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.

Perovskite-based image sensors promise higher sensitivity and resolution than silicon

Image sensors are built into every smartphone and every digital camera. They distinguish colors in a similar way to the human eye. In our retinas, individual cone cells recognize red, green and blue (RGB). In image sensors, ...

(techxplore.com)

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?

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?

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?

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.

Isn't thousands of hours enough for many cameras?

I had just watched a video about they need lead as well? Is that true?

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?

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

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've heard there's been some real breakthroughs in perovskite for solar cells in just the last few years. As you said, chemical instability is supposed to be their primary weakness, but my understanding is that progress has been made in finding the perfect chemical makeup for the "sandwiching" materials between layers of perovskite. I'm pretty sure that "perfect" chemical makeup is the proprietary trade secret variety, so I don't really know much more about it.

And admittedly, I've never been in the field of materials science, so you're much more of an expert in this area. But I've been following a lot of green energy news, and I know promising progress is actively being made on perovskite.

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?

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.

You can say goodbye to live view then