Optical detector sensitivity at low and medium flux

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the sensitivity of optical detectors, specifically whether they can exhibit better sensitivity at medium flux levels compared to low flux levels near the detector's readout noise. Eric raises the possibility of detecting signals like 100 mW and 100.1 mW while failing to detect a 0.1 mW signal due to readout noise. The conversation highlights the use of light bias to potentially enhance sensitivity by operating on a steeper slope of the detector's response curve, particularly in diode-based systems. Additionally, it clarifies that while noise appears reduced in decibel displays with increasing signal, the actual noise level remains constant.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of optical detector principles and characteristics
  • Familiarity with readout noise in electronic systems
  • Knowledge of the square law response of diodes
  • Experience with signal processing and noise analysis techniques
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the impact of readout noise on optical detector performance
  • Explore methods for implementing light bias in optical detection systems
  • Study the square law response in photodiodes and its implications for sensitivity
  • Investigate noise reduction techniques in signal processing, particularly in optical applications
USEFUL FOR

Optical engineers, physicists, and researchers involved in the design and analysis of optical detection systems, particularly those focusing on sensitivity and noise management.

Laloum Eric
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Dear all,

This is my first post and I'm not sure if it's the right place to ask so don't hesitate to advise if necessary.
I would like to know if it's possible that an optical detector (the complete system including sensor and front-end electronics) has a better sensitivity at medium flux than at low flux near detector readout noise. Practically speaking is it possible to have a detector capable of discriminating 100 mW and 100.1 mW but not being able to detect 0.1 mW, notably because of readout noise. If it would be the case, then a solution to detect low level signal below the readout noise would be to add an offset background signal (of course not too high background in order that the background noise stays below detector readout noise).

Thank you.

Eric
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
Imagine the amplifier connected to an oscilloscope. In the absence of a light signal, suppose we see 10mV of noise on the trace. Now turn on the weak light signal to be detected, and suppose we now see the noise trace raised by 10mV. If we add some "light bias", the trace will be raised up, say by 1 volt, but will still be thickened to the extent of 10mV by noise as before. So there is no advantage.
But if the detector, as a typical diode, has a square law characteristic, then adding light bias will raise the sensitivity of the detector by bringing the operation on to a steeper slope. Whether the signal/noise ratio is improved by so doing I am uncertain. I did see a TV camera (using mechanical scan) and utilising a solar cell as the pick up device, in which light bias was used to good effect.
Incidentally, if you use an oscilloscope (or spectrum analyser) displaying dB on the Y axis, then it gives the appearance that noise is reduced as the signal gets bigger, but this is just an artifact of the Decibel System, the noise actually remaining the same.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: mfb
Thank you for your detailed answer. I guess the square law relates to the fact that the output electrical power varies as the square of the input optical flux (output current is linear towards light flux). Still, I though that detector sensitivity is expressed as current vs light flux. So, can we really say that sensitivity slope is increasing with increased light flux
?
 
I think the diode current is usually proportional to optical power, so it is linear. I am not sure why my camera example used light bias - it was a very old type of solar cell.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 152 ·
6
Replies
152
Views
11K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
5K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
5K