Iso 1,000,000?

[Andrew1]

http://www.gizmag.com/molybdenum-light-sensor/27934/

[Inkanyezi]

If five times current sensitivity is correct, it won't get close to a million. The best cmos sensors of today can reach an ISO sensitivity of approximately 10000, and five times would be about a twentieth of the million ISO. Not bad, if it can be reached, but there's a long way before we see sensors with this new technique.

[inkista]

Yeah, but they say graphene could be 1,000x more sensitive. That'd get us there.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/news...sitivity-1000x

The paper: http://cdpt.ntu.edu.sg/Documents/ncomms%204%201811.pdf

[tomdinning]

Don't get you hopes up guys. This is all photo hype. The science facts don't match it. There is no indication that this phenomenon can be extrapolated. Sensor spin off is unlikely, if at all.

[Dave Humphries]

If five times current sensitivity is correct, it won't get close to a million. The best cmos sensors of today can reach an ISO sensitivity of approximately 10000, and five times would be about a twentieth of the million ISO. Not bad, if it can be reached, but there's a long way before we see sensors with this new technique.

The Nikon D4 goes to 204,800 iso "with boost", so 5 x that, would make a million, but I suspect you are, quite rightly, only counting 'real' iso, which stops at 12,800, making your figure nearer the reality. but why let that get in the way of an attention grabbing headline

If I read the original article correctly, it was a "one pixel" 'sensor' - I'd call that a photo-transistor, hardly an imaging sensor

Cheers,

[Manfred M]

I wonder how they perform in normal lighting conditions, or are we going to have to shoot with 100-stop ND filters to get reasonably shallow DoF?

[Hero]

Sensitivity is only one half of the story, and a nice development for a new hubble or cave-dwellers and the like. But to be able to take pictures in daylight you will probably need shutterspeeds in the nano-seconds or indeed a weldingglass grade ND-filter.

[Sponge]

Yeah, but they say graphene could be 1,000x more sensitive. That'd get us there.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/news...sitivity-1000x

The paper: http://cdpt.ntu.edu.sg/Documents/ncomms%204%201811.pdf

When I read an article about this recently it sounded a lot more promising than the imaging resource article. Either way I'm not going to hold my breath.

[Inkanyezi]

The Nikon D4 goes to 204,800 iso "with boost", so 5 x that, would make a million, but I suspect you are, quite rightly, only counting 'real' iso, which stops at 12,800, making your figure nearer the reality. but why let that get in the way of an attention grabbing headline

Yes, like so much bling on our new cameras, also the "ISO" setting is not ISO. In photography, most of us want a bit of dynamic range, which determines the sensitivity of the system. For my purposes, I would mostly accept eight full steps of dynamic range, and I think that it is a disservice to camera users to claim that the ISO setting alters the sensitivity of the chip, when all it does is screwing up the output. (I wonder if that intended pun works in English?)

[MrB]

Might there be a confusion here between factors of 5 times and 5 stops? From a typical current camera the former would take the ISO up to about 100,000 but using the latter it would approach 1,000,000.

Philip

[loosecanon]

At ISO 100 some each pixel may record about 100,000 photons.
The higher the ISO the fewer photons there are to record, and more amplification of the charge on each pixel. This is why noise is so high at high ISO, simply there is a randomness in photon distribution which results inherent noise. When judging the exposure to be 5 to 6 photons recorded it is not going to be that discriminating.

[tomdinning]

Yes, like so much bling on our new cameras, also the "ISO" setting is not ISO. In photography, most of us want a bit of dynamic range, which determines the sensitivity of the system. For my purposes, I would mostly accept eight full steps of dynamic range, and I think that it is a disservice to camera users to claim that the ISO setting alters the sensitivity of the chip, when all it does is screwing up the output. (I wonder if that intended pun works in English?)

I'm with you Urban although the joke lost something in the translation. As they say, it went over like a pork chop at a Jewish BBQ.
Which is the reason why I tell the students to stay at the low end of ISO and don't be too impressed by big numbers unless your a night stalking pervert.
Mind you, shooting at the big numbers has its value. Give me time. I'll think of something.