Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
02-21-2013, 06:48 PM   #1051
Pentaxian
Digitalis's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Adelaide.
Posts: 8,796
QuoteOriginally posted by redrockcoulee Quote
The point is that most of us do not switch systems or brands upon the release of every new model that is better than the offerings of another brand
however there are some people who do, I feel nothing but pity for people like that.

On the subject of Silicon wafers- there have been considerable developments in the size of the wafers - back in 2002-2005 8" were the average, being replaced by larger 12" wafers which are commonly used these days. Samsung and Intel are looking at the viability of producing wafers that are 17.7" in size - you can fit a considerable amount of 24X36mm sensors on a wafer that size.


Last edited by Digitalis; 02-21-2013 at 07:06 PM.
02-21-2013, 09:04 PM   #1052
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 5,802
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Anvh Quote
I've searched for 15 minutes and can not find anything to support your claim.
So if you've something then please link me to it.
http://www.robgalbraith.com/public_files/Canon_Full-Frame_CMOS_White_Paper.pdf

Maybe I don't understand what you are questioning, but this took about 30 seconds to Google. Is this what you are questioning?
" If the sensors are APS-C size, there are about 200 of them on the wafer, depending on layout and the design of the periphery of each sensor. For APS-H, there are about 46 or so. Full-frame sensors? Just 20. Consider, too, that an 8" silicon wafer usually yields 1000 to 2000 LSI (Large-Scale Integrated) circuits. If, say, 20 areas have defects, such as dust or scratches, up to 1980 usable chips remain. With 20 large sensors on a wafer, each sensor is an easy “target.” Damage anywhere ruins the whole sensor. 20 randomly distributed dust and scratch marks could ruin the whole batch. This means that the handling of full-frame sensors during manufacture needs to be obsessively precise, and therefore they are more expensive."

Once you have the wafer you can cut what ever you want out of it. All you need is a mask for the photo-lithography for the sensor you plan on making. In the past FF sensors were produced with 3 separate masking procedures and if the one mask was misaligned then the sensor was trash. Both Sony and Canon have advanced to the point where they can produce a FF sensor with a single mask which greatly improves yields.

The reason APS-H ever came into existence is because it was the largest size that (at the time) could be produced with a single mask.

According to Canon they could yield 200 APS-C sensors, or 46 APS-H sensor, or just 20 FF senors from a standard 8" wafer.
02-21-2013, 09:30 PM   #1053
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 340
Don't you yourself own essentially all of the newest cameras around though? Seems a bit unfair to criticise.

QuoteOriginally posted by Digitalis Quote
however there are some people who do, I feel nothing but pity for people like that.

On the subject of Silicon wafers- there have been considerable developments in the size of the wafers - back in 2002-2005 8" were the average, being replaced by larger 12" wafers which are commonly used these days. Samsung and Intel are looking at the viability of producing wafers that are 17.7" in size - you can fit a considerable amount of 24X36mm sensors on a wafer that size.

Last edited by Ayoh; 02-22-2013 at 05:11 AM.
02-21-2013, 09:34 PM   #1054
Inactive Account




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: New Orleans
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,053
QuoteOriginally posted by Digitalis Quote
however there are some people who do, I feel nothing but pity for people like that.

On the subject of Silicon wafers- there have been considerable developments in the size of the wafers - back in 2002-2005 8" were the average, being replaced by larger 12" wafers which are commonly used these days. Samsung and Intel are looking at the viability of producing wafers that are 17.7" in size - you can fit a considerable amount of 24X36mm sensors on a wafer that size.
Intel just had the first prototype of a 450 mm roll out this year. The camera sensor industry is no intel. A quick search at what kind of fab tech they use and I saw that Canon just started using a 180 nm process in 2012, for reference Intel was doing using that process in 1999. If camera makers used Intel's fabs contemporary processes, we could probably have a gigapixel APS-C or maybe a terapixel 645 camera.

02-21-2013, 10:11 PM   #1055
Veteran Member
Anvh's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,616
QuoteOriginally posted by Winder Quote
Maybe I don't understand what you are questioning, but this took about 30 seconds to Google. Is this what you are questioning?
" If the sensors are APS-C size, there are about 200 of them on the wafer, depending on layout and the design of the periphery of each sensor. For APS-H, there are about 46 or so. Full-frame sensors? Just 20. Consider, too, that an 8" silicon wafer usually yields 1000 to 2000 LSI (Large-Scale Integrated) circuits. If, say, 20 areas have defects, such as dust or scratches, up to 1980 usable chips remain. With 20 large sensors on a wafer, each sensor is an easy “target.” Damage anywhere ruins the whole sensor. 20 randomly distributed dust and scratch marks could ruin the whole batch. This means that the handling of full-frame sensors during manufacture needs to be obsessively precise, and therefore they are more expensive."

Once you have the wafer you can cut what ever you want out of it.
It can be me but i'm not reading you can simply cut anything out of it that you want.
If you want to cut 20 large sensor like in your example, then why not cut smaller sensors around the damaged bits?
02-21-2013, 10:56 PM   #1056
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 5,802
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Anvh Quote
It can be me but i'm not reading you can simply cut anything out of it that you want.
If you want to cut 20 large sensor like in your example, then why not cut smaller sensors around the damaged bits?
Did you read the Canon white paper I linked. I think page 11 is what you are looking for.
02-21-2013, 11:00 PM   #1057
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 9,201
QuoteOriginally posted by Winder Quote
Did you read the Canon white paper I linked.
Note that this white paper in general is a big set of lies intended to rationalise the premium Canon has been charging for FF cameras for years.

Falconeye tore it apart quite a while ago.

Last edited by Class A; 02-21-2013 at 11:15 PM.
02-21-2013, 11:05 PM   #1058
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 5,802
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
Note that this white paper in general is a big set of lies intended to rationalise the premium Canon has been charging for FF cameras for years.

Falconeye tore it apart quite a while ago.
Yes. I have read the threads. It still discusses the process of turning a wafer into a batch of sensors. Regardless of cost or yield.

02-22-2013, 12:33 AM - 1 Like   #1059
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 9,343
QuoteOriginally posted by Anvh Quote
It can be me but i'm not reading you can simply cut anything out of it that you want.
If you want to cut 20 large sensor like in your example, then why not cut smaller sensors around the damaged bits?
ICs are not film sheets, obviously you cannot cut how you want.
You can decide to get whatever sensor sizes you want from a wafer, within the equipment's constraints, even mixing them. I guess that's what Winder was talking about? But once the process starts, there is no turning back: cutting the wafer differently than the pre-chosen layout would only result in useless wafer pieces.
02-22-2013, 12:44 AM   #1060
Pentaxian
Digitalis's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Adelaide.
Posts: 8,796
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
cutting the wafer differently than the pre-chosen layout would only result in useless wafer pieces
Exactly, and there are always a few dud sensors on the wafer because of impurities in the silicon - and with bigger wafers this is going the be more problematic, not to mention the costs of the machines designed to handle and process the bigger wafers.
02-22-2013, 12:49 AM   #1061
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 9,343
Bigger wafers are more economical and don't generate higher defects rates AFAIK, but yes, the fab must be able to handle them.
02-22-2013, 08:43 AM   #1062
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 5,802
Original Poster
The cost of the really pure polysilicon needed to produce wafers has fallen drastically and the quality of the material has improved. This leads to fewer defects in the wafer and has improved yields.

They make solar panels out of the same material. Has anyone noticed all of the solar panel plants that have gone out of business over the past few year? Some were pretty high profile here in the USA. These plants were developing solar panels from alternative materials. EPA regulations have forced production of polysilicon and other rare earth material overseas. Companies had been working on making solar panels out of other materials. 2-3 years ago a couple of Chinese plants came online and have increased production of really pure polysilicon and the prices have come crashing back down. Plants working on alternative materials can't compete with flood of low cost polysilicon and many have gone out of business. This is also why our government imposed a 30% tax consumers who buy solar products.

This same flood of polysilicon is driving down the cost of full frame sensors and other goods that require high quality polysilicon. I think we are going to see more companies enter into development and production of larger sensors. Toshiba is now providing sensor for Nikon. We should also see an improvement in the quality of sensors.
02-22-2013, 09:38 AM   #1063
Veteran Member
falconeye's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Munich, Alps, Germany
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,863
QuoteOriginally posted by Winder Quote
According to Canon they could yield 200 APS-C sensors, or 46 APS-H sensor, or just 20 FF senors from a standard 8" wafer.
QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
Note that this white paper in general is a big set of lies intended to rationalise the premium Canon has been charging for FF cameras for years.

Falconeye tore it apart quite a while ago.
Class A, thank's for the quote

I don't remember the post, but somewhere here in the forum I provuded the correct number of FF chips from an 8" wafer, including the wafer placement constraints. It was 66, I believe. And it was a bit less than 200 for APS-C, I believe.

At the time, I made it to predict the end of the APS-C dSLRs in the semi-pro segment. As that has happened now (the D7100 being no exception, positioned by Nikon as consumer camera), no need to argue anymore.
02-22-2013, 09:43 AM   #1064
Veteran Member
falconeye's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Munich, Alps, Germany
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,863
Wrt K-3 speculation, I wonder if the K-3 would compete with D7100 or rather the D5200.

Obviously, the D7100 is prepared for the battle with its removal of Bayer-AA filter. But how about Pentax to fight with that rather capable 51 point Multi-CAM 3500DX AF module?

Will be interesting times
02-22-2013, 09:49 AM   #1065
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 9,343
QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
At the time, I made it to predict the end of the APS-C dSLRs in the semi-pro segment. As that has happened now (the D7100 being no exception, positioned by Nikon as consumer camera), no need to argue anymore.
Well, there are the rumored D400, 7DMkII and K-3, so... maybe not yet?
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
aps-c, body, k-5, k-7, k-7/k-5, pentax, pentax news, pentax rumors, reason, sensor, sony
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Speculation: What if Pentax did not go FF but rather a 1.3x? brecklundin Pentax DSLR Discussion 36 08-13-2013 10:36 PM
Any speculation on how long... Tom S. Pentax K-5 10 12-16-2010 09:19 PM
K-x price speculation SylBer Pentax DSLR Discussion 18 10-13-2010 12:29 PM
Small rant + speculation ilya80 Pentax News and Rumors 35 04-20-2010 11:42 PM
speculation about FA lenses on FF DSLR lpfonseca Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 19 11-05-2009 10:34 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:43 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top