InSb versus QWIP imaging sensors: a comparison in progress

Michael A. Soel; Robert G. Benson; Charles L. Confer

doi:10.1117/12.477477

29 July 2002 InSb versus QWIP imaging sensors: a comparison in progress

Michael A. Soel, Robert G. Benson, Charles L. Confer

Proceedings Volume 4719, Infrared and Passive Millimeter-wave Imaging Systems: Design, Analysis, Modeling, and Testing; (2002) https://doi.org/10.1117/12.477477
Event: AeroSense 2002, 2002, Orlando, FL, United States

Abstract

Infrared Imaging sensors operating in the 3 - 5 um (MW) and 8 - 12 um (LW) spectral bands have long since been traded against one another with respect to mission utility, sensor performance, and system viability (cost factors, technology maturity, etc.). Over the past decade, staring InSb detectors have matured to a refined level (high performance, moderate cost, high yields) and have been used extensively by IR sensor integrators throughout the industry. By the same token, 2-D LW QWIP-based FPA's are fast becoming a viable alternative to traditional LW-scanned technology systems, offering the benefits of mid and large format staring sensor resolution with good sensitivity (even for modest optical F/#'s). With the commercialization of QWIP technology, system viability is rapidly increasing, revealing the need for serious system trade assessments and field measurements to enable the best use of this emerging, complementary detector technology. This paper presents a top-level technical comparison of these two sensor technologies and their use in surveillance/night vision system applications. A variety of technical considerations are discussed to help end users be cognizant of the extent of the trade space that exists between MW and LW staring sensor selection with specific focus on performance comparisons for small, compact militarized IR thermal imaging sensors (including handheld, man-portable and small gimbal products) employing each detector technology in context to various surveillance missions. Application areas include: ground, airborne, and maritime surveillance. Field data is also provided to support the conclusions drawn from these comparisons.

Citation Download Citation

Michael A. Soel, Robert G. Benson, and Charles L. Confer "InSb versus QWIP imaging sensors: a comparison in progress", Proc. SPIE 4719, Infrared and Passive Millimeter-wave Imaging Systems: Design, Analysis, Modeling, and Testing, (29 July 2002); https://doi.org/10.1117/12.477477

ACCESS THE FULL ARTICLE

INSTITUTIONAL
Select your institution to access the SPIE Digital Library.

SELECT YOUR INSTITUTION

PERSONAL
Sign in with your SPIE account to access your personal subscriptions or to use specific features such as save to my library, sign up for alerts, save searches, etc.

PERSONAL SIGN IN

No SPIE Account? Create one

PURCHASE THIS CONTENT

SUBSCRIBE TO DIGITAL LIBRARY

50 downloads per 1-year subscription

Members: $195

Non-members: $335 ADD TO CART

25 downloads per 1 - year subscription

Members: $145

Non-members: $250 ADD TO CART

PURCHASE SINGLE ARTICLE

Includes PDF, HTML & Video, when available

Members: $17.00

Non-members: $21.00 ADD TO CART

PROCEEDINGS
20 PAGES

DOWNLOAD PAPER SAVE TO MY LIBRARY

GET CITATION

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

Get copyright permission Get copyright permission on Copyright Marketplace

KEYWORDS

Sensors

Quantum well infrared photodetectors

Medium wave

Infrared sensors

Surveillance

Atmospheric modeling

Atmospheric sensing

Show All Keywords

Keywords/Phrases

Search In:

Publication Years