Optical Crosstalk in CMOS Image Sensors
Chris Fesenmaier and Benjamin Sheahan
Psych 221 - Winter 2006-2007
| Welcome | ||
| Introduction | ||
| Methods | ||
| Pixel Scaling | ||
| Methods | ||
| Results | ||
| Conclusions | ||
| References | ||
| Crosstalk Reduction | ||
| Methods | ||
| Air Gaps | ||
| Light Guide | ||
| Metal Mirrors | ||
| Results | ||
| Reference | ||
| Air Gaps | ||
| Light Guide | ||
| Metal Mirrors | ||
| Conclusions | ||
| References | ||
| Appendices | ||
Results - Metal Mirrors
As expected, the metal mirror design performed very well due to its ability to reflect light at any angle. Aluminum is a very good reflector, as demonstrated by the lack of field penetration into the metal, so the loss in transmission at higher angles is not due to absorption but to light missing the top aperture. As the results show, crosstalk is incredibly low, less than 0.03% for all angles.
|
Fig. 16. Poynting vector plot for the metal mirror design for normal incidence. |
|
Fig. 17. Poynting vector plot for the metal mirror design at 25° incidence. |
|
(a) |
|
(b) |
Fig. 18. Transmission (a) and crosstalk (b) versus incident angle for the metal mirror and reference pixels. |
