Sensitivity of CMOS based imagers and scaling perspectives

被引:128
作者
Lulé, T
Benthien, S
Keller, H
Mütze, F
Rieve, P
Seibel, K
Sommer, M
Böhm, M
机构
[1] Silicon Vis GmbH, Automot Vis Grp, D-57078 Siegen, Germany
[2] Silicon Vis GmbH, Consumer Prod Grp, D-57078 Siegen, Germany
[3] Univ Siegen, Inst Halbleitertech, D-57068 Siegen, Germany
关键词
active pixel sensors; CMOS image sensors; ISO speed; PG; scaling; sensitivity; TFA;
D O I
10.1109/16.877173
中图分类号
TM [电工技术]; TN [电子技术、通信技术];
学科分类号
0808 ; 0809 ;
摘要
CMOS based imagers are beginning to compete against CCDs in many areas of the consumer market because of their system-on-a-chip capability, Sensitivity, however, is a main weakness of CMOS imagers and enhancements and deviations from standard CMOS processes are necessary to keep up sensitivity with downscaled process generations. In the introductory section several definitions for the sensitivity of image sensors are reviewed with regard to their potential to allow meaningful comparison of different detector structures. In the main section, the standard CMOS sensor architecture is compared to detector structures designed to improve the sensitivity, namely the photogate (PG), the pinned photodiode (PPD) and the thin film on ASIC (TFA) approach. The latter uses a vertical integration of the photodiode on top of the pixel transistors. A careful analysis of the relevant electrical, optical and technological parameters and many previously published experimental data for different imagers reveals that only the PPD and the TFA enhancements provide satisfactory sensitivity and withstand scaling down to 0.18 mu processes. Due to the higher fill factor and the higher quantum efficiency TFA provides significantly better values than PPD, The radiometric sensitivity of a 5 mum x 5 mum TFA pixel is found to amount to 11.9 V/(muJ/cm(2)) for a 0.25 mum process and 27.5 V/(muJ/cm(2)) for a 0.18 mum process.
引用
收藏
页码:2110 / 2122
页数:13
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] An observation-based scaling model for climate sensitivity estimates and global projections to 2100
    Raphaël Hébert
    Shaun Lovejoy
    Bruno Tremblay
    Climate Dynamics, 2021, 56 : 1105 - 1129
  • [22] An observation-based scaling model for climate sensitivity estimates and global projections to 2100
    Hebert, Raphael
    Lovejoy, Shaun
    Tremblay, Bruno
    CLIMATE DYNAMICS, 2021, 56 (3-4) : 1105 - 1129
  • [23] CFET SRAM DTCO, Interconnect Guideline, and Benchmark for CMOS Scaling
    Liu, Hsiao-Hsuan
    Salahuddin, Shairfe M.
    Chan, Boon Teik
    Schuddinck, Pieter
    Xiang, Yang
    Hellings, Geert
    Weckx, Pieter
    Ryckaert, Julien
    Catthoor, Francky
    IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ELECTRON DEVICES, 2023, 70 (03) : 883 - 890
  • [24] VLSI scaling methods and low power CMOS buffer circuit
    Vijay Kumar Sharma
    Manisha Pattanaik
    Journal of Semiconductors, 2013, (09) : 96 - 103
  • [25] Sensitivity estimation of CMOS optical BDJ detector
    Lu, GN
    Galvan, JM
    Jeloyan, C
    Goumy, G
    Marcoux, V
    MATERIALS SCIENCE & ENGINEERING C-BIOMIMETIC AND SUPRAMOLECULAR SYSTEMS, 2002, 21 (1-2): : 203 - 210
  • [26] VLSI scaling methods and low power CMOS buffer circuit
    Sharma, Vijay Kumar
    Pattanaik, Manisha
    JOURNAL OF SEMICONDUCTORS, 2013, 34 (09)
  • [27] Scaling Potential Analysis for the CMOS Compatible Ox-RRAM
    Xu, Xiaoxin
    Sun, Wenxuan
    Yu, Jie
    Lai, Jinru
    Dong, Danian
    Lv, Hangbing
    2021 IEEE INTERNATIONAL MEMORY WORKSHOP (IMW), 2021, : 1 - 4
  • [28] ON THE REFINEMENT OF THE DCT/IDCT SCALING FACTOR SENSITIVITY
    Amer, Ihab
    Badawy, Wael
    Dimitrov, Vassil
    Jullien, Graham
    2008 IEEE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON MULTIMEDIA AND EXPO, VOLS 1-4, 2008, : 337 - 340
  • [29] Fast MTF measurement of CMOS imagers at the chip level using ISO 12233 slanted-edge methodology
    Estribeau, M
    Magnan, P
    SENSORS, SYSTEMS, AND NEXT-GENERATION SATELLITES VIII, 2004, 5570 : 557 - 567
  • [30] Sensitivity Limits and Scaling of Bioelectronic Graphene Transducers
    Cheng, Zengguang
    Hou, Junfeng
    Zhou, Qiaoyu
    Li, Tianyi
    Li, Hongbian
    Yang, Long
    Jiang, Kaili
    Wang, Chen
    Li, Yuanchang
    Fang, Ying
    NANO LETTERS, 2013, 13 (06) : 2902 - 2907