pictures at 2:35 and 3:00 is heavily shopped. 📺

I am the blinkist! **starts blinking really hard** see?? **blinks even harder** aaarrrrrggghhhhh!!!! My eye lid muscles are massive!

I fly FPV so I definitely appreciate how good they have become. Transmitting HD video only requires 7-8 grams of hardware which can go 30 miles with the right antennas/conditions. Today it's all about latency, weight and image quality. I can't wait to see what the market looks like in 5 to 10 years.

No one take it for a granted infact most people don't even know it's existed.

They are not digital at all 😅

When I was little, and this is in the early 1990s, textbook says that video cameras used vidicon tubes (look up what that is). When I was in high school they started having DV camcorders, not VHS ones or anything. These were fairly small (by the standards of the day) and took very clear videos. In those days a decent camcorder was about 1000 dollars, and the good ones had 3 CCD sensors, one for each color. I imagine today camcorders are pretty much a much smaller market, for youtubers or whatever, but most will just be using cell phones. In the early 2000s cell phone cameras were utter shit, it took very grainy images in the best of time. But today their image quality is better than camcorders of the late 1990s.

@@yash_kambli that's literally what people mean when they say "take it for granted" lol.

Cool! Also check out Tektronix 7912 from 1970s. It was based on a special scan converter CRT and was capable of recording 512 points in 5 nanoseconds. Very good for digitizing fast transient processes in nuclear physics and other similar applications.

@@cogoid Yeah I heard about that. They apparently had a trailer full of them to record data for underground nuclear testing.

@@douro20 Yes, they were using these digitizers to record the actual course of the chain reaction -- how fast the neutrons multiply in the bomb during the explosion. The main engineering difficulty in this is the enormous dynamic range of the signal. To record the entire transient with good accuracy, they used many different sensors to get good resolution at both the low end and the high end of expected values, with a bunch of digitizers working in parallel.

@@cogoid No I'm not checking out anything you suggest anymore - we both know what happened last time

@@douro20 Heard from who? Please send me their contact info

OmGgg yessss thank you glad I'm not the only one

Jesus ...you really understand this magic ....I am impressed....

you are a god

It goes both ways 😉 So yes, the CIA are probably watching you through your displays. Don't even get me started on recording homes in 3D using wifi.

@@defeatSpace Oh no now they know I eat my cats hair I am going to burn all my devices

You didn't mention Sony in CCD producers. They were a long time leader in the field until Sony took over.

Kodak built the first digital camera. It was decided that digital camera would take away from the extremely lucrative film business...

@@milantrcka121 yes that might be true on the consumer field, but Kodak high end CCDs were best performing devices until late 2000s. with the leader I didn't mean in volume, but in performance. I would say somewhere in mid 2000s Sony started to make sensors of similar performance to Kodak (their imaging sensor division got taken over by ON Semiconductor) with CCD performance. Kodak sensors at the time were mostly too expensive for consumer cameras.

@@ti75425 No conspiracy present or implied. Just a fact supported by history.

@@100brsta Indeed! Kodak engineering was the best or second to none in many fields especially optics (satellite telescope mirrors) and commercial optics (Instamatic). Also special magnetics and materials. And of course CCDs...

Thats interesting, especially considering CMOS apparently got partially made viable by NASA. Tbf tho, does that mean that CCD are inherently better for big telescopes, or that CMOS hasnt reached full viability for big telescope sensor? Most of the push for CMOS seems to come from commercial and military cameras, which usually rely on smaller, light and efficient sensors. Maybe research lags behind at large scale.

@@termitreter6545 Of note is... Yeah thy studied it and didn't pick it up. Since yes CCD needs more external hardware and so on, but well they quality was better. Specially compared to early CMOS. Issue with CMOS is for example heat. Those transistors flipping on the pixel? That generates heat. Not much heat, but enough heat that it matter on highest end scientific use. Since heat means thermal electrons, thermal electrons mean noise. We are talking "we are cooling this in a liquid nitrogen cryogenic devar" levels of "we don't want thermal electrons". As such in that case the "needs external hardware" is benefit, not a hindrance. Needs external hardware? Fantastic, we were anyways planning to separate out as much of the equipment and electronics as far away from the sensor chip as possible to isolate noise. Plus those amplifiers on each CMOS pixel? Tiny and packed it tight space. Which again often means more noise. They have gotten better with it, but it is still a game of "trying to stuff lot of tiny amplifiers". CCD? Uses one big main amplifier. Which can be made as perfect as possible with little regards for size. That single amplifier brings another benefit. Consistency. One wants the scientific sensor to be flat. not just "look similar" flat, but perfectly flat and linear in response across the pixels. Since one often uses thos pixels for comparative measurements. If one pixels amplifier is little different responding to another, that is problem. Response not linear and predictable. SO again a "problem" of CCD is a benefit in this speciality case. Since one can be sure the amplifier and analog to digital response is same for all pixels. Since there is only one amplifier and ADC circuit. However again this isn't mere military or industrial grade situation. They are fine with the little noises and guibles of CMOS. "the picture looks fine" and so on. It works. This is "we hunt single photons, if we have 2 photons worth of noise on the pixel, that is a problem". Nobody else would care about 2 photons worth of noise, but big telescope hunting for single photons from another galaxy does care. However in CMOS is also used in astronomy, where it's features benefit. For example lucky imaging, which is based on taking lot of images fast and picking best ones regarding atmospheric conditions. Obviously then, a fast reading CMOS is better. So it's all about "what is the desired effects" and well for scientific cases sometimes CCDs quirks are benefits. Plus the unbeaten raw quantum efficiency, where CMOS might be "as good as CCD", but in scietific "as good as" is not enough, one wants the best.

​@@aritakalo8011 Counterpoint: all of the IR focal plane instruments flying on the JWST are CMOS based, in principle. The photosensitive absorber layer is "read out" by a similar (if not exactly the same) as a CMOS pixel amplifier as found in any modern commercial CMOS sensor. The LEO satellites that were launched with scanning arrays are "old" in the grand scheme of things. Sure, they work fantastically well, but it can be readily assumed that if it can be replaced by a 2D focal plane, it will. Eventually. Or maybe it already has. Less integration time and more frames can make up for the loss in SNR by averaging. Generally, any nonlinearities related to the amplifier can be calibrated out with a dark frame (or Correlated Double Sampling, as mentioned in the video) or by sweeping the reset voltage and checking the output of the amplifier. Yes, it's not convenient to have to perform a calibration, but it's generally good for a while, and it can be done as easily as taking an image (no physical access is required).

What i have seen so far, at least when it comes to the big telescopes, they have CCD and CMOS instruments, depending on the wavelengths and usecases. For visible light CMOS is preferred, not only because of bigger sensor sizes but also because of higher resolution/smaller pixels.

Still are from what I'm told. Way more sensitive still.

No

Still are - CCDs utterly thrash CMOS for sensitivity - something telescopes require. CCDs are preferred in movie cameras too - rolling shutter from CMOS can ruin an action scene.

Yes, Kodak was.

He has a team of researchers helping him out.

Thanks, was going to note same. 😎✌️

Exactly lol. PE effect is the ejection of electrons above the vacuum level into free space.

In, Ga, Pb...

CMOS sensors are still not sensitive enough to replace night vision devices, and their sensitivity in near IR is not so great either. So, even if you have a modern, monochrome CMOS sensor without any IR filters whatsoever, even fairly old and cheap night vision tube can still beat it in low light conditions, if you want real-time image at least, and don't want to use external IR light source. That's from my experience, I have IMX462 based astro camera, which is highly sensitive to IR (one of the most IR sensitive consumer chips today), and an old British night vision tube (P8079HP) and that tube is clearly better. However, if you use longer exposures (eg. 1s), then camera can produce much better and image, though it's not that much useful for real time observation (moving objects would get smeared etc.). We're not quite there yet, but not far away. There are some specialised sensors that can have great performance in (very) low light setting (eg. EMCCD), but they are quite expensive and mostly used for serious science. "Normal" NVG, even those high-end, would still probably be much cheaper.

Literally the same is true for GS CCDs as well, no free lunch.

Charge injection device 🤔

The sensitivity of the Foveon sensor was also not great - they rely on different wavelengths being able to penetrate different depths into the sensor - red being able to penetrate the deepest. However if the red bit isn't strong enough it doesn't get detected in the red layer and can cause issues... Basically they just thought it's not a worthwhile tradeoff for most applications, especially when demosaicing have been refined to the point that it's good enough and cheap enough to do for 99% of colour applications. Still a fan of mono sensors though!

All silicon devices are inherently sensitive to light, especially infrared. Both CCD and CMOS image sensors are very sensitive to infrared. In normal visible-light cameras, we use IR-blocking filters (visible at 7:00, it is the pale blue glass window of the sensor module). In pure infrared cameras, we use visible-light-blocking filters (conceptually similar to the purplish-black infrared windows on many remote controls and the devices they control). UV is a different matter: Silicon tends not to be particularly sensitive to it, so they have to deliberately design them for it. (Together with the choice of lens materials, since many common types of glass and optical plastic tend to block UV.)

Sure is but try to manage crosstalk between the colors. I think that makes this technology way too expensive or unusable.

Huhuhuhuh baguette 🥖

BBD chips are still used to produce echo and especially chorus effects for guitars and synths. While this could be done digitally, analogue synths and effects have become fashionable enough that BBD chips are back in production.

Better light traps inspired by photosynthesis.

@@brodriguez11000 The quantum of light required in photosynthesis is 8 photons. The ideal system is superconducting nanowires, that exists now, but the superconducting part would be hard, in a consumer device.

There's a limit on how far we can push sensor technologies. QE on modern sensors is already very high, the noise at high gain(high ISO) is already dominated by shot noise, the discrete nature of light. But SPAD based sensors would be a huge step up for dynamic range, as we are no longer limited by each pixel's well capacity. But unfortunately I don't think reading out the energy of the incoming photon is something that can be done with current semiconductor technologies? Maybe some 'quantum' sensors can do that? Idk

That ain't gonna happen lmao

@@HailAzathoth I don't know, the individual parts already exist, why specifically do you think that they can't be integrated in the future?

There are global shutter CMOS chips and have been for several years now. CMOS has basically taken over the amateur astrophotography market as well because of superior noise characteristics - all my astronomy cameras have been CMOS. CCDs still have some relevance for scientific purposes (I think?) but CCDs are kind of dinosaur tech at the amateur level.

Sony has been doing it recently, about 2 years. December 16, 2021 Sony Develops World’s First*1 Stacked CMOS Image Sensor Technology with 2-Layer Transistor Pixel Widens Dynamic Range and Reduces Noise by Approximately Doubling*2 Saturation Signal Level*3

It's all AI generated it makes mistakes

I prefer the CCD look. For video it's still used, it has a much better looking video, like the way it captures fast objects, like a propeller. With the right filter on a CMOS it can look pretty good too.