This company has figured out how to make cheaper SWIR cameras - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: Ben321
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 05, 2019, 09:00:28 pm
content: By using a completely different process, it doesn't require that the detector chip get welded to a readout chip, one pixel at a time (part of what makes InGaAs SWIR cameras SO EXPENSIVE). Instead, a layer of special detector material called CQD (the company website doesn't say what the acronym means) onto the silicon CMOS chip itself, forming SWIR sensitive photodiodes on a single chip that doesn't need to be welded to another chip. They don't offer online prices, so I'll need to ask for a quote, but they do say it significantly reduces the price of their SWIR cameras. Their website ishttp://www.swirvisionsystems.com/I'm going to contact them and ask for a price list of their cameras.Update: I've contacted them and am waiting for a reply.By the way, here's their datasheethttps://www.swirvisionsystems.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/SWIR-Vision-Systems-Acuros-CQD-SWIR-Camera-Data-Sheet-20190116_web.pdfSensitivity is from 400nm to 1700nm. So It's Vis+NIR+SWIR. Looking at its quantum efficiency graph, its sensitivity seems to peak at 400nm, which is strange. That means it is going to actually have significant sensitivity in the UVA part of the spectrum too (though their quantum efficiency graph doesn't show wavelengths below 400nm). How do they limit it to the Vis-SWIR range? I don't know, but maybe their cameras have a UV blocking filter.

author: frogg
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: April 06, 2019, 01:04:33 am
content: CQD = Colloidal Quantum Dot.My guess is that they are using a nano-structure crystal that directly converts SWIR to electrons or visible light, like an advanced form of scintillator detector.

author: Hyper_Spectral
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: April 08, 2019, 01:11:05 pm
content: Looks like there was some significant development in 2016 regarding this tech:https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/bitstream/1807/75399/1/Hybrid%20organic%E2%80%93inorganic%20inks.pdf

author: Hyper_Spectral
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: April 08, 2019, 01:12:44 pm
content: Maybe for the HD resolutions, I doubt it'll be any more expensive than FLIR's offering

author: Hyper_Spectral
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: April 08, 2019, 02:31:57 pm
content: 4K IR would be fricken sweet. We'll get there one day..

author: Yansi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 08, 2019, 03:08:50 pm
content: This company has figured out how to make cheaper SWIR cameras ... my skepticist strongly doubts it will be any cheaper for the end customer.

author: Berni
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 08, 2019, 03:30:39 pm
content: Note that this wavelength range does not include thermal imaging at room temperature. This requires sensitivity around 10 000nm wavelengths.This camera might be able to see a soldering iron glowing and that's about it.

author: Ultrapurple
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 08, 2019, 06:27:03 pm
content: Quote from: Berni on April 08, 2019, 03:30:39 pmI would go along with that. I have done a little work with SWIR in the region of 1000nm (a bit below red light) and I could just see a soldering iron set to 450°C. I discontinued the tests fairly quickly because my soldering iron was visibly glowing red and I didn't want to shorten its life.

author: Fraser
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 08, 2019, 07:31:25 pm
content: My Electrophysics 7290A covers up to 1.8um and is specified as providing thermal imagery above 250C.Other, more modern, SWIR cameras claim thermal imaging above 100C. Many SWIR cameras cover 400nm to 1.7um and not the full SWIR band so it is worth checking specs carefully when looking to buy.Fraser

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 08, 2019, 09:12:01 pm
content: Where you can thermally image depends heavily on your instrument, it's sensitivity, the temperature of your surroundings and your requirements. 10 micrometers is by no means necessary at room temperature, or even when it is well below freezing. At 1.8 micrometers and 23 C standard room temperatures thermal resolution will be limited, but not to red hot soldering irons. While NEdTs of 4 or 5 C are not very impressive they can provide a useful thermal map of a PWB and reality will often be better than than. You might have to live without the obligatory facial shot with glasses on and off, but it can still be usable.(I haven't actually run the calculations for a narrowband instrument say from 1.4 to 1.8 micrometers, but feel confident that NEdT in the range mentioned could be achieved.)

author: Psi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 08, 2019, 10:55:09 pm
content: i find this bit interesting.Quote

author: PedroDaGr8
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 09, 2019, 12:04:45 am
content: Quote from: Ben321 on April 05, 2019, 09:00:28 pmThe absorption profile matches pretty well with PbS quantum dots, InGaAs might be possible but I haven't seen too many at that low of a wavelength.The absorbance down to 400nm is likely from whatever they are using to cap/shell the QD. Shelling with an appropriate material increases the stability and performance of the QD notably. In fact, many designs incorporate a second shell in a Core/Shell/Shell-type motif to ensure the best performance, stability, and matching between materials. In this case, if the material is PbS the most likely shell material would be CdS, which would explain the peak at around 400nm. The shell material changes based on the device, CdSe are normally capped in a CdSe/CdS/ZnS layout (sometimes CdSe/ZnS-only but the lattice mismatch tends to damage the CdSe core).

author: frogg
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: April 10, 2019, 12:02:52 pm
content: Quote from: Psi on April 08, 2019, 10:55:09 pmProbably because the "defense" applications are not particularly as useful as LWIR

author: Fraser
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 10, 2019, 12:21:31 pm
content: Au contraire, the SWIR spectrum is very much an area of military interesthttp://www.sensorsinc.com/applications/military/swir-for-isrhttps://alliedscientificpro.com/blog/welcome-to-our-blog-1/post/white-paper-short-wave-infrared-swir-for-surveillance-applications-in-defense-25There are sensitivities surrounding this technology that the USA likes to control, where able.Modern military surveillance systems are very much “multi-spectral” and utilise high quality Visible, NIR, SWIR and MWIR/LWIR Thermal camera systems. SWIR imagery is being digitally combined with that from MWIR or LWIR in order to enhance the identification capabilities of surveillance systems. SWIR is also a known detection system against some stealth aircraft, of which the USA are normally rightly proud and bullish about their covertness.Then there is VLWIR imaging up to >15um with its civilian and military applications ..........Fraser

author: Ultrapurple
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 10, 2019, 01:42:31 pm
content: As Fraser says.It wasn't so long ago that camo netting only had to defeat the Mk 1 Eyeball. Then it became necessary to ensure it didn't show up unnaturally bright or dark in near-IR. Then along comes LWIR, changing the goalposts again. Add in other spectra and suddenly it becomes fiendishly difficult to fabricate a camo net that doesn't act as a dead giveaway at some wavelength or another.The same is potentially true of everything an adversary may have. If there is, say, an item that showsslightlyin each of LWIR, MWIR and SWIR bands then a moderately intelligent can look for a match on all three together and declare it a threat with much more certainty than would be the case for one channel alone.The more technically sophisticated side has the advantage of being able to engineer its materiel to minimise its spectral signaturenow, thus obtaining a significant and long-lasting advantage over its enemies who would not only need to deploy new, low-signature kit, but in order to have any sort of chance they would also need to develop sensor technology that leapfrogs their opponents, who have already sorted out everything to meet the current state of the art.Fraser mentions VLIR; I suspect it won't be long before deployable 'terahertz-gap' sensors are developed, meaning that nothing in the spectrum from radio to ultraviolet is 'safe'.Superman's X-Ray Vision is probably just around the corner.

author: Psi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 11, 2019, 09:39:08 am
content: The ITAR rules controlling thermal camera technology are pretty old.They were created when the technology was very advanced and almost no one had it.Not all countries making IR sensors care about USA ITAR rules so any government that might want to buy high resolution, high fps IR cameras for military applications can do it pretty easily now.I.E, The rules remain but they don't serve any real purpose to stop anyone any moreI doubt they will bother to take the time needed to rewrite the ITAR rules to cover this new SWIR camera tech and to then re-negotiation the new rules with other countries so they enforce it. There is no point.So we can probably expect 1080p 60fps IR cameras using this newer tech to be easily available in the future while the older tech is still restricted under ITAR to 9fpsThere could even be a push from Flir/Fluke to remove the IR sensor ITAR rules all together.The companies invested in the old technology will not want to follow ITAR if their new competition does not have to.

author: Dubbie
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 11, 2019, 10:37:02 am
content: Ben, have you received a quote yet? Very interested to hear the price.

author: Fraser
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 11, 2019, 11:28:51 am
content: Psi,I respect your viewpoint but I strongly suggest you do not test your theory in the real world. You will very likely get a very unpleasant surpriseI will say no more but I do have inside knowledge. Respect ITAR and Wassenaar and you will be fine.People talk about ITAR but do not forget the Wassenaar arrangement !https://www.wassenaar.org/Fraser

author: Fraser
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 11, 2019, 11:37:06 am
content: Wassenaar Arrangement list.... Revised December 2018 ...... looks pretty current to me.https://www.wassenaar.org/app/uploads/2018/12/WA-DOC-18-PUB-001-Public-Docs-Vol-II-2018-List-of-DU-Goods-and-Technologies-and-Munitions-List-Dec-18.pdfPage 109 onwards applies.About EAR99 .......http://usexportcompliance.com/FAQear.htmFraser

author: ebastler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 11, 2019, 11:49:11 am
content: Has anyone found patent applications or publications from this company which explain further details?I am curious how the quantum dots actually work -- do they convert incoming light into visible-range photons or directly into electrons? How close is the CMOS architecture to a typical CMOS camera sensor? (Or is it indeed a standard camera chip, with just the quantum dot conversion layer added?)The quantum efficiency and the noise level of their current products are somewhat disappointing. Regarding noise, I am surprised by the very high readout (?) noise baseline, which is there even at minimal exposure times. Yes, their chips are optimized for fast readout and are apparently uncooled, but why is the noise levelthathigh?

author: Psi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 11, 2019, 12:03:48 pm
content: Quote from: Fraser on April 11, 2019, 11:28:51 amI know it's still very active and enforced, like any law.But the thermal camera part of it is enforced more because it's a part of the law than because it's actually needed.I have no need to test it, the only thing i would use an thermal cam for is pcb repair, if i could afford one.And thermal PCB inspection can be done with off the shelf gear.

author: Fraser
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 11, 2019, 12:07:20 pm
content: Psi,Again whilst I respect your point of view, it is at odds with mine, but then I was part of the ‘system’ that you believe ‘obsolete’ so no surprises there 😄 No problem though. If you became directly involved with exporting controlled technology you would become more familiar with the regulations and the continued need for them 🙂On the US ITAR front, as Bill W has often reminded us, it is more commonly BIS that are involved in dual use technology imaging related regulations these days.https://www.bis.doc.gov/Fraser

author: Psi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 11, 2019, 12:08:58 pm
content: It's possible i'm wrong, it has happened before.

author: Fraser
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 11, 2019, 12:10:54 pm
content: We all have our views. None are necessarily “wrong”. It all depends upon where you are standing and specific scenariosNo worriesFraser

author: Hyper_Spectral
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: April 11, 2019, 12:26:13 pm
content: Quote from: Fraser on April 11, 2019, 11:28:51 amInteresting, for some reason Israel is not on the list.

author: frogg
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: April 11, 2019, 12:46:34 pm
content: I think I get your interest in SWIR more clearly now. It's more of a "We need capability to image in every possible wavelength" point of view.Just the simple idea that an object appears differently when viewing different spectra is good enough to warrant interest

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 11, 2019, 12:59:11 pm
content: There are a myriad of reasons for selecting spectral bands. Availability of lens and window materials that are compatible with the operating environment. The size aperture required for diffraction limited performance. The need for additional systems such a cooling or thermal stabilization. Atmospheric transmission, which may favor absorbtion, or uniformity over time, or lack of absorbtion. The list goes on and on.In any field, from smart phones, to radios to military gear there is advantage to be gained by clever use of technical capabilities. The winners are those that go where others haven't and find useful capabilities.

author: PedroDaGr8
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 11, 2019, 07:26:30 pm
content: Quote from: ebastler on April 11, 2019, 11:49:11 amI strongly doubt they are doing IR to visible light conversion, as that is stunningly inefficient. They would need a charge transfer/emissive layer which could absorb the excitons and allow for double exciton recombination (to provide the needed energies to go upwards in energy). This has been done using materials like ruberene and PbS quantum dots, but the QY was essentially 1.2%!More likely, they are doing a direct charge transfer from the quantum dots to some sort of silicon substrate (maybe CMOS). In this motif, it would function as an array of tiny IR solar cells, providing an effective quantum yield up to the 20% range (not far off from the stated numbers here). As for the noise levels, heat is going to play a big role in the noise levels, as will design and structure. If they are transmitting the energy directly, this can induce more noise. Additionally, things like exciton relaxation time (i.e. does it recombine and emit light to adjacent pixels), isolation between the wells, etc.Found this paper and it goes pretty deeply into the various types of quantum IR detectors:https://spie.org/samples/PM280.pdf

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 12, 2019, 03:11:48 am
content: There is lots of stuff out there, most behind a paywall.Here are a couple of free ones that nibble around the edges.https://www.laserfocusworld.com/articles/print/volume-43/issue-12/features/quantum-dot-detectors-quantum-dot-ir-photodetectors-get-lsquohotterrsquo.htmlhttps://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a596455.pdf

author: Fraser
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 12, 2019, 08:53:56 am
content: Paywalls are so annoying ..... thank goodness for Sci-Hub 😄

author: Max Planck
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: April 12, 2019, 02:27:09 pm
content: Based on what was published so far, the company is using a standard, thin-film technology (thus lower costs), depositing PbS photodiodes directly on standard CMOS ROICs.Max

author: ebastler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 12, 2019, 02:36:14 pm
content: Quote from: Max Planck on April 12, 2019, 02:27:09 pmWhere did you find that information? I did not see anything about that on their website.Thanks!

author: Max Planck
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: April 12, 2019, 02:50:09 pm
content: For example here:https://www.imveurope.com/analysis-opinion/colloidal-quantum-dot-sensor-disrupt-swir-imaging-markethttps://www.imveurope.com/analysis-opinion/innovative-imaging-tech-shortlisted-vision-stuttgart-awardMax

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 12, 2019, 03:00:34 pm
content: Quote from: PedroDaGr8 on April 11, 2019, 07:26:30 pmI recently sawa paperclaiming a breakthrough with an in cavity non-linear crystal, 20% QE for MWIR to 800 nm ... not visible, but close enough.

author: ebastler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 12, 2019, 03:09:52 pm
content: Thank you!So the fill factor, and hence the quantum efficiency, won't be getting great any time soon... But it is reassuring that these cameras are based on entirely standard CMOS sensors. So they could follow up with a TEC-cooled, slower readout, lower noise version pretty easily.

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 12, 2019, 05:57:41 pm
content: All of this has potential, but until someone makes a bunch it is dream stuff. HgCdTe was going to solve all detector problems until the reality of producing large arrays with acceptable defect rates and at acceptable costs crept in. Same for several other technologies. It isn't necessarily that the technology is bad either. It is partly that we have been spoiled by the hundreds of billions of dollars spent on silicon fabrication technology and often blissfully unaware of the many, many problems that have been solved along the road. And only a portion of those solutions apply to these detectors. They will never have enough production volume to warrant the investment that has solved so many problems in silicon.

author: PedroDaGr8
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 15, 2019, 07:59:12 pm
content: Quote from: Marco on April 12, 2019, 03:00:34 pmThat structure is outside my realm of expertise as a former nanomaterials chemist. I was strictly speaking about Quantum Dot based non-linear conversion, which is asofar highly difficult and inefficient.Quote from: CatalinaWOW on April 12, 2019, 05:57:41 pmThat is ONE area where colloidal quantum dots excel, they can utilize a number of technologies currently employed in OLED manufacture (spin coat, die stamping, etc.) for manufacturing large arrays. That being said, as I mentioned earlier, they introduce their own suite of issues (the largest being how to get the charge out of the quantum dot, when most are designed to contain it in the center).

author: Ben321
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 14, 2019, 08:33:20 pm
content: Quote from: Yansi on April 08, 2019, 03:08:50 pmYou think it will just be more profit for the company that makes it, but same price to the end user?

author: Ben321
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 14, 2019, 08:54:18 pm
content: Quote from: CatalinaWOW on April 12, 2019, 05:57:41 pmActually "never" is too strong of a word. I see a future where SWIR, LWIR, and MWIR "point and shoot" cameras are as easy to find (and as cheap to buy) as visible light "point and shoot" cameras are now. Ever heard just some random person (not a professional artist) say "that's a beautiful sunset"? So art is a huge part of even amateur photography. There are 2 types of art, beauty based, and surrealism based. And what better way to make art of that second type (surrealistic art) than to take a photo of your everyday surroundings, but using an exotic wavelength. SWIR, MWIR, and LWIR are all capable of this. And I think that the average person is more interested (at least to some degree) in artistic photos, than most of these companies realize.This isn't something that major IR camera producers recognize at this point, unfortunately. If they did, they would be investing in a way to mass produce SWIR, MWIR, and LWIR cameras of the cheap "point and shoot" variety, and sell them at every Costco, Target, and BestBuy store in the country.As with other consumer level cameras that are not intended for scientific use, there is a much larger level of acceptable defects in the image sensor. Fewer sensors being rejected based on defects, would mean more cameras being sold, so each camera could be cheaper. Because the final audience is going to be large, the devices will need to be mass produced. This will be what motivates them to finally invest heavily in finding more efficient ways of manufacturing sensors of this type on a large scale.I can easily see a future 10 to 20 years from now, where it will be possible to get a point and shoot camera for SWIR at 4K resolution, MWIR at 1080p resolution, or an LWIR camera at 720p resolution; each at the price that a normal visible light point and shoot camera is now. And the version of the camera sold in the US will actually have 30FPS frame rate (overseas versions of the cameras will get 9FPS instead).

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 15, 2019, 04:31:47 am
content: Never is probably too strong a word. But the barriers are very real and the market not obvious. NIR film was available for conventional cameras for decades and never developed much of a market, in spite of beautiful art shots. I suspect game and surveillance camera will be the real market, but unfortunately with market sizes comparable to the image intensifier versions. I hope and wish I am wrong, but I just don't see this happening soon.

author: bugi
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: June 15, 2019, 08:26:13 am
content: Quote from: Ben321 on June 14, 2019, 08:54:18 pmActually, depending on the purpose, scientific use can actually accept much more poorer quality than consumers. Science doesn't care about a bunch of dead pixels at one spot, they'll just shift it a bit to use the area that works, and are happy to have saved half the camera price for exactly the same scientific results. The research project budgets are typically 50% too low to start with anyway.There are certainly use cases where such flaws are showstoppers, too, and there are projects that have gotten all the funding they need and then some. The latter will be buying flawless unnecessarily good instruments just because they can. And bunch of art to the hallways and design chairs from Italy, etc. (Yeah, talking from experience, after watching neighbor lab burn more money on "waste" than our lab's whole budget. You know, if they didn't waste all that money, they would have had extra left at the end of the year, and next year their budget would have been adjusted down, and the extra spread to other labs needing it more... "university politics & bureaucrazy" (misspelling intended).)

author: Ben321
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 15, 2019, 09:04:29 pm
content: Quote from: bugi on June 15, 2019, 08:26:13 amUsually though scientific cameras are built to a higher (not lower) standard by companies like FLIR. And thus the increased cost above equivalent consumer-level cameras. For example, not only is the total number of bad pixels kept below a certain threshold, but any VOx microbolometer that had 2 or more adjacent bad pixels is always rejected. It's tough-to-meet specs like that which mean 9 out of every 10 VOx microbolometers gets thrown in the trash, HUGELY increasing the cost of thermal imagers. Consumer level visible-light digital cameras are cheaper, because at worst they only throw out (at most) 50% of their CMOS or CCD chips, because the specs for consumer level cameras are much lower. The actual per-chip manufacturing cost (even with exotic materials like VOx) is not that high, but the price is raised dramatically because of how many chips intended for scientific cameras get tossed down the garbage chute for not meeting scientific-level specs.

author: bugi
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: June 15, 2019, 10:38:51 pm
content: Quote from: Ben321 on June 15, 2019, 09:04:29 pmYeah, quality costs - no matter who ends up needing it. I was mostly pointing out that science vs. consumer doesn't directly dictate better vs. lower quality in all cases. Though companies may indeed use such differentiation for marketing reasons.