they are called in english
-
If it's a moving mirror camera* and it's used to take stills it's probably fine, as the sensor is only exposed for a fraction of a second per image.
If you want to film with it or put it in a phone, where it's exposed all the time, it would certainly not be enough.* I have no clue what they are called in english
Digital single-lens reflex, aka DSLR if that's what you mean by moving mirror
