• site home
  • blog home
  • galleries
  • contact
  • underwater
  • the bleeding edge

the last word

Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.

You are here: Home / The Last Word / Photon Noise and the Role of Quantum Efficiency

Photon Noise and the Role of Quantum Efficiency

May 12, 2025 JimK Leave a Comment

One of the most fundamental sources of noise in digital imaging sensors is photon shot noise, arising from the discrete and probabilistic nature of light. Even under perfectly stable illumination, the number of photons arriving at a sensor site over a fixed integration time fluctuates due to quantum randomness. This phenomenon obeys Poisson statistics.

In this post, we’ll explore how photon noise behaves under different quantum efficiencies (QE), first assuming an ideal sensor with QE = 1 and then relaxing that assumption to model more realistic cases.

Photon Noise with QE = 1

In an ideal sensor, every incident photon generates a photoelectron. If the average number of photons arriving during the exposure is μ, the actual number of detected photoelectrons n follows a Poisson distribution:

P(n; μ) = (μⁿ * e^(−μ)) / n!

This distribution is discrete, defined only for non-negative integers, and characterized by:

  • Mean = μ
  • Variance = μ
  • Standard deviation (photon noise) = √μ

This model underlies many noise simulations in image sensor analysis. It implies that the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) due to photon noise alone is:

SNR_photon = μ / √μ = √μ

Photon Noise with QE < 1

In real-world sensors, not every incoming photon gets detected. If QE < 1, each photon has a probability q = QE of generating a photoelectron. In this case, the situation becomes a two-stage random process:

  1. The number of incident photons N still follows a Poisson distribution:
    P(N; μ) = (μᴺ * e^(−μ)) / N!
  2. Given N photons, the number of detected photoelectrons n follows a Binomial distribution:
    P(n | N) = C(N, n) * qⁿ * (1−q)^(N−n)

The overall probability distribution for n is then a compound distribution known as the Poisson Binomial, but in this special case, it simplifies to another Poisson distribution:

P(n; μ·q) = ((μ·q)ⁿ * e^(−μ·q)) / n!

However, while the number of detected photoelectrons is still Poisson-distributed (with mean μ·q), the total variance of the system includes an additional scaling due to QE. The key point is that:

  • Mean detected signal = μ·q
  • Photon noise variance = μ·q
  • SNR_photon = √(μ·q)

This result assumes that the QE is independent of wavelength and angle, and that no additional noise sources (e.g., read noise, PRNU) are included.

Why This Matters

  • Low QE sensors have inherently worse SNR due to fewer detected photons.
  • Photon noise is signal-dependent, which means that bright areas are relatively less noisy than dark ones.
  • When comparing sensors, QE directly affects the effective photon-limited dynamic range.

Photon noise is unavoidable, but its magnitude depends on both the average light level and the sensor’s quantum efficiency. While the math is cleanest in the ideal QE = 1 case, real sensors behave similarly, but with fewer electrons per photon, and correspondingly worse SNR.

The Last Word

← Sources of read noise in CMOS sensors Pixel Response Non-Uniformity: Fixed Pattern Noise in the Light →

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

May 2025
S M T W T F S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031
« Apr    

Articles

  • About
    • Patents and papers about color
    • Who am I?
  • How to…
    • Backing up photographic images
    • How to change email providers
    • How to shoot slanted edge images for me
  • Lens screening testing
    • Equipment and Software
    • Examples
      • Bad and OK 200-600 at 600
      • Excellent 180-400 zoom
      • Fair 14-30mm zoom
      • Good 100-200 mm MF zoom
      • Good 100-400 zoom
      • Good 100mm lens on P1 P45+
      • Good 120mm MF lens
      • Good 18mm FF lens
      • Good 24-105 mm FF lens
      • Good 24-70 FF zoom
      • Good 35 mm FF lens
      • Good 35-70 MF lens
      • Good 60 mm lens on IQ3-100
      • Good 63 mm MF lens
      • Good 65 mm FF lens
      • Good 85 mm FF lens
      • Good and bad 25mm FF lenses
      • Good zoom at 24 mm
      • Marginal 18mm lens
      • Marginal 35mm FF lens
      • Mildly problematic 55 mm FF lens
      • OK 16-35mm zoom
      • OK 60mm lens on P1 P45+
      • OK Sony 600mm f/4
      • Pretty good 16-35 FF zoom
      • Pretty good 90mm FF lens
      • Problematic 400 mm FF lens
      • Tilted 20 mm f/1.8 FF lens
      • Tilted 30 mm MF lens
      • Tilted 50 mm FF lens
      • Two 15mm FF lenses
    • Found a problem – now what?
    • Goals for this test
    • Minimum target distances
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Printable Siemens Star targets
    • Target size on sensor
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Test instructions — postproduction
    • Test instructions — reading the images
    • Test instructions – capture
    • Theory of the test
    • What’s wrong with conventional lens screening?
  • Previsualization heresy
  • Privacy Policy
  • Recommended photographic web sites
  • Using in-camera histograms for ETTR
    • Acknowledgments
    • Why ETTR?
    • Normal in-camera histograms
    • Image processing for in-camera histograms
    • Making the in-camera histogram closely represent the raw histogram
    • Shortcuts to UniWB
    • Preparing for monitor-based UniWB
    • A one-step UniWB procedure
    • The math behind the one-step method
    • Iteration using Newton’s Method

Category List

Recent Comments

  • Mike MacDonald on Your photograph looks like a painting?
  • Mike MacDonald on Your photograph looks like a painting?
  • bob lozano on The 16-Bit Fallacy: Why More Isn’t Always Better in Medium Format Cameras
  • JimK on Goldilocks and the three flashes
  • DC Wedding Photographer on Goldilocks and the three flashes
  • Wedding Photographer in DC on The 16-Bit Fallacy: Why More Isn’t Always Better in Medium Format Cameras
  • JimK on Fujifilm GFX 100S II precision
  • Renjie Zhu on Fujifilm GFX 100S II precision
  • JimK on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF
  • Ivo de Man on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF

Archives

Copyright © 2025 · Daily Dish Pro On Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

Unless otherwise noted, all images copyright Jim Kasson.