CMOS vs CCD - why Kodak has used a CMOS sensor in a small-sensor camera

CMOS vs CCD - why Kodak has used a CMOS sensor in a small-sensor camera.
See:

http://1000nerds.kodak.com/default.asp?item=664294

David

On Aug 14, 1:16 am, "David J Taylor" <david-tay...@blueyonder.not-this-
bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote:
> CMOS vs CCD - why Kodak has used a CMOS sensor in a small-sensor camera.
> See:
>
> http://1000nerds.kodak.com/default.asp?item=664294
>
> David

I would question the statement that CCDs were first designed
specifically for cameras. Wasn't the analog delay line the first use
of CCDs? The linear array CCD came along before the 2D matrix.

Don Stauffer in Minnesota wrote:
> On Aug 14, 1:16 am, "David J Taylor"
> <david-tay...@blueyonder.not-this- bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote:
>> CMOS vs CCD - why Kodak has used a CMOS sensor in a small-sensor
>> camera. See:
>>
>> http://1000nerds.kodak.com/default.asp?item=664294
>>
>> David
>
> I would question the statement that CCDs were first designed
> specifically for cameras. Wasn't the analog delay line the first use
> of CCDs? The linear array CCD came along before the 2D matrix.

Exactly my own recollection, Don.

What I did find interesting was the different emphasis being put on the
reasons behind using CMOS - not because it provides a higher image
quality, but because it makes for a cheaper system, and that the quality
has only recently become "acceptable" for small sensors.

David

On Aug 14, 9:41 am, "David J Taylor" <david-tay...@blueyonder.not-this-
bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote:
> Don Stauffer in Minnesota wrote:
>
> > On Aug 14, 1:16 am, "David J Taylor"
> > <david-tay...@blueyonder.not-this- bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote:
> >> CMOS vs CCD - why Kodak has used a CMOS sensor in a small-sensor
> >> camera. See:
>
> >> http://1000nerds.kodak.com/default.asp?item=664294
>
> >> David
>
> > I would question the statement that CCDs were first designed
> > specifically for cameras. Wasn't the analog delay line the first use
> > of CCDs? The linear array CCD came along before the 2D matrix.
>
> Exactly my own recollection, Don.
>
> What I did find interesting was the different emphasis being put on the
> reasons behind using CMOS - not because it provides a higher image
> quality, but because it makes for a cheaper system, and that the quality
> has only recently become "acceptable" for small sensors.
>
> David

Maybe they realize a policy of honesty will draw more support.

On Aug 14, 7:26 am, Don Stauffer in Minnesota <stauf...@usfamily.net>
wrote:
> I would question the statement that CCDs were first designed
> specifically for cameras. Wasn't the analog delay line the first use
> of CCDs? The linear array CCD came along before the 2D matrix.

But it could be the case. For one thing, "designed/developed" and
"commercially
available as a product" also are different things. :-)

Back in the days of CCD's as analog delay lines (for low cost consumer
applications)
I know they were built (2" wafers I think, but could have been 1") for
camera applications
for telescopes by Tektronix (probably as part of Teklabs, in obviously
small quantities).
More of a research project (Teklabs back then was much like Bell Labs
where they did
pure research just for the pure science of it, not product related).

So I don't know it to be true, but CCD's as camera devices could very
well have happened
before analog delay line applications -- at least in the lab that made
them originally.