Posted by
Stephanie Fullerton on
URL: http://confocal-microscopy-list.275.s1.nabble.com/Re-CMOS-Camera-Commercial-Reponse-tp7578551p7578605.html
Hi All,
Remarkably, George Foreman named all 5 of his sons George, starting with George Jr., and then moving down the line to George III, IV, V and VI. To differentiate among his sons they all have nicknames, like “Monk” and “Big Wheel.” Perhaps George did this as a marketing scheme to gain attention (and sell his grill). Or maybe he just really likes the name George. In either case, the problem that he encountered is how to specify which son he means when he calls “George!”
We encountered a similar problem in how to differentiate our sCMOS sensor from the other, older sensors available on the market; we chose to use “Gen II” which is in line with how other progressive technologies, such as gene sequencing and night vision sensors, have indicated significant leaps. The fact of the matter is that our sensor is not the same sensor in the Neo, Zyla or Edge. Actually, the "Gen II" moniker isn't hype so much as an absence of it since the Flash4.0 is unique in the following ways:
1.
Higher QE. Our pixels do indeed have a 4T (versus 5T) structure that delivers higher QEs. Our peak QE at 550nm is 72%. Andor’s Neo and Zyla and PCO’s Edge top out at 57%. Our high QE means that we have better SNR at all light levels. Consider that it requires 26% more exposure time (0.72/0.57) to collect the same SNR with the Andor/PCO camera compared to the Flash4.0.
2.
Rolling Shutter. A 4T structure is only consistent with rolling shutter operation and this was a considered design choice. Early in the development of these cameras, we recognized that global shutter has some major downsides including reduced frame rates (by 0.5x) and higher noise (by 1.4x). We also recognized that few imaging applications involve the combination of large, fast-moving objects and short exposure times where rolling-shutter might be an issue.
3.
Improved Sensor Design. Our sensor design, including the masks, is new and different from the Andor/PCO sensor. It is more current and builds on the collective advancements the CMOS industry has made in pixel design and manufacturing. Since every CMOS pixel has an individual amplifier that converts the photoelectric charge to voltage and column-parallel ADCs that convert the voltage into an output digital number, the uniformity of the output critically depends on the design and production process. From our first sCMOS camera, the Flash2.8, to the current Flash4.0, we have made pixel uniformity, in terms of absolute response and read noise, a top design priority.
4.
Hamamatsu’s experience. A sensor’s performance is highly dependent on how it is implemented in a camera. Our unique and improved sensor has the added advantage of being engineered into a camera by Hamamatsu scientists’ foremost in our minds. The result is a camera that delivers minimal pixel gain variation (i.e. no stripes!), a
user-switchable, real-time, FPGA-embedded hot-pixel correction and sustained (minutes!) of full-field streaming at 100fps in addition to the low read noise, high QE, high dynamic range and the robust performance of all Hamamatsu scientific cameras.
Bottom line… our George is not the identical twin of George or the other George. Perhaps we could have come up with a fancier name than “Gen II” that conveys the uniqueness of Hamamatsu’s latest technology. But we had other priorities... See our “Changing the Game” white paper and our collection of work related to Super Resolution [
http://www.hamamatsucameras.com/flash4/index.php] -- our cameras are optimized for emerging applications where every photon counts. And that's by design, not hype.
Many thanks to all for thinking about and discussing this very interesting topic.
Sincerely,
Steph
Stephanie Fullerton, Ph.D.
Manager, Hamamatsu Cameras