Ask MAKE: Image sensors: CCD vs CMOS


Ask MAKE is a weekly column where we answer reader questions, like yours. Write them in to mattm@makezine.comor drop us a line on Twitter. We can't wait to tackle your conundrums!

image_sensor.jpg

Ian writes in:

I was looking at buying a digital camera, and read that there are two kinds of sensors that they can use to take a picture- CMOS and CCD. Can you tell me what the difference is, and if one is better to get?

Sure! It's actually a pretty topical question, as the inventors of the CCD just won this year's Nobel Prize! As you mentioned, there are two basic kinds of image sensor that are used in today's digital cameras, CCD (charge-coupled device) and CMOS (complementary metal oxide semiconductor). They both work by converting light energy (photons) into electric charge (electrons), and the difference is in how this charge is read out.

To start, both kinds of sensor are made of a grid of 'buckets' placed evenly across a flat semiconductor surface. Each bucket acts as an individual sensor, which only sees a tiny portion of the image. By displaying a bunch of these tiny points in a grid (using a computer monitor or printer), we see the image.

Making color images is a bit more complicated. Because the buckets are sensitive to any wavelength of visible light, if we just looked at the results we would see a monochrome image. To get color information, we arrange the sensors into groups of four, and place tiny red, green, and blue color filters over them. Each group of four sensors is what we call a pixel, and it is interesting to note that modern cameras have millions of them.

Ok, so both CCD and CMOS sensors are basically just big arrays of individual sensors, so how are they different? The difference is in how the charges are collected and read out. In a CCD, the 'bucket' that collects charge is just a capacitor. To read the image data out of the CCD, the charge in each bucket is pumped individually over to an ADC (analog to digital converter), which actually measures charge. In a CMOS sensor, each bucket contains a photodiode and some amplifier circuitry. To read the image data out, the output of each amplifier is connected to an ADC through a multiplexer, which measures the voltage at each cell.

I don't think that either technology is necessarily better, but each has its own quirks. There is an interesting site at dvxuser which talks about the different kinds of sensor artifacts associated with each kind of sensor. For most cases, though, I think that other specifications, such as ease of use and sensitivity to light, are probably more important to think about when choosing a digital camera. Good luck!

[photo by SarahCartwright]


Recent Entries

Comments

Oldest comments listed first.

Posted by: Anonymous on November 5, 2009 at 12:12 PM

complementary, not complimentary.


Posted by: Matt Mets on November 5, 2009 at 1:24 PM

Thanks, fixed!


Posted by: Michael Black on November 5, 2009 at 1:08 PM

As an aside, some of the early "play" with digital cameras
was using dynamic ram with the top pried off. You'd cycle
through the row and columns, and the "picture" would appear
the data pin(s).

That would be the CCD scheme.

The "Cyclops" was an early "digital camera" featured in Popular
Electronics a few issues after the Altair 8800 hit the magazine's
cover. It was put together by the two guys who later formed
:Cromemco". That used such a RAM, but I can't remember if they
used an off-the-shelf dynamic RAM or something more specifically
designed for the task. Memory says it was some oddball part that
the authors were the only source for.

There were later discussions in the hobby electronic magazines about prying the top off dynamic RAM to get a sensor. It was
common knowledge, so I can't point to any specific reference.
In the mid-eighties, Steve Ciarcia had a digital camera project
Byte, and that used dynamic ram that had been sorted or repackaged
for camera use.

The movie "Westworld" had a robot gone bad, played by Yul Brenner,
and every time the audience saw what he saw, it was a terribly
pixilated view. Either I read or I assumed at the time, circa
1974, that it was a very low resolution digital camera used for
that.

Michael


Posted by: Matt Mets on November 5, 2009 at 10:57 PM

I've heard rumors about using DRAM to make a sensor, and haven't been able to find much (except a patent from 1984: http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/4441125/description.html) on the subject. One thing that I am not clear on is how to form a grayscale image using the digital sense circuitry- it seems like it would see each pixel as either on or off, and nothing in between. The best I can think of is to perform multiple exposures, and either very the image exposure time or the sense comparator voltage to measure different levels. Either way should work, but will require many exposures to build up any sort of bit depth.


Leave a comment


Subscribe to MAKE!Subscribe to MAKE Magazine!

Subscribe today, save 42% and get web access to MAKE free. MAKE Digital Edition is available only to subscribers.

$34.95 / 1 year
(4 Quarterly Issues)

Subscribe now


Void your warranty, violate a user agreement, fry a circuit, blow a fuse, poke an eye out. Make: The risk-takers, the doers, the makers of things... Welcome to Make: Online!


CRAFT Maker Shed Maker Faire MAKE television
Holiday Gift Guides from MAKE
Gifts for Dads
Science and Chemistry
Gifts Under $20
More guides: Santa Claus Machines, Geek Toys for Grown Up Girls & Boys


Check out all of the episodes of Make: television

Alex Rider Dream Gadget Contest
Make: Science Room

Connect with MAKE

Be a MAKE fan on Facebook MAKE on Facebook
Visit our Facebook page and become a fan of MAKE!
MAKE on Twitter MAKE on Twitter
Follow our MAKE tweets!
MAKE Flickr Pool MAKE on Flickr
Join our MAKE Flickr Pool!
    make_tips on Twitter




    Maker SHED

    Advertise here with FM.

    Why advertise on MAKE?
    Read what folks are saying about us!

    Click here to advertise on MAKE!



    Subscribe to MAKE Magazine!

    Make: Online authors!

    Gareth BranwynGareth Branwyn
    Senior Editor


    Phillip TorronePhillip Torrone
    Senior Editor
    | AIM | Twitter


    Becky SternBecky Stern
    Associate Editor
    | AIM | Twitter


    Marc de VinckMarc de Vinck
    Contributing Writer
    | AIM | Twitter


    John ParkJohn Park
    Contributing Writer
    | Twitter


    Sean RaganSean Ragan
    Contributing Writer
    | Twitter


    Matt MetsMatt Mets
    Contributing Writer
    | AIM | Twitter


    Dale DoughertyDale Dougherty
    Editor & Publisher
    | Twitter


    Shawn ConnallyShawn Connally
    Managing Editor
    | Twitter


    Goli MohammadiGoli Mohammadi
    Associate Managing Editor

    Kip KayKip Kay
    Weekend Projects
    | AIM | Twitter


    Collin CunninghamCollin Cunningham
    Contributing Writer
    | AIM | Twitter

    Adam FlahertyAdam Flaherty
    Contributing Writer
    | AIM | Twitter



    More contributors: Mark Frauenfelder (Editor-in-Chief, MAKE magazine), Kipp Bradford (Technical Consultant/Writer), Chris Connors (Education), Diana Eng (Guest Author), Peter Horvath (Intern), Brian Jepson (O'Reilly Media), Robert Bruce Thompson (Science Room)

    Suggest a Site!

    Current Podcast

    itunesdl.gif Weekend Project: Beetlebot Simple robot from your parts bin that avoids obstacles. Thanks go to Jerome Demers for the original article in MAKE, Volume 12. To download the Beetlebot video, click here or subscribe in iTunes. Check out the complete Beetlebot article... More...

    Get the Make: Online sent via email
    Enter your email to receive Make: Online each day:



    MAKE Fascination video series brought to you by Dow

    Make: Education
    MAKE: en EspaƱol MAKE: Japan
    Important please read


    Subscribe to MAKE Magazine!

    Recent Posts from the Craft: Blog