Quantum Film Might Replace CMOS Sensors

An anonymous reader writes "Quantum film could replace conventional CMOS image sensors in digital cameras and are four times more sensitive than photographic film. The film, which uses embedded quantum dots instead of silver grains like photographic film, can image scenes at higher pixel resolutions. While the technology has potential for use in mobile phones, conventional digital cameras would also gain much higher resolution sensors by using quantum film material." The original (note: obnoxious interstitial ad) article at EE Times adds slightly more detail.

Sensitivity is not Resolution

[lastomega7]

There seems to be a sensationalist mix-up with the two terms... is this technology going to bring about more sensitive pixels (i.e. higher ISO capabilities) or just more pixels on the sensor? or both?

Re:Sensitivity is not Resolution

[MozeeToby]

Also, resolution doesn't equal picture quality. I'd rather have a good lens system than a 20 Megapixel sensor.

Night vision goggles

[Meshach]

FTFA:

For the future, the company also plans to target other specialized applications, such as pitch-black night vision goggles, cheaper solar cells and even spray-on displays.

Right now night vision goggles give a very grainy tinged image. Clarifying that could have millions of applications.

Doesn't mean much as long as the optics still suck

[Dr. Spork]

I don't know too much about the physics of photography, but it seems to me that the real problem in the picture quality of tiny cameras is that the lenses are terrible. Improving the sensors just means that we'll get very accurate digital representations of blurry images, produced by tiny, dirty lenses with minuscule, fixed focal lengths. Even as things stand now, a older camera with good optics and a 5MP sensor produces much better images than a new camera with cheap optics and a 12MP sensor. It seems to me that sensor isn't the bottleneck anymore.

Re:Sensitivity is not Resolution

[farnsworth]

What you say is certainly true. But let's say that you have an entry-level slr with a junky $50 lens, and then you suddenly have $500 to spend on your setup. Do you buy a fancier camera or a fancier lens?

Of course, if money is no object, more of everything will certainly improve things. But practically speaking, the vast majority of folks in the real world would be better off paying more attention to their glass rather than to their silicon.

A nice lens on a relatively limited camera will take amazing photos. A crappy lens on the best camera will not.

Re:Sensitivity is not Resolution

[peragrin]

personally I would rather have a good lens system and a 20 megapixel sensor.