Semiconductor, packaging & electronics

Silicon ingot & wafer quality

Review crystal-origin defects, surface particles, and saw damage before wafers enter the process flow.

ModalitiesBrightfieldIR transmissionOptical microscopy
Illustrative silicon ingot cross-section and polished wafer for crystal and surface quality review
18
Surface findings
42 µm
Largest chip
24
Fields reviewed

Example outputs shown for illustration. Numbers depend on your samples and protocol.

Image: Illustrative rendering (AI-generated, gpt-image-2), not a micrograph of a specific sample

Brightfield
Transmitted or reflected light for stained, etched, and polished samples.
IR transmission
Through-silicon imaging for subsurface and crystal-origin features.
Optical microscopy
Wider-field coverage and uniformity screening across many locations quickly.

Results

Each measurement below comes from your own images, tied back to the annotated frame it came from, so results stay comparable across samples, locations, and conditions.

per area

Defect location map

Findings placed in sample coordinates to reveal spatial patterns and local density.

Illustrative shape
Bottom
64%
Corner
71%

In your report: Coordinate-referenced map, regional density, and representative images.

µm or count

Particle & chip count

Size and shape measured for every detected object, then summarized across the population.

Largest chip42 µm

Example, not a claimed result

In your report: Per-object table, size distribution, and summary percentiles.

class

Visible defect class

Each detected feature assigned to a class using the agreed rule set, shown on the image.

Illustrative shape
<1µm
1-2µm
2-4µm
>4µm

In your report: Per-feature class, counts by class, and annotated overlays.

% area

Surface coverage

Segmented area of the feature divided by the eligible area in the two-dimensional image.

Surface findings18
<1µm
1-2µm
2-4µm
>4µm

Example, not a claimed result

In your report: Per-field value, size distribution, and the segmentation overlay used.

Built around your image set

Use the calibrated images your team already collects, together with the locations you need to compare.

01
Representative images
Provide representative brightfield images with a recorded scale calibration and the regions of interest clearly visible.
02
Image capture details
Record instrument, magnification, pixel scale, preparation method, and the smallest feature the review must resolve.
03
What to compare
State the samples, number of fields, and conditions to compare. A single field of view is not treated as a whole-sample result by itself.

Each report includes

The artifacts your team receives, ready for review and archive.

Annotated image set

Original images with regions of interest, measurement points, masks, and finding overlays.

Measurement table

Location-indexed values, units, distributions, and QC flags in a structured export.

Method record

Calibration evidence, analysis settings, version history, and validation summary.

Confidence in every resultTraceable measurements, reviewed against your agreed reference method.
Traceable scale
The report records the image scale, calibration evidence, and a method-specific expanded measurement uncertainty. It does not use one product-wide accuracy number.
Reference comparison
The configured method is compared with your accepted reference method or reviewed annotations, and reports bias by measurement range and image condition.
Detection performance
Detections are evaluated against reviewed reference regions with precision, recall, and segmentation overlap, separated by the conditions that affect performance.
Repeatability
The locked protocol is rerun on the same inputs and on a defined repeat set. The review records variation from image acquisition, sampling, and analysis separately where possible.

What this result does not establish: Measures features visible in supplied images. Crystal perfection, contamination chemistry, and material acceptance require the complementary metrology and qualification methods used by your site.

The measurement, today

Ingot and incoming-wafer review often reduces a large surface to a few manual fields. Small chips, particles, and visible crystal defects are recorded inconsistently, making supplier comparisons difficult.

What it costs

Material defects that enter the line can confound later process review. A retained image record makes the incoming condition visible when a downstream excursion needs to be traced.

From image to reviewed result

  1. 1

    Capture the material

    Load incoming-wafer, ingot, or surface images from the inspection method your group already uses.

  2. 2

    Set the measurement scale

    Use the instrument scale or a known reference so finding dimensions report in real units.

  3. 3

    Review visible findings

    Segment visible particles, chips, scratches, and crystal-origin features into a reviewable map.

  4. 4

    Compare lots

    Export image-linked counts and size distributions for lot-to-lot review.

Talk to a scientist

Not sure this is the right measurement?

Send a representative image and your measurement goal. A ConductVision scientist will confirm whether this is the right fit, or point you to the closer workflow, before you commit to a quote.

Share your image set
One representative image is enough to start the conversation.
Book a 30-minute review
Walk through the measurement plan and confidence evidence live.

Send a sample image and a measurement goal

We will show the closest ConductVision workflow and flag what needs custom validation for your images.